HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoeing Specific Plan EIR Vol 2"
s pttitic Plan Pr
,Environmental
- of
i rt
f
rt
SCH NO* 2002031015
oject
U
r Administrative Draft EIR Completed: November, 2002
Draft EIR Completed: December, 2002
Final EIR Completed: April, 2003
f�
Lead Agency:
r .
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
r
u
Department of Development Services
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
Contact: Mr. Mac Cummins
562.431.2527
f�
r .
Prepared by:
RBF CONSULTING
14725 Alton Parkway
Irvine, California 92618 -2069
Contact: Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP
949.472.3505
April 2003
JN 10- 101776
r-
I
f
L
TABLE OF C O NT ENTS
!- i
EI IR VOLUME i
(y
Section 1.0:
Introduction and Purpose ..........................................................
............................1 -1
1.1
Purpose of the EIR ................................................................................................1-
1.2
Compliance with CEQA
.1-2
1.3
EIR Scoping Process ................................................................
............................1 -2
1.4
Format of the EIR ..................... ....... .... --- .... . ... ....
.... . ..... ..... .... ........ ... ...............1 -5
L,
1.5
Responsible and Trustee Agencies ............................................
............................1 -6
1.6
Incorporation by Reference .......................................................
............................1 -7
Section 2.0:
Executive Summary ............................................................... ............................... 2 - 1
2.1
Project Summary ...................... ........................................ ............................... 2 -1
Issues/Mitigation Summa
j
2.2
Environmental
2.3
Summary of Project Alternatives .......................................... ............................... 2 -32
Section 3.0:
Project Description .............. ............................... ................... ............................... 3 -1
r
3.1
Project Location and Setting ...................................................
Background History
............................... 3 -1
3 -5
3.2
and .........................................................
...............................
3.3
Project Characteristics ...........................................................
............................... 3 -6
3.4
Project Objectives ................................................................
............................... 3 -21
3.5
Phasing ...................................................................................
........................... -23
3.6
Agreements, Permits and Approvals .....................................
............................... 3 -23
Section 4.0:
Basis
for Cumulative Analysis ................................................
............................... 4 - 1
Section 5.0:
Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts
and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... .......................... -1
5.1
Land Use and Relevant Planning ......................................
............................... 5.1 -1
5.2
Aesthetics /Light and Glare ...................................................
............................... 5.2 -1
5 .3
Traffic and Circulation .........................................................
............................... 5.3 -1
��
5.4
Air Quality ...........................................................................
............................... 5.4-
5 .5
Noise .................................................................................
............................... 5.5 -1
5.6
5.7
Biological Resources ..........................................................
Cultural Resources
............................... 5.6 -1
............................... 5.7 -1
5 .8
.............................................................
Geology and Soils ...............................................................
............................... 5 . 8 -1
5.9
Hydrology and Drainage ......................................................
............................... 5.9 -1
5.10
Public Health and Safety ........................... ...............................
......................... -1
5.11
Public Service and Utilities .................................................
............................... 5 -1
!- i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 6.0: Long -Term Implications of the Proposed Project ................... ............................... 6 -1
6.1 The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment
And the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity ........................ 6 -1
6.2 Irreversible Environmental Changes That Would Be Involved In The
Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented ............................. ............................... 6 -1
6.3 Growth- Inducing Impacts ....................................................... ............................... 6 -2
Section 7.0: Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...................................... ............................... 7 -1
7.1 "No Project/No Development" Alternative ................................ ............................... 7 -1
7.2 "No Project/Existing Designation" Alternative .......................... ............................... 7 -4
7.3 "Residential Component" Alternative ....................................... ............................... 7 -8
7.4 "Environmentally Superior" Alternative .................................. ............................... 7 -12
Section 8.0: Inventory of Mitigation Measures .......................................... ............................... 8 -1
Section 9.0: Inventory of Significance After Mitigation .............................. ............................... 9 -1
Section 10.0: Effects Found Not To Be Significant ......................................... ...........................10 -1
Section 11.0: Organizations and Persons Consulted ...................................... ...........................11 -1
Section12.0: Bibliography ............................................................................. ...........................12 -1
Section 13.0: Mitigation Monitoring Program ................................................ ...........................13 -1
Section 14.0: Comments and Responses ....................................................... ...........................14 -1
Errata .... ......................................................................................................... ............................... E -1
G
T • C
•-
1
Section 15.0: Appendices
15.1
Initial Study /Notice of Preparation
15.2
Traffic Study
15.3
Air Quality Data
15.4
Noise Data
15.5
Biological Technical ReporVRestoration Plan
15.6
Cultural Resources Assessment
15.7
15.8
Geology /Soils Analysis
Hydrology/Water Quality Data
15.9
NOP Correspondence
j
15.10
Proposed Boeing Specific Plan
V
15.11
Public Health and Safety Letters
C
l
01
U
� iii
LIST OF EXHIBITS
3 -1 Regional Vicinity .............................................................................................. ............................... 3 -2
3 -2 Site Vicinity ..................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -3
3 -3 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................ ............................... 3 -4
3 -4 Land Use Plan ................................................................................................. ............................... 3 -7
3 -5 Illustrative Site Plan .......................................................................................... ............................... 3 -8
4 -1 Cumulative Projects Map ................................................................................. ............................... 4 -3
5.2 -1 Photographs — Planning Area 1 ..................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -3
5.2 -2 Photographs — Planning Area 2 ..................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -5
5.2 -3 Photographs — Planning Area 3 ..................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -7
5.2 -4 Photographs — Planning Area 4 ..................................................................... ............................... 5.2 -9
5.2 -5 Conceptual Landscape Sections No. 1 (Westminster Boulevard) ......................... .........................5.2 -14
5.2 -6 Conceptual Landscape Sections No. 1 (Westminster /Seal Beach Boulevard) ........ .........................5.2 -15
5.2 -7 Water Quality Basin and Retention Concepts ....................................................... .........................5.2 -16
5.3 -1 Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls .................................. ............................... 5.3 -5
5.3 -2 Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................... ............................... 5.3 -6
5.3 -3 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................... ............................... 5.3 -7
5.3 -4 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... ............................... 5.3 -8
5.3 -5 AM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................... .........................5.3 -20
5.3 -6 PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................... .........................5.3 -21
5.3 -7 Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................... .........................5.3 -23
5.3 -8 Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................... .........................5.3 -24
5.3 -9 Related Projects Location ................................................................................... .........................5.3 -25
iv
LIST OF EXHIBITS
(CON TINUED)
5.3 -10
Year 2006 AM Peak Hour Background Traffic Volumes ....................................... .........................5.3 -29
G� 5.3
-11
Year 2006 PM Peak Hour Background Traffic Volumes .......................................
.........................5.3 -30
r ,
5.3 -12
Year 2006 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project Traffic ............................
.........................5.3 -31
I
5.3 -13
Year 2006 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes With Project Traffic .............................
.........................5.3 -32
L '
5.3 -14
Future Planned and /or Recommended Improvements ..........................................
.........................5.3 - 45
5.5 -1
Existing Plus Project Noise Contours ..................................................................
......................... -19
5.5 -2
Existing Plus Growth Plus Related Projects Plus Project Noise Contours
.............. .........................5.5 -21
5.6 -1
Minimum Center Ditch Cross Section ...........................................................
............................... 5 . 6 -22
5.8 -1
Fault Zones ...................................................................................................
............................... 5.8 -5
f
5.9 -1
Conceptual Hydrology Map — Existing Conditions ...........................................
............................... 5.9 -3
j 5.9
-2
Illustrative Site Plan ............................................................................................
......................... -16
1.y
5.9 -3
Conceptual Hydrology Map — Proposed Site .......................................................
.........................5.9 -17
L 5.9
-4
Storm Drain and Water Quality Concept Plan .......................................................
.........................5.9 -20
1�
5.9 -5
Water Quality Assurance Plan .............................................................................
......................... -21
5 .10 -1
Study Area Boundaries ........................................................ ...............................
......................... -2
5.11 -1
Water and Sewer Master Plan ............................................ ...............................
........................ -14
f'
v
3 -1 Proposed Specific Pian Land Uses ................................................................. ............................... 3 -10
4 -1 Approved and Pending Cumulative Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Site ...... ............................... 4 -2
5.1 -1 General Plan Consistency Analysis ................................................................ ............................... 5.1 -4
5.1 -2 California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis ........................................................ .........................5.1 -15
5.1 -3 SCAG Policy Consistency Analysis ..................................................................... .........................5.1 -33
5.3 -1 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method Level of Service Definitions ...... ............................... 5.3 -2
5.3 -2 Roadway Link Capacities ................................................................................... .........................5.3 -10
5.3 -3 Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service Summary ................................................... .........................5.3 -11
5.3 -4 Existing Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary ............................................. .........................5.3 -13
5.3 -5 Project Traffic Generation Forecast ..................................................................... .........................5.3 -17
5.3 -6 Related Project Traffic Generation Forecast ......................................................... .........................5.3 -27
5.3 -7 Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary .............. .........................5.3 -35
5.3 -8 Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary .............................................. .........................5.3 -36
5.3 -9 Traffic Impact Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................................... .........................5.3 -39
5.3 -10 Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary .......... .........................5.3 -41
5.3 -11 Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary ......................................... .........................5.3 -42
5.3 -12 Project Fair Share Percentage Calculations ......................................................... .........................5.3 -47
5.3 -13 Traffic Impact Fee Calculation ............................................................................ .........................5.3 -48
5.3 -14 Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary HCM /LOS Method of Analysis .........................5.3 -50
5.3 -15 Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary With Apollo Drive Connection . .........................5.3 -53
5.3 -16 Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary With Apollo Drive Connection .....................5.3 -55
5.4 -1 Local Air Quality Levels ................................................................................. ............................... 5.4 -4
5.4 -2 Construction Emissions ..................................................................................... .........................5.4 -13
vi
,
�
lam'
i
1
1
� U
LIST O F T
5.4 -3
Mobile Source Emissions ...................................................................................
......................... -15
5.4 -4
Area Source Emissions ......................................................................................
......................... -15
5.4 -5
Long -Term Project Emissions ............................................................................
......................... -16
5.5 -1
Sound Levels and Human Response .............................................................
............................... 5.5 -2
5.5 -2
California Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines ........................................
............................... 5.5 -5
5.5 -3
City of Seal Beach Noise Standards ...............................................................
............................... 5.5 -6
5.5 -4
City of Seal Beach Noise Levels and Duration ................................................
............................... 5.5 -6
5.5 -5
City of Long Beach Noise Standards ..............................................................
............................... 5.5 -7
5.5 -6
City of Long Beach Noise Levels and Duration ...............................................
............................... 5.5 -8
5.5 -7
Noise Measurements ....................................................................................
............................... 5.5 -9
5.5 -8
Existing Traffic Noise Contour Levels ..................................................................
......................... -10
5.5 -9
Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure .......................................
.........................5.5 - 12
5.5 -10
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .....................................................
.........................5.5 -13
5.5 -11
Estimated Construction Noise in the Project Area ................................................
.........................5.5 - 14
5.5 -12
65 CNEL Contour Projections (Existing Plus Project) ........................................... .........................5.5 - 1 7
5.5 -13
65 CNEL Contour Projections (Existing Plus Growth Plus Related Projects Plus Project) ................5.5 -23
5.6 -1
Summary of Vegetation Associations ............................................................
............................... 5.6 -4
5.6 -2
Raptor Survey Conditions ..............................................................................
............................... 5.6 -8
5.6 -3
Raptor Observed On- Site ...............................................................................
............................... 5.6 -8
5.6 -4
Recorded Raptor Behaviors On- Site ...............................................................
............................... 5.6 -9
5.6 -5
Summary of Site Visits Focused on Hydrology of Drainage Ditches ......................
.........................5.6 -14
vii
5.8 -1 Active Southern California Faults ................................................................... ............................... 5.8 -6
5.9 -1 Summary of Existing Pollutants .......................................................................... .........................5.9 -12
5.9 -2 Existing First Flush Volumes ............................................................................... .........................5.9 -24
5.9 -3 Proposed First Flush Volumes for Proposed Project ............................................ .........................5.9 -25
5.9 -4 BMPs Efficiencies .............................................................................................. .........................5.9 -30
5.10 -1 Study Area 2 - Buildings ...................................................... ............................... .........................5.10 -4
5.10 -2 Study Area 3 - Buildings ...................................................... ............................... .........................5.10 -4
5.10 -3 Summary of Listed Hazardous Sites .................................... ............................... .........................5.10 -6
5.10 -4 Soil and Water Contaminants ............................................. ............................... ........................5.10 -12
5.10 -5 Comparison of Analytical Results to Preliminary Remediation Goals ................... ........................5.10 -15
5.11 -1 City of Seal Beach Groundwater Wells ................................. ............................... .........................5.11 -2
5.11 -2 Near -Term Historical Demands ........................................... ............................... ........................5.11 -10
5.11 -3 Seal Beach Normal Year Supply and Demand ..................... ............................... ........................5.11 -10
5.11 -4 Seal Beach Dry Year Supply and Demand ........................... ............................... ........................5.11 -11
5.11 -5 Seal Beach Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand .............. ............................... ........................5.11 -11
5.11 -6 Seal Beach Maximum Day Supply and Demand .................. ............................... ........................5.11 -12
7 -1 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................ ............................... 7 -13
viii
I
r,
r�
r
r
1
r
,
r�
r
r
r• ,
i
r:
t
r�
,
r
13.0 Mitigation Monitoring Program
D
0
1 �J
i l-
li
J
J
i
J
i
u
U
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLA PROJECT EIR
13.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Section 2.0, 5.0 and 8.0 of this EIR identify the mitigation measures that will be
i to red!.ire t ho i mnartc associated with the Boeing Specific Plan project.
The California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add
Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting
program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation
measures applied to proposed development. As stated in Section 21081.6 of ttE
Public Resources Code,
('
U 1 ( "...the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the
changes to the project which it has adopted, or made a condition of project
approval, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment."
a
10
L�
44 r' �
L�-
li
J
i�
li
I
U
Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring
programs-and indicates that specific reporting and /or monitoring requirements, to be
enforced during project implementation, shall be defined prior to final certificdion of
the EIR.
The mitigation monitoring table below lists those mitigation measures that may be
included as conditions of approval for the project. These measures correspond to
those outlined in Section 2.0, discussed in Section 5.0 and inventoried in Section 8.0.
To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring
program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for
monitoring each measure. The developer will have the responsibility for
implementing the measures, and the various City of Seal Beach departments will
have the primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of the
mitigation measures.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
13 -1
Mitigation Monitoring Program
r
•
•
/�
V/
Y
V
W
V
` z
P N
w
CL
N W
I.i
0
z
y V y
L
w
O
_r
Z
O
2
Z
O
r
E
R
00
0
CL`
ao
S
c
0
c
0
cc
R
,00
m
N
M
1 y
N
J
E:
CL
Q
♦
J
Q
Z
m O
R w
v
io
c c
o = �a
m
_N
C N C
ea U)
v
O
A
U N
Co d
C
_O_
o E
E
t O
E
�v
O
Q
V
o.
o
c
tm•1
•N
w
>
C
G
>
O
>
d
N
` O
O
O
CL
Q
a
CL
Q
Q CL
CL
CL
CL a
Q
•
C
.4D
d
C
co
. C.
W
4m _
C p
'C
•y .
C •�
0. C3
wm :�
°o v
o�`o
ci
.n_
o
N~ =
U) .�
m w d
N N
o
U
m= cm.-
'O
�, E
w U N
C E
• N • m
7 O.
y CO N d
'D m a?
a)
m C N
'C
d
Z
= d m ??
E m CL
U fn
> O . 0.
y •C
a) N
m 0 O N
N
ea
O
f0 E
co ma m E
. 2 ;,°, o
C a)
m0E
��ayi_ cc
H
•C m O O-
CL
U O. m O.
N
h
cn
A N
O
CD �
a C)
�
cm E ''a °N
N N
N O
E`�
c
�c� v ;x cn
o m
m -m
>$.a)
m
o
oNc m�
cts
0U� a)
co
m om—
c' v)
v� m 3 m cn
C d 0 m
c Z' ; U
O U CO y N
c E
o y v�
.a E
O
ca M
m
o v
'D
8
LK
m n .° m E
C
7 c m E
C tm p
.N
a)
7
o-2
3
..
CL
cc Co .a- c
a) x
N N
8
7 X U C L
-o N
O w C
O O f6 m
pp U O W • U O O
C (D W O O
p-
d 4)
0) � L N
Z
o. ♦ ♦♦
m Pi ♦ ♦♦
a om
µ- c v
W
�
N
Ch
IA
J_
C
O
r
O
p
I
L6
L6
�
L6
E
R
00
0
CL`
ao
S
c
0
c
0
cc
R
,00
m
N
M
1 y
N
J
E:
CL
Q
♦
J
Q
Z
I
i
�7
t•�
u
1
16
1.J
b
Ll.
L�
U
u
1 l
1 r
M
M
N
J
22
♦
J
¢
Z
li
i
w o
r
U �
0.-
R
Ir C1
c c
o ° �
v
d � N
� � 0
R �
0
W
V N
d
y
O_
C)
C
O E
L O
O
¢
U
O
•
C
O
C
O
V
N
0
C
(D
_
'd
>
p
>
o
0
0
>
0
m
n
¢ p
¢ O
Q O
¢ O
CL
¢ O
rn
c
a)
c
C
W
C C
O
C 'y
c >
ao
L
C
N
C
T d
5� CO N O
.v
0
Z H�
5�
c'S U) o"
O
U) as
N O
0' 0
a) O
U
cc 2
o U
0
ac
in
U
C C
0
C
4) Gr
> "0
O co
0
N
cu -2
_
O
O
Q
y
.Q y U
-0 O
a) V j "O
22
> , m @
7
0
�
C
N °°
N '�
p O°
a
cn
v
n
8
c
a) >
N
o c 0
m y
o c
a)
E
o
p
a
u,
a)
ca a)
m
E b'
o
n rn o o
a o
d 'm
U)
_
R
Cc
m
o-
3
a)
w o �? h
`p
v D
a c
N
¢
v
- 0 c
uS c a)
=
•>
p
Y
m
a) p
f�
r
'U
O
f0
�
C
'�
> - d �-
O
D
0
_
N 0)
O
O U 0
0)
Vii+
L a) M
a)
U
p
as
T
0 cc
O m
Ql
C
O
N
a)
0 3
CL
_
S
.0 E 0
`
C O d .. y
•'=
0 0 Y
0 C.>
r
>
>.
00
C
'
v �'�
u2 8
° U 9 d
0
a r
E o>
v
C
Z U
0 w
io
o
a o
a`�
E '� a)
m
v
y T o
5
a 3 °)
c
o
c
f°
m n
.o
o a>i
0 0
cps) �.
¢.0
o
Z m
a�i
a
ca c
a
°
a
o a) °
.
U
3 °)
` a) E
yCY
`. @ 75 8
t�6 C M Y
C C
¢ m�
♦
o
♦
o
♦
a N a m
m�
�v� E 3
U a-0
U
C?
ca
�p
-0
O
O
0
r
O
L
LO
L6
t[')
M
M
N
J
22
♦
J
¢
Z
li
E
0
0
a `
Oa
c
S
C
O
C
O
cc fa
• 0u0
YE
c+�
N
J
a
Q
J
Q
Z
`m o
Rw
. v
o' m
• d 3
w CY
C C
3
� -,
0 ai
d � N
C N
O •''
ea
v m
m
o
�
c
as
o
E
—
E
r o
�
o
Q
U
w
O
C
O
c
V
O
�N
d
�
C
'O
.m
Im
C
CD
• Of
C
>
O
W
O
CL
Q 0
QI
=O
G h
A
ao
y
o
O
�
CL
Q O
o CL
Q O
•
°a c� C N 'c c
L 0 C N > +�•,
o a
O
a) a) a)
L .n d O_ •O r rL... (a fn
C • Q
N _N 3= L o a) cv a3
CO - D fA N
'-
'p 7 cn
p N a7 S _7
.3
N .N O `r- C N CD
N N <6
N y y (`
o - o f> m>
w
,{Cn
C C N u
N fa C y N C E
a ca O o o �- oa o
o
w - — N `- m 0 ` L h
a
o c° Q7
.N $ o$ a
Qi
rn a E °) .v c> v N '_�
CL c E N ? N n
as N y a a° N
O
Z
m E Q' c c �-°•�
w N Q D
p c`v.�� -. m c '° v c
as C d N
W
m L O
E c o ._ v -- v
p
U
v Z3 E U
C N U a
C7 o rn m o E . y as U
d
O O la a) 7 d a)
d C. "p d
• C N O) N N
N C N N
Co X N - W • p UU . C N y
a � a) o C- C a) a7
ul
E _m >. 3
cc a
c c a) a) c c o c
O N Cj O- •
W
O
N t
- --Q 0)) d c o
c0 •- •Cf O
_� - n a) O rn
$-C 3 c o co o 0 •� co c o
c O N (a a
d
ca
� U U C/) ` O �p a7 U O
O
W
U
_
d c_
N N CM U C U
W a)
>, = m •- .S
7 w E •C N N C Y a) •
d a)
.
'C p O a) a) •�
C y _
y
Z
?
> C .N (
C O C p C j >
N
-CO C a) C O
y m O N d y
N j Q 2 � O
a1
•�
p
C D$ U a) - C N D rp+
y
N
a7 N N y E U N(
nO g. E ` a)a) E
2:5 a) O p
' _ N a)
V a O .0 - V o
U o � Ea)L°) m
Q$ m >, N - 0 c 3
O
Q $_ n 'S
a`)n3 D `�- a - m oa
a as $ 3 O c m e c` .0 2 El
a) — c a a) 'o a) o Pi c
ca O • O_ C O` d N
cts �._
�-
v a) aQi o —_ a o i
a) a) C
°) v c $ m cc ,o o •)
C la ca U) N 0) L a) V U p) (a >
N
N O -- C `
.O O - O
N y 7
O
a : .C� p O
U U V
a) O C O a) ,N C C N
a) E $ •C
U • c
cx a) y CEO
a
C U
y
U` O N C
d
$ N cc a3 a)
Q E D E
a) L 'p n• O N E
C
I coo oCLU)Uj E�
0
C o m
a$$EEL E$
a) N D CO N N
O .j N
°mc
M
aim
W
�
L6
J
g
L6
L6
E
0
0
a `
Oa
c
S
C
O
C
O
cc fa
• 0u0
YE
c+�
N
J
a
Q
J
Q
Z
L
r
L
F
u
U
U
L
r�
u
L
U
u
I
0
2.
c+�
8
N
J
iR
d
O
J
Z
°w
o�
o
O -- m
a Q
C c
O
0
to
N = N_
U
m N
O
ea
v a)
0
C
_O
° E
R
E
•
—
V V
O
E
°
a
CL
¢ O
U
0
c
O
O
t6
V
.y
A t
�
O
>
c
.3
m
c
d
d
c
c
W
�
C . O
T
c y
c —
D
>
W
a G
>
o
0
p
Q c
Q O
a c
Q O
a c
Q O
15 d) cb o o
.p
c �° L •� c o �_ `o o
CU
`i' o� m a�ci co M y°
c > o w
.4
a •y O C
co
V Z C . O
U m
a) a`� � c
rn m = >> a) m Q o a�i
C �' °
as
$ L o > E w 2n c.
U
° : E ;
> " "
o y
N f0 .« C f6 L
N a) Q •— U C
a) f9 ' U p cc
•° . fn
N
° c
2 C r -
CD Q —
a) N
aS C 7 - N 3 W N • E. ° f0 N
L N to
° $i m o °� �°
U a) a)
C U) Q � a �
E y
C
'� H O C
C)
�
m °- rn o m
o M vi
` D cm m t o
Q o a) $" Q a) c °_ O
�2 ;° >+ aoi
$ Cc o a 8 o
H
m o , o a)
_
° .2 gyp" 0 V
vU
a) y m N-2 N w L E O V
a) U O.
� 20 0 y
° °
c 0 c
p° C L
N
c-
w e u 8 ' $ 2 2 2 E p ° o
co c o � U �
m (D Q
U •p v°i
UO
C C7 p N Q U fC
° a3 w O .cc N C p
to U
N
p� C U N
J o m O
t6 ° C C y d>
a) -0 a) C m O O y
a) C _ !L N y N Q
> E A .V C- E O
Q
> O
C Cr a) . - ° U
U O w M « y 'D Q L
n> — E p C Q "-'
W a3
O O Q
E L == U� •> 0 0-
•C 2� L
C
°
a3 a3 L a3 al O
U
C
U U O cm N
N_ 3 Ol
y = ° w Q • > .L..
d U
N U O 7
N a) L N
a) N
•� cc m= t
'° .� O O U cn
N N y `` d N m _
U
m Q N
— c 0°
. U) rn >,
RM
m N U .L--r Cb
m
CL
a3 C ...
U L L y y •�
~
Caaa-��
a) j C U C O d
Q • ,,> ' , 9
c o
�,) — � (D �'
.=
m E a) cco ate') ca m o > m
v
(D -° cn 3 . o cc
U v
m L Q m
W — b_ a) m d
- U a)
2 N p �i 2
N N
E N
N o
N O� Cr
L o
d f4 -0 9)U_ 'L••' -a a) O O c O
L cc Q
. > N
N L to — O N
— :E;
is Icp; N
m C p m
U N .0 N
N CO a) O U L
a) N N v) a) C y
U 7 .� -p j L Q
N N N a: E as 0.9
..N—.. '( = N
C N
a p
~ N O ' O a) o O N o
° - �U'mC� E UU - a Q
°> U Q m E 0 w
S O E ai '
05 Q o cn c
QS
ca
v
�
f�
~
� LO
�
L6
c+�
8
N
J
iR
d
O
J
Z
E
ao
0
a
c
`o
c
0
c
0
�a
auo
r
M
cC
ch (• �
� U
u
u
a
O
O
CV U _J
CL
Q
O
J
Q
Z
LL-
m +r
3 o
v
o .- m
R
C7
a
O
C c
0
0.2
u
d = �
� Ec
�m
0
R
0
d
0
o
=
!
c E
R E
_
J= o
E
`U
o
a
U
0
C
=
w
o
v 'v - ,
d
>
c
=a
m
Cn
.c
. c
v
o
> O
W
°.
CL Q O
C.
¢ 0
Cm _
C o
>.
C •N
C
O
d
Q 0
m N • E N ' -0 p N
c. U m O C _E y
p C 7 D .N Mn > O C .0 y a m 'p
N
p�
,b C U N M U
_
&M p 0 2 N
c 6 C rN.. a n :� 'O N y C
m
N 0 4--. O
cm — co V N N
N O R co N
.0
N O .0 � c o �' a W: » m 7
m N p C a m O
N a) �t C N C. U
• N
'p C 7 C N d
O. O .m m O C
CD
m O N U 3 a -0 -0 m >.� O
C7 _ M d m ? y N O `O C_
= Lo U n. O :
L ... O) � Q n
Co
N N N �O 0 O O O C m
Q L
O N O p
_ C m
E N N w d t
_ C m U U t
.a- E V p m N p _ ) N
i
O C p
N N U ." c N .. to =
d m O
N .0 0� x
QU U
0 �
C. y . d D 0 Cn O CT 0�
x O
3
E
O C m y N
'N 0
N
O U W C
o >-, (D
CAd U m C — d c c
1 5 (D 0 ° °a `-�°
a,
oC7
E m 'v,
a; � co (D i m f) 9
v a, a, � c d c
Cry
c mC1 n0' = -
c
.�
°) CT •C `_' s ° o C
O V
°' N N s O N N° d o
0
oco�1 0 °fC� O Qi
d
° 'c a�UOi•o o
c `�
c E m o 3 EeE � y n
Za
o,
m C N ° (D V L o°
o °'m c N �.�' o o
° v
»� > rn°
O m O coo m
: $` v u n a3= E .o J$ o
p U 0 o m°
' .�aQm�oca N i
:.•
0 N a,d o N
CL N 0 �' E m p c m v c o 2
a,• n.0�ti �
� E C_ y 0 y s
a> c° �- > v >
U .2:- = O CT U s N :a U
O) U (W,) t=il LiJ M CA X N V,
a Cc _
N
m 7 .�-. O O cg
y
N .O m a p N m C?
a� 0 3 0
a U Q.
N J C - C O fCi m O U
E U C
y C w d
t M 2 o N y N a
> > U
.
.m., C 'O m d p m N CA
cc N c 'c U�Ha�
O t N 0 C U .O
N
Q O .N..` U m N d
c O m_
a m�' -
a �vo
2
° oaE`,ccmco w
'fN
o Lu uo 0 .0 O
n N .� d S m 0 cg c > c
a>
m
m
O
CA
Cn
U•)
ui
E
ao
0
a
c
`o
c
0
c
0
�a
auo
r
M
cC
ch (• �
� U
u
u
a
O
O
CV U _J
CL
Q
O
J
Q
Z
LL-
3 0 �v
1 r V td
t '
� O �m
aJ �6
Z CY
c c
0 ° v
d = N_
C N C
16 N
I ,
u
.0
k.�
1
1�J
u
U
U
{6
V y
d
O
O E
e E
t O•
� V
Q
O
C C
w O
W �N
7
C
.
'm
i
O
CL
Q
c
O
C C
O
�C • y
C >
ao
t o 0 o m
rn w 3
N
N
N 6 .y.. O "-' y c cc
o
•C d U C -0-0 01
`o o 3 c L
a > c cc Q
O2 R U O N 2 MO
a R D
C E u>), � N C) C
R O E O m y 0 L co
-0 o - 3 R
v m m 0 y� c
° r) c m c m= �,E
C" C A E N= N •C N
E
L � 0 U C 0
-- o m c c m E a)
0 0 3 & y c
U d ` d d R
o o - f° v o Et
o c 3 y aoo h y co
m
a- �m
w E o
a) as 2 c`u_ c
= co H .« U) f/1 C A Q O N
2
�f
c
O
U
N
c
co
C
O
N
v
0
c
R
n
R
2
R
L
U
-
ca
a c o c U W p m
o
a) 0 v c ovU �8 o� U
E — 4? 'E - Z� R
N> 2 R a- U ' G. C .0.. R
Z� .v a c m> R E E O v, m a
O c 0 o 8 a m
R _
0 N •- - L w y 2 219 C O E
cu 4-, O .O N R N- R C N
fa y O 7 d C V y R R R
C
�O �,LoC1 c- op E Zd�
m C-0 N y °) O m `) In m d
rL 7
0� � cu— 0�� �' N? Q W Q cn O R C. N cUU R A E Q. d 0 _Qj OI
n a o E o o o F E o c
= U U C d •C a .�
v �_ - o E ` 3 m °- 0
,( n R N 0 c C Z w E y w
E N y N 3= 0 o m O u E U
o $ a o) N C U� Q. R N 4.
R E 0 0 'p '� R U Z N cc
y 'C O C` Q E R 'O_
CL E O u) 0 m .. R U 3
03 t o o�ML
F-
R wo Z o 0 o y 2 Ex
c m
m c° .N c c w
R C p) R O c E
A ° m m a o m °c m
,yE E �'� o ��
co a) _ R
( p R� �U) o ��N 5
N R 'O Q C
V R O Z N d cm y Z L
Q �j
O� R p a) �- V N 3 d
N O ' 5) 0 'D C a w N ca N N
_ c
O I - $ a)� U E E co E cc
CD
C7
C R V C N V N d V
m 0 R A o o= E
. L I Z a o L U N
a) 3 v E o aa) .�_ ti c cn
' >, > E u) a. a c
.0 O N c
CL (D O N� M d
I- E n. R c4 n.. in E
IU l
0 0
d
R
d
C
O
M
n
M
g
N
J
a
Q
J
Q
Z
C
.
�
C'
c
W
y
p
CL
Q
c p
'D
>
O
O
Q C
C
O
C C
O
�C • y
C >
ao
t o 0 o m
rn w 3
N
N
N 6 .y.. O "-' y c cc
o
•C d U C -0-0 01
`o o 3 c L
a > c cc Q
O2 R U O N 2 MO
a R D
C E u>), � N C) C
R O E O m y 0 L co
-0 o - 3 R
v m m 0 y� c
° r) c m c m= �,E
C" C A E N= N •C N
E
L � 0 U C 0
-- o m c c m E a)
0 0 3 & y c
U d ` d d R
o o - f° v o Et
o c 3 y aoo h y co
m
a- �m
w E o
a) as 2 c`u_ c
= co H .« U) f/1 C A Q O N
2
�f
c
O
U
N
c
co
C
O
N
v
0
c
R
n
R
2
R
L
U
-
ca
a c o c U W p m
o
a) 0 v c ovU �8 o� U
E — 4? 'E - Z� R
N> 2 R a- U ' G. C .0.. R
Z� .v a c m> R E E O v, m a
O c 0 o 8 a m
R _
0 N •- - L w y 2 219 C O E
cu 4-, O .O N R N- R C N
fa y O 7 d C V y R R R
C
�O �,LoC1 c- op E Zd�
m C-0 N y °) O m `) In m d
rL 7
0� � cu— 0�� �' N? Q W Q cn O R C. N cUU R A E Q. d 0 _Qj OI
n a o E o o o F E o c
= U U C d •C a .�
v �_ - o E ` 3 m °- 0
,( n R N 0 c C Z w E y w
E N y N 3= 0 o m O u E U
o $ a o) N C U� Q. R N 4.
R E 0 0 'p '� R U Z N cc
y 'C O C` Q E R 'O_
CL E O u) 0 m .. R U 3
03 t o o�ML
F-
R wo Z o 0 o y 2 Ex
c m
m c° .N c c w
R C p) R O c E
A ° m m a o m °c m
,yE E �'� o ��
co a) _ R
( p R� �U) o ��N 5
N R 'O Q C
V R O Z N d cm y Z L
Q �j
O� R p a) �- V N 3 d
N O ' 5) 0 'D C a w N ca N N
_ c
O I - $ a)� U E E co E cc
CD
C7
C R V C N V N d V
m 0 R A o o= E
. L I Z a o L U N
a) 3 v E o aa) .�_ ti c cn
' >, > E u) a. a c
.0 O N c
CL (D O N� M d
I- E n. R c4 n.. in E
IU l
0 0
d
R
d
C
O
M
n
M
g
N
J
a
Q
J
Q
Z
w o
�a .r
3 0 'o
U
o =m
To
� Cl
c c
U M •C
M
l ,
O
W
V y
m
d
O
E
O
m E
-
Z O
U
O
Q
U
w
O
c
O
C
O
a
V
y
d
�
�
C
.
m
O1
C
. CD
m
L
L
c
'O
O
O
>
O
` C
CL
m
Q O
CL
CL
Q O
c-
CL c
Q O
I c
. E.0
C 'y
C �
10
a Q
� "0 d p" N C
Co o `O + N C O N
_
O
C
C C c E O. . •O
'C
y C��. O 7 vO m y.., C
C °
.L..
O d
H
N y .` X
� y C
>> p. .O.. N •� p
"O
.� 7 2 rn w C
O — C d
C W
cr
.0 N
' d L
L W
N
... N L C C E O
° CL U N
U C . O).X
N 7 m m N 0 A
'O +: C
.m.. m ._
cm
—_ y
Q m `p d
j 0 .N p� rn m
v U Z c 0 O V U
E —
m a c
O N W
W rnn � .>
a
m N O c p
• C
m >, p N
C
c 5 CD
O y
'
m E ?� •� y p
N m -p L$
C m C S U >.
> m O >—a
o N r L
8 V
C
N
N O)
C
O) U d -p
d
O
'O
.
R
E c? m �v fg—
w m � >� ° ° c3 °
m
ca a o
°>
v,
a3 m `o m ° a`� t a
c = o € n d C
•a
m c
U) o ° •
v' € $
70 E c N c> y m
•C
m y 3 m U p Q
H
- o
.i+
i> > c = ""' L .O N
U) 15
>rN U m 1>,G y — CM
H O_
m p-Op N
:r
CM C °
N
°?
"g p cc w- O) •C C' � O
�>. �O Q O O 0 C M U
O`
m
O N E 0)
v
N m • m
o
•G?
65 U N o d C d m 0) d
_ 'O C O_ C
75 .O O O
c E
N 'y0 •p O` 3> 'D N
N C C= d N . y
w -O u
p_ y O
C
O D U .` L N �' .0 O CL
C m O) m ca � .0 N O°
C O N= cc
cc o
i j N
LL N m >, = m �" > rn O
. 0_
0 m _�
_ a) a) m
O O O
Q .n 0 00 y O v m
d' O. E S
fn - p O
L
N
M
0)
O)
O
Lo
LO
L.
c
L
U
I
1
U
` r •
i�
i
�
I 1
U
G
E
as
0
a.
OA
c
0
c
0
c
0
m
04
m
m
cn
O
0
N
J
CL.
Q
J
Q
Z
LL
m +•
3 0�
v R
m
o
R
W- O
C C
7 O
O V
m = N
c e O
R CO)
O
ev
v m
a�
as
o
v
c
o
r o
E
`U
O
Q
V
'
O
0
0
W
Mn
>
rn
c
. 'o
• '3
m
c
c
�
0
0
0
!L
¢ O
¢ O
¢ O
C c
c p
• C
• y
C >
ao
(D O G,
a` ) c
C C
o o E
C O O C W = T d C U
o a> n 3 m E a> a °� = °- c > y
m acv • o
O u
.ia c4
—
m a°i_ U N 0( c
V
� �
•
N
�.� C2
_rn
E L
c t _O V � � 0_ y p p cc O O
X O U_ E p M O ° U N X CT
E
"D E
O_ C O
N
O
O M CL CL C17 O —_ N.-. cn co
OL
C N > N 0 0• C �- O cc
3
E c6 vi
a> a
o •° = m o L L m S o o c >
CC
U3 y
C N
cu E 0
y •o
a m > m >. N 3° cv 0
•�
fn
° '
> O t 7 E O E 'O •� O s
N
U) v m a
.
a v 0 m
O
�..
�
E in °° rn 3 v io : v 'a 8 ca E a m Q)
Pi
m
m
C
-0 -0 CU
Z'
H
Q
0 m m � a> � .� m
L 'O O O C -0 N O U QI > O) O C CL
co to N C N
7
O
s- p
am
= m O) a = p a- w y
M c rn `O �. �-� a>i
co
V5 w v>
>d
-0
Q
°'� 3 � cv' m c
- a) , °
m
L 6
V
w
m-o L o
rn -'3 D o
3
.
o •v m
N N
8 v m
m N
-° a E ° E 2 > c m m t v cu,) c
m > m No c n C =O x > 7 E � m
01
C 8
a O C
y
O- C
Z
Q
C O
�— N
Q U V a $ V m a 0 Q
m Cc
ca
u p
t C CT • .O-.
rn0Xi
v m o
C
rn° a s
.N u7 N
Z
p
T n o > N m'0 o> 2v �� � 0) y ca
o
N U O '� .N
t
CL
°� O y
co N
O .2 d c0 N
U C y r=-. = N 0 3 C E ." C j CT O O
•
C
p O M O
> H
C N
` N L
y
O
d N
O 7 0 C O O CA X— (O 0 0— U O c 7
�'m o O r¢ n U) m a) ¢ 3 °? U 3 Q m o v
•
O Co
m c .
0 3
E .0
W
c 0 „
ca
Q
'
d 7 N O
>.
w M w G.
O
p c p O O
C3 O U E m
CO
N
L
H CD
cu
C�
O
W
J
L6
Cn
CCU
E
as
0
a.
OA
c
0
c
0
c
0
m
04
m
m
cn
O
0
N
J
CL.
Q
J
Q
Z
LL
R
0
CL
em
c
`o
c
0
c
0
cc
R
ow
m
CD
ri
N
J_
0-
Q
J
Q
Z
L�
0 o
co +�
3 o
v
o : m
. m �
w Or
c c
=
a
t
C 0
10 N
0
10
V N
IM d
v
O
ca
_O
O E
R E
-
L O
E
` V
o
Q
v
0
o
c
o
Ma
`
0
m
n
Q O
rn
S
CD
c
�
c
o
W
C.
Q 0
G7 C
. S . 0
C
L
,N
� �
CL o
N
>
O
C
.
n
0
°� p y °=
C- °
p c cr3
`° h
a c o
n `m
t c m " o N
c U
y E v w N E
(D 10 N
a).0 •�
'ANN
y O C
c n c a
• �pG1N O•C C { N
0 C6
3 m cc E - v E v E E
N • C (D
O
ca c p °;
m �— c o a)
m c L_ >> o� O
• 7
. 2 L Ln 0 O
p C • O ""
O E "�' _
C
C a3 N 8 -Z
O " O O N n •O '
• C O
,70 L N C
c• h — o
co N N
as N L > N
p p _� E
U E p C aS °
C M o C
° (D o m
—_ o 3 c
v
CL
n n v _ L
CL,s
:a >,
cn o io
o v in d, 3 c 4? n c
o ch c
v cv 2 v,
c� cv o m a) E
m
a� N .� CO) 0 3 • c c _v w n
�i w 0
(D a m E
H
ao>i
0 0 0 U) n C.
p O
> N
O O O O C-
N y C C y E
a)
a)
.O Z
N N C O >
__O
U N
y
C R U)
C co
> N ` m2 'O
>. Q V L
o a) =O .a On 'N •c a —
jC N
y Cn � U
c � a O
m C U c�6,
V ` U ' n
o
O C
E w 8 U c o cc
ca
m ° _w
�8 -•_ Wa
" y tC c6
O w
� co cv ��
c n 3 o CD
?'` 7 • cc a) '•' d N
CL
p -•ppy
y L ai
'o m c ° f0 a7
c` M U L ai
..' •O
N C
O
"O CO
d n
N
.
N p •S
_N
p
c`-° a�i ° x > o c E > > ° c`
'D
a) A C
n a rn
N .CO N O
- t u' v
y •C >" j
m C� o m a�
co cn
(O y y O n U 2 N�
N$ a7 ay .
C H Cc �
°° '0 Q h
O
E s c a� °m���Ea
w -�y
Y cc
° °- c`o
"� p
�i"o�m �'
L C O
Q Z> I— W F— .0 3 V C
U L �
y tp .� • C
p� O) V C
C C E
•��..
f0 N a) U a)
a) > O 'O > N
® ® ® O
+•.' v cC
a •N .3 E
_
C
O Q O y
0 H c C a) N a)
C >. E C TC C w C>
8
Q 0
m a) m cc
r
4
4
L6
L6
R
0
CL
em
c
`o
c
0
c
0
cc
R
ow
m
CD
ri
N
J_
0-
Q
J
Q
Z
L�
y
i
i
G
L
�J
0 j
1 r ,�
iJ
r,
b
h
u
u
r'i
4.�
U
) r ;
l_.1
'
d O
3 ov
U
O
c �.
o •- m
w
ce. a
c c
3
O C
U a .`
0) -- _N
C N 0
16 N
O
N
. 20
d
N
O
U
C
C .�.
( M D E
W
O
•
U
O
a
U
0
o
c
:,
O
V
W
O)
. E -
co
Im
c
c
c
W
C o C
c
o
a
m
a
CL
0
0
0
Q O
¢ O
¢ O
o c o m y >
.c v 0 o m>
•c E
c o Z -o
o� y�� v
y s c c c o v t $
� ` Q ° � o 3 E E� o
d ca m e
E E
y
O n> >p > N m Z$
"..' . N
U �
T `-� Z n n p�
� vi
c a n e
(
N t X U N y N
m
t6 >
N y w C U y
y C a)
C— . 0 0 y U U o C DO
m t U> 0 8 a) y 8 °)
p � '� C 0 cu
8 p>
C _ a) L m
c� °
3 •3 m
fU6
E 8 tea,
c
t6
my 4a a)a) >� E0
rn
aci a)
a) a�ci m
o in ° c am
n) °
A?
�, c 8 Q �°n
v'- o 8 o o. m5 m m c
8 n
a) CD
o>
U, a) cs
.Li•• N n E
't7 U >. c 7 L :7 f °
cl
.0 Co O C
c o -Cu U a) o v
> as
>
rn v v rn 8 0
L�s m (Oi o. • v z g
-0 e � E
`
ca : o Q a) w
c a) § c c
o cu c . m n-
p co o
c m `- as a`) U) m 'en
m a) 0 c c U) m
m °
C in as E
U)
z ° c�`a `o f° ' M 8
0
= _ )O c 0
oa.WOE
8 ay)-g E a)
c E E Cg
19� (
a) m
0
> `m .S N .o U y�
-°
m m a� c m m cm
p > U a) p .-
8 a V �, c° 8
"U ^.8 ' r'7' p C N U
o
E °- v
Q co
d
C
U L O y '.' .N f0
R C "U p S
8 as C1 ZI 0
U
O
a) c c p t7j _ p 8 E w p
j p
j p m
+.+
y O E u)
•�.... C N C °
� a) y m U
U
d Q 0 M O C •C d
i0 2 �_ co
{D
C_f
4:
° . f` W y C ;p U a7
Co � as a) -c
`
N C m y a) — p p
O N
C
Cc N U r- E W a)
C -e _m N c Q) ¢ E =
Z O (�
L
._'
a 60 FL m o
as
L tlj
=m Co y a)
E 8�°n a) ° c.�
> L B
E
y
° w c o
E .c a) c D a $' n
Z .9 is U E N
L @ O s m m °
°°
o c o a) C -a
8 8 c —°
c o c c o a)dE
cU
(0 . 0
-p m vi E — o L a)
Cc 0
0
c c .2 ,$
o
a7 as 8 a) U) y gp _c C
cn Cc
a o 3 aci a m
c3
.0 c 8 m
o° E a) m m m a y
E °1
y L a) O Q O E n E - O
3: CO CL E nn� ca¢
a) j as N
�=v m $vaa
L E L q� q� O a) CO
Cn d ycn(nto vz n.
7 >.
v-
y
N
M
M
r-.:
ti
r--:
U')
Lo
U')
E
R
O
a
tw
c
c
0
c
0
c
oa
m
Ch
r.
N
J
CL
J
¢
Z
Li
E
m
oa
0
d
ao
c
0
C
O
C
O
R
Oa
M
N
ch
N
J
a
O
J
Z
W
`m, o
co c
3 0-0
L)
o m
, d 3
C C
3
O O
L)
N = N_
C .N O
m V�
O
16
u d
IM as
c
m
o E
E
'
c o
E
�U
O
¢
V
0
O
O
0
e +
U
_N
d
�
>
Om
C
m
tm
C
d
d
C
co
C
W
tm C
C p
C m
C
1V
LL G
N p> p m X L
C 7 '
N • O
O
pp
O
p C 0 U 0 C
n m Z N>
E U N
N v)
O E
E N¢
p c Q p
O U•
y U�
• d
.d..
'C ,�
O O
8
E
• O
�
U) M
y N N O O
C N
N
r.,
.2 N >. n r-
> m o a?
N w
Cc m 'c
co
-
m
•c v m 0
N-
a cc
p) O
c a
a�
-°
p C- U O) o C a)
N m N¢ C O`
L •C p—
N E 7
d N Z
O
m
O c o a)
M m 4
.
N H
N d
m
�• >
co '
C
c °- s a � 0' � E
= d a rn
w
c o �- rn
I c a E cc°a
,C
a�i m y
( (D
O ° 2 .` > X
E m N c
L o
_ C
E m
m E
¢ y m N
7 aj 8
>>
C O
d
L
N
a
O
C' •co p N __
>+ C C C x C U
a'
�
U C O
� C m
7
� rL•„
N m N 7
3
C� co N
U
N C
v_
3
c
c
m '—°�.- 8 m
a c m m
CU
��
m >= c° a�i
$ � ?
�,
g
d
a
2
c o w> m.- v
o U
m
c °
cn c z 3 w
E c Q
m
m
.c°�
ac
c� �-° �° • = 3 c J
� E a o
c �' o
m a) w ' °' M
> >
z
c
p
co
c
c -
° ¢mc
�
° oc
ou a
0m E m
=QfOadNicmaoni3p
E
DoE
•�
c ° i c�a ° i_o
p • C
°
a
�
. m
N
s
m
>
y N n s C 'c O
�� � p N' E
C m E C
z E S
O
N w co N
me o
V L C_ >.
c n
C
v
s
m
v v m a� a—' N
c m u
m m aXi
c
c v >,
x m
E O 4? °� E
c o w a)
m y
3 a�
0
N a)
0
'
z
N
o'3 v v p� 7 �.
>,
y.0 m
> w E
�,v_' ° m
t c
C 8 >,o
a `
n E
>
>
rn m a`) a`) N m n
v E
E° o c
0 -o 'o
n a�
x a�
m° C
u O m c
x a> n
u m£ m
N. c n
c c� m
a�
E >, .. c
m a) o
c
g
aci o
0)
a m o¢ E: ° 8
LU °:
w c m
°a.8 N
Q E aE
@
S
n
c
CL
U
O
♦
♦
♦
O
o
Z
E
m
oa
0
d
ao
c
0
C
O
C
O
R
Oa
M
N
ch
N
J
a
O
J
Z
W
1 rj
V
r�
L
c; 1
u
t
' r '(
i.�-1
r �
G
r.
L
1
U.
E
0
0
a
oa
C
O
C
O
C
O
R
CW
m
M
c+)
N
J_
CL
CL
Q
0
J
Q
Z
L�
M w
3 0 •a
U to
c A O
O'=m
IM M
0: Or
C C
7
6.2 5
L)
tm
R Co
O
W
w as
Co a)
a)
c
c E
L o
E
�v
o
a
U
0
0
0
a
w
•N
d
G
Im
C _
.
m
O)
c
CD
c
C
C
W
Co C
C p
'
C - y
c
ao
a) O] O G) •D
C f >
a) N a •�?, > .
''(/)• O
C >. a) O C a) h L n b a) "O 0 � � N
U�L �O c C& r N. N C D >� c
r L z °� 3 a) U
3 o
- a) .c E> a) a°)i
��-° E a) 3
- a m t° c >> v o m o > y o `�° E
L c N o 0 v m 0 m r y a u'
CD
•� O> N
:3 a H L
L 0
y
m
U@ O O N
O � M U
`o - E rn t °_ 'E
• 0
o w° 0 3
N L N E N L O O
° S � E 6.� o '� d n �� o
O- g N O— 0 a) L
c
E C w ` $ a) 0
a) 0 a)
E L •- r N O 00 y w C— N O L
2) C N E O
L N N M d m N o
O w
a) C N cC a) L O O N L
C aS O
o L w o E
w o a)
m 3 •- 0 c
N 3
O
N ° v �` a E • 5 c N Co F- >,
°� is o� A w e
`
y E. o
- �° ? o
y , w to E
E w `�- o f
v c o - Q o
v c o v t r X ° c m p Q o
H
t "_ = a) E H �_
° d O �` U
O
ti
L 4: °= °- a) , N N w E W , C Q N p� C. d a)
.O •C * N > '
U)
d
N N a) O. =�
N C •_ O
N 7
•O -_ O C �6 C
a) O_ a) U N �'-
a) d 'U
fC
�..
C C 0 U� `� U
W O O> a) C= a N � ` N L N � O N
U N N H N N d
a) cr
O ( u n , Q) a) - � N
C CO a)
N a) .0 0 O
O
m
U N_
O> X N 'D LLJ O N v N t • O N
0
O
ca M 75 (p C
N=
E - O J U
L O M a) a X — y .L... 0 7 m N C_
X N N 'L..' L " - U N C p L L
W
Ql
(>6 n N V . 7
U L X C U a) — C
w c
5, a) � L .�
- p O L a)
m
O
:C.
O a)
"D a) � a) .� O . a7 •C a) — N
3 a) a) co
c>
:_,
m e a) o d c
��o N c°)
N o o a) u
''�
v
Q
ca c `m E - t
> E c a' w E � E
��t =off o
(D "D
c a7 . O Co
o-
c H
= 2 O) O A N
O
� 'oL ai cE X ny�
L L . >. as C H 3 O N . >-, d a) v c
_y
L C C U)
U V U a) 'c `c N C
a) f6 Z .y C 4?
w O_ O T C ca '0
C
O
S
— O) "'•' 7 fa N O N L ..., �- a) C a)
m O C U a) C D ca .0 .N -O = ' 'O C w-
C L w a) E 0 . O O
7 � E Q - O +
w m C d L O_
CA (9 E N 7
U
O C 2 O� L o J a) O L O C C o N O N
L.L :�. - O H U m f6 L N O. > > +.+ N
c:
C
E
0
0
a
oa
C
O
C
O
C
O
R
CW
m
M
c+)
N
J_
CL
CL
Q
0
J
Q
Z
L�
E
R
ao
0
a `
oa
c
0
c
0
c
0
ea
00
m
v
cn
O
N
J_
CL
Q
® I
J
Q
Z
�o c
3 o -c
v R
o' m
'� Ta
� Q
c c
o C r,
U
C N
to N
O
is
v �
as
as
o
ca
c
o E
R E
L o
E
�v
o
¢
v
0
0
c
a
v
.N
c
m
c
d
d
c
c
W
c c
0
.
,
C .-
c0
d D
y y m O C U
O ' L
m .
+ t .
L O '� O L
m O
C E�
O).0
C 70 'U >`
m N N O m O O L Cc
J
C 3 L L E a .O
N a>
M E m 3 'O
-2 � y m a
_o
• O C U O N C O m y
>
c U
N - ��°.� °
-o Q o m
O cm '0 0rn
C.c
a�
° cc
� > m$
o,°= 8�-0
> d
c� m o aa c_v me Co
N N O N 'p
°= m rn$ c
o '� .
c .c 3
O m
U X
cn y ' N
> M
a •� N f 'm' N N
o o n i� -o w
C r- � o 0`
.F
8 C O o
O
� _m
�+ o m
'O O O L 0 y n C O
C
C O y O m 0
C U y C 0�
.=
.a_
m
� C L O O
O L O O O O C
•U
U@ .«L..
.O
m O
'D L O
N E O O O
m .� O a 2 C
cn
N
L L m O .�
E O
O M. m
L co N
O d ?+ • y y m o O
S a fn
t0
a�
_ C X =- C
c. O'o ED
O fC t .'_.. O
`= N Oy
w = 'O
3 O
O
J N m
0 n� c
= O m o C am
o a� nE O 00. (D O
O
N N cn X
01 C (` O` O
y m - C
O U D
m N
y
O N d N
W o
�- a �' O O? N N
O 8 m CL n m rs y c
0 0
N L C=
N W ,OO
..O
O
'L." y y d
C y m 7 C O
•°-_�
M S m o�
M- O a
m e �° m y
3 s
.0 m y
c E
3 'v .r N
c - c
m '3 s N o N 0 � @
N 5 2 m a
.0 L M O)
7 N .
.0 E
c0 O O
C
c
m
O O N 'M U
N
O O) m 'm m O) CL C
p N O a p m
m C ..L.. o
N
'0 � n
>
- O C O O
L
n a j O 0 a O
L C
L...
p O N N •O
d O N
L
m m
O
y
ca
` U O On. m
5
O O .0 C m C 0
U Lo 3 m o 3 O
O O O O
Z .a E �n
O�
'_ ��
O O O m L
U: 5 E N M
O O c O ' m L O
¢ E.6 m S 3 0. N c£
E
R
ao
0
a `
oa
c
0
c
0
c
0
ea
00
m
v
cn
O
N
J_
CL
Q
® I
J
Q
Z
0
U
�r
f r l
u
r - i
r'.
Ell
u
(i
L
U
I
R
oa
0
oa
c
• c
0
C
0
R
LM
m
cn
tZ
N
J_
d
Q
J
Q
Z
ww
3 0 -o
U
o ' 0
d m
Ix d
c c
0 0
is M
d = y
C � 0
m
O
R
V N
Co d
a)
o
c
o E
Aa
o
s
U
O
Q
U
O
o
c
m o
m
•fN
•>
w
•�
0
>
cm
C_
'O
CD
CD
c
CD
c
W
C) c
C p
• C
• y
c
ao
m cc N ° L a m
E C
C U m °)
0 a) U 'O O .0 m p
_0 N () ..+
OW
m 7
Q) N
m m
a)
N C O
E> p 0 L
N V -p J '0 'O -0
F O m
�, �.
'
N p c % N °- O a)
E
O m
�J
-0 m
y O
0) ` m > C 7 c
Q C W =
N
•O a) L m 0�
a a) ° '�
°_ c
0 m m m
m w
m cn cm 0 c 0 0 0 •p <C
c C o
3
p �
5; cc
c a) a c
° 3 a c O
> o a)
.2 o
° v cn m
p �- m m m 0
°: - 0 v a) n
E c
y O a 0_ c
a) w - v v d
° c
a) n E
m _
c m m a °- 'n
'v
c v "'
c m a) y
N 0
v
E 0
d ._
v cn _ 0
CL) `
3 c vi -0 D
. ? m a)
cn U) T
m 0 O)
y
3
m c
n. m `-'
p) C O
O c c . O
C to V j ' a)
f6
'?� E-0 0
d
v N C p
m
o
C C
0 = m
N m v) L 0
cm
•
c_
c° ti Co
U)
a)
CL v)
c v a) c
o°-
-
°
a) a� c
?� Q 0 0 m
c V a) Z m °c ()
m °
° ° a)
of
.
a) ?. a) p m m
-0
_°
C m 7
O a7 E
° y E 0 N .2"' _V) `. 7
.. 7 " L N
r n $
O a)
C
a ?«°.
•a) c
cc=`00 °E
m 0 a) -
c m
X
O O L-.
cn O Co C 0 0
0 0
0 a N
y
`' y
d y _ 2
p-0 m p N m
C• >, c �. L E
4= m o
C m > 3 m
o)
L) a) 'n = C S•
m
X o °
�° 0 3 °- c
fO o EE ) D °
m e o E o Y N
v f6
m c
0
a)
m °° c
N >. °? •°
a)
y 0 m o 0 o v
N 0 c rn c E >
E .o E m
a) a)
p ' y rn°
N w •0 . N
� Lm.�
L
m
.0 E O
.m
C E N a) N d d
ca O
N
.0
E w Co `_ y
"O ,�
7
C m
(O .0
W co L_
O
L Y
C N
m = `m
m
a) ° >.
E .� d
L C �
0 m d°
a) CD C m cc
t p m m
m m a) O c
L o_ 0-0 19 o° o o_
'�- � m
o
-$ N N
>, 0 m L
¢ .0 . m 2 E a) F- _6 3
0
y
N E c m m
R
oa
0
oa
c
• c
0
C
0
R
LM
m
cn
tZ
N
J_
d
Q
J
Q
Z
E
R
0o
0
O.
as
c
C
O
c
O
cc
ea
o`o
m
CO
c+�
`a
O
N
_J
d
Q
J
Q
Z
ti
o
,a;
co +�
o�
o' m
Ta
w a
c c
°
C W �
W N
O
N
V y
d
a)
O
V
c
O E
Z O
E
` V
O
Q
V
0
O
O
w
N
V
�N
O)
c
:
.5
C13
C)
C
m
C
c
W
C c
. r-
I-- .y
10 �
d 0
cm co °
d a`) w y c 0 0) c"
a) +- a� m a) N t` c
d E cc •E c Mn c LD
= . O O O) 'p
O `
• U
a)
L C W O C L .V O C°
•m
•m •p.
c c m E' a) U •� O
d. C O T
N N y
n
>
. N a) E U
O m CM O Cc a) V cm
•N
a) '-' •
.L.+ w O
L E N O 0 7
U
•N C U
. O 7 N L m C_
L U p.
N N m E 0
N N O
7 N 0
W
C d m
d .-`y.. n r5. m N a3 -
16
O a)
3 L C y ..r7.. N ti- O
p) N u
C U) y cc .y.
E cm C
0)i 8 �� o
v
a•° a) ° d E o a
a) a`) °�� �
c d m
m
O m
X
'U
�� ° w nc�
n m 'O Q 0
m� �w my > IM ai
>> ° L m 0 '°
8 o c�
C
W
N a) .°
a) = p `
°
7 >> y N
8 U a) n
a) U X
C
m$ 'C C >+ n
a)
CL
L E C N
Q
m
... a) N O "O d=
m 'D E d m m n
"O
C N T
C O O
" >+ c N N L
ca -
C N N p- 4) n d p C n
'C E pp °D
Cc
Ly.. N
m
p
y 'O N w U "�"
j ?�
m O— > .D U .0 .° N
. a
f0 C C?
`" y C
_0)
,._.
L° m C
_O - -° E O
O_ O O) N a n _°
a) -p 'L -° c
0 E c O-0 pC a) -O m 'C
y m U - y O O
L E y
O a) O N
.�
o w Cc ;o
m
—
�
° c. o > : -O N L a) N
a—
y
3 °) � -0 ° o rn n
m w a
3 �� y C W
y y C •0
O
C
— n 2- ry U) r
m -° N a (C N 2 ' �
7
fn
N y L 0 0 N C N
d
� p m `� 'v •O �
.._
V° `
°-Op y C�
O
E 0
. t5
! r°..
U O a) m
ni C a m 7�
m
L O .0
C C C d 5
�0 0
0 0
� n. d y .
m
m
c m L N y �'a d m a)
O0) Na)omas.0
C
o
m � a) m a) O
° 0 a) .� 7
Uu»�SCCU mrncc
O)
'O
E
R
0o
0
O.
as
c
C
O
c
O
cc
ea
o`o
m
CO
c+�
`a
O
N
_J
d
Q
J
Q
Z
ti
L
V
L"
L.
r;
G
r,
U
U
L "
I
c
G
l-1
E
L
O
CL
DO
c
`o
c
0
c
0
v
ao
x
7
M
N
N
J
CA
Q
J
Q
Z
Li
0
�Q W�
v
o
o -- m
. d �
ce O
c c
3
O O
m = v►
c G
e fA
O
eo
� as
as
m
o
c
o E
�v
o
s
E
�v
o
Q
v
0
o
c
�,
O
V
W
�>
C
�
C
m
c
c•
w
Co
.
S o
C ca
ao
O O j O O C C •'=
01 • C C y N
,.N, ' Q •� O N ?. cu �N N C B to
N N 'j ~ C N 'C "p (C .. a-
d 0 '
c i c N
N •C D aJ 0 �_ C •� N t C
•E •_ •=
�N
8
O O O •� N E O C N N (C N O O
_ ca
cl
L C N N m
N
N -O N N
d -p O
N 7 (S m - O
N p N 0 C& O- L N
O •v E L a) U N
CL • cm
D7 �' O
N C tN . cm
N N 0 . N O C C d E C
f6 t O
E m d N -,Eo c cc H ..+ �O p c L
•0 L 0.
N O
(p 0 O O N
S-
C p E IO
d L O a) a) L N
7 .0 cC N �p C E („) N p
= �. in o co C n 7
O CD W 'O c0 C N K m N r' 3 O_ ca C
o
`° 0
C N O)
0) tm
_ 'O
f`C O-0 L Q UO
- J "� •�
• p>
L �' C
0
L
5 O
� Q N O CL -
C N N y m J. m U O) Mn •� C -p
` •O N
O� 0
O
N O) O
. �� L _. N L Q N� O
L CO C N� C •`
5
o
E O N O • O -o p fn ^ y . O .y
3
m
= N N C C O` .a y c0 O. L >. ca O O
o °o as
~ •fl O O. C
J
°? a cc m - a� c
0 m p m m m m -0 m�
2 >.v o N v
U p- -- � pp c W c> >
7 N U - O
v E
o' 0 c O c
d— U W
O
++
N C O `�- N O O O •C
(6 E •� V O:. N •p
cC N M N - (C p O
vi y . Y .D E a� a> rn v O- C
D
3 O +-
N
O
c- O y �.. y m N
C
N O y C C y �L•. tC C 7 O .n � O
p
o'
.LO..
o a�i E y L o n m" as - t ,� o
N L. v c '- o •c
U E= ca N a) c •- w v-0 -. OL °-0 c
am N 3 v a) � c� c
°' �' ca U) a
? O .
•
,, N N
C p y o 0 �' N N
.o
c 2 �, N O C YO „ C •C 0 aa)i o V m m
V C .D C
•
O O m O O: 3 E N C
•O
E .0 E NLO-. N O E N "O "•' O �' • y
Q N
CL N
cn - O
m O_ 2
,
N U t ry d N > O �
L
C O L 7 O y
o c ca nN E o c nE
C N W .� ccn f0 — O
CO 0 - - co v 3W N N c 3 v
O_ N-
U o 2'i N
E
L
O
CL
DO
c
`o
c
0
c
0
v
ao
x
7
M
N
N
J
CA
Q
J
Q
Z
Li
E
A
00
0
a
00
c
0
c
0
cc
ea
Oro
00
c+�
8
N
J_
Or
Q ✓
Q
J
Q
Z
L-
w o
is +•
3 072
U
o
� �,
o — m
c c
of c H
go
W N
O
V of
of
d
O
V
C
R
O E
r
-
L O
E
0 U
o
Q
U
O
c
w
c
O
V
y
.
>
7
Im
C
.
m
co
C
d
C
C
W
� c
C O
.
,
C z
d �
C L
N N 0 ` m d y
On _
0
.. _
C O
0 O =
C N tC N N O N z
C
.O. >i
O
N C .
L
N 0
-
• C
O'vL 0 O 0I
E O O N O.
$ C O. C
N O
U f6 C _ C
L O N V
O O
` Q L d "O
.N.. O O f0 d O C f6 C
f0 O - O a)
°
Q) a7 .�. a)
`O
f0 E -0 N �' '> C .L...
CL O O Q Cc
U
C
m$ (D - r-
E m m N O E- C a) L •a)
() .- -°
oioai
E C C
��30 vZ�
d d 0 0 0 0
C •O
a? L a) w U
it,
00 .`
O O LO.. (
�
.O C
N O
E Cc CL cc
Z 0• O p
d
L
y —
0 w W y O O L
cc t5 E cL
_c O
• E
— 3 a1 m L
ca
N
O
N
E 5 w 0 > € m O cm m 'O C
O
O c - 0
w U C N O >.
0%a CO
L
d
to
.y
O d� d 7 C 0 a) C
m C p
v 8
p 'O j �`
U
'C U O� a O
0 .CM O
o
3
N@ N
y "6 p,.00 =
c E ai m v � E y n o
0 0 �
c U °—�
O
d C 0 O CM .d N O
�° 0 o N c `� �°
@
a) C d N C E �' �- 0 0
y E
vi
(6 'C m N
•` a C
v,
U �_` a) = a3 N rn
"C - C
'..
L
fn
E = V M (D vO V
(D C O N a) w C w C �O
- 6 :,:
Ot
.d "C N N N
C/3
f6
c
U rL... O`��
L .�- O C C L '0
of -'00
aa'i
c 3mQ,
E to c a m O O m o
0 O
caO
E E o O y
I1
N ,�
.. c o$ 0 2 'En —
0 N y O E C y
E C .
"
O C O a7 a) N
+�+
$ C w $ " U Q rn E .`.. .. a) rn
'V �
.0
0 0
1: E cc •�•
O O O N
— U in - D :aU
m
L L as a) ca
F E$ w 0 0.0 m cm cc
O
�
U o
a
o
E
A
00
0
a
00
c
0
c
0
cc
ea
Oro
00
c+�
8
N
J_
Or
Q ✓
Q
J
Q
Z
L-
U
L.
L
L
u
L.
L
1 l ��
b
ff " 1
uJ
L
r
1....
e
L.
i
� i
�.../
u
R
0
O
a.
oa
c
0
c
0
a
on
m
Cl)
N
J
a.
J
¢
Z
4.
O
r 01�
3 ov
0: CY
c c
d = h
co
{O �
O
R
V y
d
a)
O
v
C
O E
L O
E
U
O
a
v
0
o
c
w.
o .
U
M
C
.
m
ol
C
d
c
N
N
N
a)
N
C
O
O
O
O
O
W
CL
Q O
Q O
CL
¢ O
CL a
Q O
CL
Q O
IM c
0
C y
• C '-
R
CL o
a)
N "O
ca
a)
�• vi 12-2
w
'
L
2 -2
U
a)
y H "0 E N O
c O
C O_ 0 Cc
-
O E C
N
W '0 -2 a)
d O
a)
N 0
U O to O .
U O) Q
c c �- C S
N +� )
�
N O c i5
.D C3 d
0 O 0
U
v C U
X
fn
>1 C N
•
O
2
O_
— r
c y D a)
O y
W L
y m V C 0
X a) O
a)
,� c
N Q) U 2
O
N Y m
C
> to
d .
L
Q_- d a) W
� O N
..O.
.D .0 N S, —On-. .' S.
O d &Z C Q,
N CO
C L �O
W
L
C
= w y 0) X
N
U)
N O C �U
�oa)30•
j T O_ w 'p
w
,gv,ca)
0
C
O_ cc
E
A .O N N a) f0 a)
'j
C ..... V
O.
2
=
N �j a) E
N� O ��
O
� —
°
_
E
co
4) d ��
C � N o� d
o
° °-E
c
m
�.0 ° m
cm
O
2
f6 A C C a)
S •o 8 G
0 N O— s y a)
v� y 0 N N rn o
O`
°- L cc
N
>
$
o U
N E
CL
N 3
fn O) h
Q) a) 0 co W
O W N "y' O_
O C °-� a) "-
a) 0
N
C o C
Q
C
v _tn
'O 3 a) o
O C
7 . L�"
O_ 2 > 2
p) d>
O . N O_
N
to
_ m L N 0. O
a) H 0 O U C Q N
_ E U
8
_N
O
a�
) d y E
$ a$
Q a 3-o m
m-0 E (D 2v
a a)
a
T
ab
T L
L
T
Ob
Cb
Ob
U")
ui
ui
uj
ui
R
0
O
a.
oa
c
0
c
0
a
on
m
Cl)
N
J
a.
J
¢
Z
4.
w�
� ov
v
o
Ca
R C'1
c c
'o .2 'U
0
C � �
ff N
O
R
V N
m
d
O �
V
C
O E
E
-
L O
E
Q V
O
U
O
O
O
'C
O
R
V
.H
d
0
>
cm
C
m
C
>.
L
0.
L
L
0
�
C
.c
O
O
W
CL
C3.
CL
c2�
a O
Q
O
Q O
C C
c N
C •-
A
ao
,z+ N N fn O Z' •O fC
L O C
C
N
U f0 C fn a = C O � O 'p
E O Q �.. L N
..0..
'�$ 3s E o vv
o p
3 o o m c_� m Q
d N 2 y cn F E y N •-
>�
t N
N� j N d •` � U w O> O O C
C C Q 'O cc r 6 co
'fl
m
y cc C�
-o O` Q •O -E y •C d 0 N N
- c •in N N •� .y
m N N O c m °-� 'D �+ 0 U) - 0 f0
m a p m a c i
C7 U •O
m � ?3
U' ° v' ` W p cg C° ° c 75- 0 > rn
cn cn C m E Q O O d n O to
CU Lo
_
•C
c p `O
CL
d N O
— W U o c
u O O
0
(pQ
O C c N O O d O
a m m i3
C
C .a O
'o v
d cn O` ' O C L O .y y
a) E w n m v c o v cm 4 v 3
7
R
83 EE
� m o—°.3 E $� u) n
..
rns o
N C E O O CO C (C L O N
�c c E2 o °—a ' m e
... _N 7 Q C
to �..
A
c_
a�i
cc t6 • G. � c E �0 7- c O N
C%3 • p x j
'd L C O rte•• N
C O) co O L
2 N
n =
N N .0 - O 'O O m 7 C
m > > > y O a L 0 H w .O N
- a 0
co v
Y
E y
._ a� o ca ca w c c
c
.?
y a y p h
c m �� a
c
4 and
W
o o
S vim a m n >> `�� a�i ai
,`
C N C
V
W w
C U L L .... V N y 2 C p 0 d �.+
N
O (6
d
Z
N N N ... " N N cc p n N O O m U
m E m p C L co
O O) (n U .0 r> O �
O (/) y E "2 U c�i U
N p
Q
U L C N
y �
N • O f0 N C U co �' ' 'O � O C N cn C tv Z
_
N N O S n • N `� n '�
p
C
n (n O N fn G. > v .�. m N Ll- L
O a �in 8'a $ cn
d m m
ZO
o f nw
H
W
OO
00
J_
Ch
ui
ui
2
ui
L .,
D
o
L'
i
u
U
Li
i
1
L
L '
( r - %
U
1
G
E
Lao
0
CL
DO
c
0
c
0
c
0
a
tw
m
N
M
0
O
N
J
CL
Q
J
¢
Z
U-
m +�
� ov
U
0
o -_ CO
. d �
Ix CY
c c
o ° �
R m
O.
R
O N .
m
O E
2
L O
U
E
a
U
O
o
c
;.,
O
W
V
N
>
LT
c
.
3
m
L71
C
d
C
0)
c
W
Im c
. S.0
C �y
C •�
ao
m E
.� N (3
M —'' v° A c m v c�v " :G L( c E 6 o o ° � a
O C C C O O U U 0 0 •p N O O` n O N ¢
> C L • C ' O N O n
rn
Q • C C
.O. • N
CO ° O ." m m N f6 N c0 c0 y-. (C N
0
o a) ° a) c m `-° a� °D m
o
c
> cn 5 a� Q m ~ �' 5 - 2 cYi �` °- > E 3 a� c D
•
7 C y E � C
=O � rte..
O cm
•C
E
Q O E N 0 LL U �— N m L L (� 7 -O O C 4- •C
O°
N> N p O W = = O N
¢ O. N
N
d in C C N O W
N
.� D 7
d LO+ ¢ N
p � p
Q C E J m N .. y° y m'O 0 E 7 9 'E 8
c
¢ c0 3 .G j
t O
O
J N H m O O E c `- `+ N L +�•,• c N
m
c °' o c o a 0 m= a)
E
O m
o ° �- ¢ "- � m o a c s. m- cm E N
J O O N x
N
0 't O w c L ca w
C O C E
N O
M C O
-0 N > cn N N m C O O N tz -
¢ ,�O rn N E O C N O E C
• d
fn '� `�'
•N •� C `O' �O
fC • M
y > —O
� O .�.. m C f0 C O
id ' �' - v>i '��" •� 0 d t C E rn C O 7 n 0 0 r=
co
O •� N ..�.. O f N°
•�
¢¢ cn .0
2¢ N N 0 'O 0¢ 25 a) 0 C Q E m CL
C y
C N •`
U O "D O N
•>
d N
C N N C
• C
> cC N L U 2] c6 O O j L O
N C N (D — O n C U Y— -0 -0 O �
'O ~
A
O!
> 1 05 te ""' .j �O _ 'd0 -D C
¢ CO f0
,c d f6
O ¢ d 7 N C n N cc N Co N N C N '• -
E o
QM n0 cp
E
m 0
a
m> N m m N cn Om C n N O C O
N U O O N • n L 7 C
c L p o ° 0)
0 0 '�
d
U O N U 'fl N d 0 N C y N •� O •O _-r' V
cu m • m m o m rn c) N n a rn c m 0 c P x
V5.5' 3 '3 0 a) c ° t
a) CD
o m c 0
a ° i
a� m w a� ° ° a� m ca v
m 0 rn0 ° a x 0 °�� o m 2 o
'
N "O O O N O
O O j C> C n. O c ° ca
O L_
O` N>
0 c� 0
N c6 cn . N .— rL.. c0 C O C L_ O N n n
d d C c9 N 7 N r N O) cp y n-0 o M n
E
Lao
0
CL
DO
c
0
c
0
c
0
a
tw
m
N
M
0
O
N
J
CL
Q
J
¢
Z
U-
R
0.0
0
CL
00
0
0
c
0
cc ea
0a
a
N
N
M
14
N
_J
Or
CL
Q
J
Q
Z
o m
R
w C7
c c
o
C W 0
R �
O
R
V N
d
d
O
v
C
R
O
R r
t O
E
` V
o
Q
v
w
0
c
c
o
R
W
�
0
O)
C
m
c t
C
•C
CD
C
y
'CD
c
>
2
lJA
Q cx
CL
O
tm C C
.
.0
C y
>
N ._
p
N
w
N
d
>
O
O
O
Q O
Q O
Q O
C6
O C O
O Q
C
N— to C N 2 N
C C N
C�7 y N cc y N N
0 •C
N
N
O
N .- p T
42) N, Q
c
O
v
vr"
N t
�o
O O�
C (D _
N f3 y
ca a•g O- ��)
ti
c E oao
90)
ass c: ;t
E 8 0 <a - y m a. -9
•
rLO.. C
N .O C - o
CT 4)
C_
L
O H . > N
B Ca N O O
E
.N+ N N N N p� N
7 O) "'
C j
O "' N
C O N
a)
O
N
V .0 M d C 0 N
T L C
N O `O
O C N O. N a) LS a) w
•O
� C
�
N
c p
n ° m .6
Ca
O
2 Ca N 3 c - a
8 6 E a-
Q r >' s ° d
$
a
CD
p c
c
m o 0 0
( aN �� i v
.N cc
° 3 ca ca N c
ca tm
3 c o m a)
C6 'C
N O
C` C
W
N
p O , L'� C O. O
$L N�� 2N
N N N LL�_ O-'O O) - 49-0
C O dC C 7 d W
O
'p fG
N O N D
a) I
Y3 C N 0i L O
U
N '-� y E G Cp �y C �...
01
O y
- _0
a
C N N b CU C
C
O N C. Q E U U MO
g
N O - 25
cm :e - O C
N N
N O
a N U E N O
y 9?
Ca
` O
O N
C m E 'C Ca
C
• O. N
C6 C N + 'O O
O. •� N
'
N Ca
a3
O N
'2� m
5
:am
= U • X w
�Cy E 8 3 0
r d. 7 N> N
E
cu) -- b N N rno n
'
O p > p >
C •O d
N (COQ?,
H
O_(O2 'C O_
N
a)- p - C - N CC•D N O.•
a CL ca
F - . E Ca w
8 m 1— R
N
O_ Ca
Ca -A .
fa Ca
U .0
Ca
Cb
Cb
co
aO
CCi
to
CA
to
R
0.0
0
CL
00
0
0
c
0
cc ea
0a
a
N
N
M
14
N
_J
Or
CL
Q
J
Q
Z
L
I
u
u
G
E.
L
L'
L '
' 1i
U
V
u
L"
L '
L
U
L
an
0
CL
ao
c
`o
,r
c
0
c
0
v
on
M
M
N
M
ti
N
J
E
CL
J
Q
Z
Li
R w
3 0 •o
U
w Q
c c
3
O �
U � w
R N
co
W
R N
O
R
U N
CD
a)
O
v
C
R
O E
t O
E
U
O
Q
U
O
C
O
C.
g O
R
'y'
C
O
O
O
O
m
CL
Q O
CL
Q O
CL
¢ O
CL a
Q O
co
C
C
�
a)
C
O
W
`L
Q
Of C
C O
C 'y
C
ao
a) rn ++ - Co (D
a
U "o C
m
a) U ,U y C_
y a °
v a) G C C
`° 2) 3 .0 '.§
N E p N
b E
ate) v ayi
CL
• D U a) a)
N �,C
N U
"O � a)
J FS
N N N O d
O >.
N
.� 'o O O TS
U O
w N R
Y N— N
CwL(.�.D•o co N
R .co C a) co V
Um�.0
O
_° C a
t N a) Orn
L O t "o
N t
° L §
2 rn -0 2 1
U �
m cu
C C N
U O >
E d w o
N-
N
2 d
y
_ L 'o U
N
y y N
—
O M' O L
3
_N m -0 4O
R
3
_— :.� a) L 'o
>' M N U
• E
G N R
2 8 .j v
o o
a) O m � N L
C L �[
N vyi N
C7
CL d 9
tl!
M
U f0 N �
(D a) c .y
o1 N 8 .N
-S-
2
-Z • o C N G"O
1t C 2 C �' C
N N p, C =
�p 'O C a) o
a)
y G - o
o `.3 G o
°
Co as bi
— v
3
a) c a) N d
° °)
N
a) 0 -0 C o)
c-o� 0
y
2 X' C C Y
N °
rn G
m .t a) 'o O
N�
c
— y N
° 'o ms' o
2
c
�•�� �
rn a) c
�.U� - -� o ti
215- -o
4)
m-
v` o
•• C
° 7 N U
Cm a) C ai
a) co o .� o
O `a 3
a) N a) y `�
,G., N
C •U C D c
U m o •3
'o O) > X
G d O N
W
N Z G m Q
' m O d :U L
N
7 y r_
.� .0 m Z = O s
r•� y_
- O . . O G
-0 C C y
v
. L .. 0
N M • N g
3 8 N .D C C O 4)
CU fa
C N o N
a) _m m Q m A
�� O G C 3
o
0 a) N N
L U L
— G o °
C tC 7 L o $
= o
C a7 N j N
` a S , o
3 .� N C U
G
•C Z� U 2
C N O '� a)
d L E U a) N ,E
N
ca C a) N fp
° '�i 'C t6
a � -o 2 L
- C as C y U O
a R ` 'c ,v� a)
� C N
N
m a) v
a
.. d E U •� E
s
° m °' x �i
0 U Z N
.Q a) _ t fv c
c a) dj c
f6 �O
+9 8 a
-0 O C O C
C 2 2 q
rn
_rn p .N Co
s a) d ns
- o
R
a) :� a) 12 7 6 ,N
L U L (6 f6 l.; y
C , d Q) a) G
O a O_ ,'�- > L�
U
G
C R "o
� O y �' y G
W M U m U))
3 CL
�— as ►— -0 a cn c4 N
U m 3 o N n
fn 0 (n cm
N
N
N
N
N
CO
a0
ap
a0
d)
U')
In
In
l[)
In
an
0
CL
ao
c
`o
,r
c
0
c
0
v
on
M
M
N
M
ti
N
J
E
CL
J
Q
Z
Li
E
m
ao
0
CL
ao
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
R
oa
m
N
Cl)
0
0
N
J
CL
CL
♦
J
¢
Z
Li
d o
a�
3 o v
o' m
'IM Cc
o
CL
¢ O
c c
3
O
V ' Co C
d = N_
C m
m N
O
R
V N
N
c
m
O E
0 E
L O
E
2 0
O
Q
0
v-
O
O
:+
O
d
0
cm
c
m
C
N
m
d
c
�
y
v)
C
>
2
w
¢ O
C_ c
O
C y
c '>
R
a 0
C m C) L
m
S S a) - Z
O F - �$ I -
E C N
'a m E
U E
C) c
N (� C E
'a) •�
O C
D. N m
O N
O m C cc
C y °
.0 L (R 0
fl. y C
O_ a)
U U) • E
O f0 Qi E �
vi x • C
a)
O o
O C
v'� rno
��'y icv3'
m{ o c
` c m ° a�
c y y
E o m
E
`aa
c00-
c c
8w
8 w
>, m rn m
> 3
u� E c
�.
m ,� °
_
N
g�
3 0 -
L U
pG
U) o
•m
c'
8 �, €
cm cc
N C N
f6 H m 0 E
o
8
•Z � �
f6 L
`•' O Y O
'O
E Q C �
•O
o
d
y
o a 0_
>-o E
L a o L N
CL ` o cm
(1) U) L C O. m o
o cc'•E L Vj 0
N y �.-
U o 0 8 o
C E
m o o.�
d
�. C13 Jz c o
X "C N
m U v) w o
f 8 o o m
ui
h 8 m
d
C N 3
S
C
L m
cn
N
N
E O N y
vi d c
E
y L
C L m
CD E
g
a) o L (D
$� m
C E- O
m CC m a)
ca ° �fi
C
c a) m C m
y= 7 a) ui L
m w-0 m O C y U
a� �!'
E C t
N m a)
>
€� E�
m E
r L„
a �c n
rno m w o >.�-
3- m c` '
a) acs
.E E o°
CL
E rn n c
.
"a, v a
Q a) 'E u7
o a
O' fC $ a O V
E c
O E O • N O L d CL o
a? v o i o c
o f0 y O N 0 U E
-C • N to f0
a) > Q' C
� j C
' >� E
O p O.0 co C y N �
8
." c 8 IC N E O.
-&=
lC f0 N
79 o 15 a) m
vv >>tOco
>,
2 Cts
ao aE
w 0)c E c c 0
=
c 0 E rn
�
a d
° °m vi
Via; >t$
Ec�o�i a
cm
yc
r >mmmrn'v,�y
n
u,
> >Ym
o
$ c °° E
-
m n a
c c uD c io c o o m _
0 m¢ 3 ¢uA NLF-
c ° m ° c o w °-•E m
002w¢4- w L W 30
a� 0 o d
v)0 m
c m o
L O .0
° _mom
L O a) �C CL m
m
ch
LO
E
m
ao
0
CL
ao
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
R
oa
m
N
Cl)
0
0
N
J
CL
CL
♦
J
¢
Z
Li
li
J
U
U
E
L
I
Ell
L
U
U
I ( ' j
U
r
u
E
F
It
U
l
1
E
0
0
CL
on
c
`
c
0
c
0
cu
ca
00
m
N
M
N
J_
Q
J
Q
Z
L-
:: 7 .3
3 0 -o
O' m
o
w CY
¢ O
c �
C
d = N
R co
O
V d
as
O
C
O E
A!
.0 O
E
� U
O
Q
U
O
O
C
O
V
N
d
�
C
.
m
O]
C
C
�
�
W
�
>
CL
O
cx
CL
Q
C
O
O) r
C p
C 'y
c '—
n. o
_
°
m ._
pp
O C C O_ 7 U 7 cC
D
y fC E T N . C L 7 W
o COD .�•. cu .
W
G. U -0 —O `p N N 2
m O (n ` .0 ti p N .
U rn�
> C cc •
O
N
N ,�, C c C •IC N
d N O C C C U 'L" �"�
d N C
•
o c iu d O 3
V ,� N �p v� m N "
w y c O •e
c CJ to U N =- w
5 3 6 L 3
�'
m O N
3
- E r ° c 0� j =o
`m -C
o y m� 0 0 Q c � °� �,
o
� (D f° a co
'p
y Co .°
m `° Q °: L c
y o D c 15
rn `° c E c �- cd o
3 'O)
Z g E
3 of o
.�
o
O (O ` .0 y .L.. R ug
e' 'D N N d _ O L
O N to
`
O� C W (C > c N �O 7
'� C c
°$ c0
d
7
U
c
N
8 c V C a c f0 N° O)
c .o m U
N L cc • N p .2) c c c4
�' V ° rn$ m
p) d N U
ca
°
5) N OS �w•o' -c-p
=m caaU - a�ci E`= c c o
� c -�
Cc
CL
O
°`
E°
L m _ y �
an d L 3 N= a)
c •v T ` U N cm
ca . ? o o y° c
o-0 d N cc
a d w •v
-° O
O cep N C y> 0
c�oi
O. - C c ` a cc
O N
c
N m U p> >
S E O
c6
O ' N f6 I--- U
m 'V ` N
W - p N> •� T a U
O n L N c6
y N
N U
C Y
O_ " L >`
N f6 O
� `� �
•V
C N U—
(6 O_
U h L w m 2 f6 O w l N
•O d m N 8
3 O m E
y 6
•.• �C N 'p
N m
`� ~ g t a: m t c
° o > m m Q a g
co a i+ y
c o
o a
w m y> Q v •° m m
`o � iu 3 �° :s T c
° CL c
O
.•°n _
5 vii o c m E m c a 010 cm
a m y
5 E E :2 cis C
®
z m° ® ®
.O
c0
L
C?
U')
ui
lL
E
0
0
CL
on
c
`
c
0
c
0
cu
ca
00
m
N
M
N
J_
Q
J
Q
Z
L-
o
cv w
3 0 'v
U
o ' m
R
W_ Or
C c
o_ U
Cf j
cu N O
O Q c
Q 0
-O
V N
. 2 9
O O E
�o t O
E
CL 2 U
O Q
U
0
O
° O
R
V fN
i_i-
0 G
C
'O
m
c
d .D
•� O
C
CL a
w Q O
O O a a o
a. 0 0 0 0
CL CL
° d O ¢ O ¢ O
o U aUi U .� •`= = H N d M N ° O N f° o � "OO `A .L
cn T� m E - Om Na a v Q N c 9 y 8�,�` Nz
U) N a o Q v o c cc L y > m c° a.
C- •° 0i a L" �. 7 d N n •a c r y U N (� — .r N y C.
L "O N O a) m N C° f6 O N w LL w C C 7 C a) a3 M N 3 c L C �' w 8 Cn CD
o v U v D �+F o w > U) Z' c N E o c o > cc ca
o n g °� Q o n o c o T •— m Co `m co
Zm m CM 2 °> i� a`��E ca3oaZiiuN�a�rmn v
N d �` O �►_ LL O N N N C co a) N o ns N �_ m n C °_
N N N a) O t o G: s `•' C° L O �' V c
CD m 3 a) W .a N c !n n U C •� N N O 0 0 H o C � m
a -- U �-- g -vow' -° `oaa>m °o�
a v c Z ° � .tL o c ?� N E o E •c - o ca
0 C N w O n U N N m d N N m N 8 ' ccv d v, C is N a
as on •v 2:. m y c E o C 2 N m ca _ •� H e a— y as U
o �Uv m > ° E s E >, cu f° .! =: cn 0) L ° 79 -0 .0 vv c
W n O N O H — cc ° a " '`- C N O a) O " 0 - - in - ;a
a� n m s o 3 c— Co LL w Co x a� •� . 0- 6 m N
O
f 'v a) o - N N U �_ a) > m N m c o y a) D O N
o W m O c o n a 2 a c o a"i o E y o Z as N .
o m n E E m n° U) N c L �N >. c
'2 N — . p. 9 U y y a� c a c; v S o a, a) N
o c m r„ o o C 20 Co CO) 9 N o w c` v m� v C C
C G. c � d Z a` c li n 0 (A E& o � a cc 3 m o C a
O
I-
N w L M
� J Ch M LO
L L6 L6 U-i
L ,
I
4
0
u
U
L
�r l
l.J
L
f
L. I
E
R
OuD
0
CL
on
c
0
c
0
c
0
v
LM
z
N
M
O
N
J_
LL
Q
O
J
Q
Z
w o
3 0
co
0 m
iv
ce a
c c
3
O
U R w
Of�•
W V)�
0
W
N
. V
d
d
O
C
O E
e E
.c o
E
U
o
Q
U
0
.0
c
O
w
V
.y
>
�
C
�
•O
>
—
m..
O
CL
Q
C '
C
D
�
C
>
O
W
p.
CL
"
Q
LA C
C C
.y
C
a)
N
CU
IL
>
0
0
>
m
0
CL
¢ O
CL
¢ 0
CL
¢ O
p o 0
v d
•� �
N C
M O N
CL
N (n C
(D CI
U .Q E E O` N
.-
ti a) "C
O f9
CD
O C O
w
- °_: y
m °�
o° g o 3
v
0
co a a a a) c d -v u)
C C ,
o E= (D
a=
CL E
o
CM
m m
a 2 0
m ° c 6 c L°
y °- S a) 3�
o o
� U
c
A o
a)�'c.0
a) c c� o°
O E C6 w
N Co 0 o E RD u,
.3
w � co E
M �
4 = c��
O
Wt V O O C
y N y 0 0 N N
y c E
O y C
c. a)
O m
s
N N U ;!v
v_ m °
V5a N
m c
(D >3
�
ca
= s
v a) -0
m e N 0 v 5
o° a
o
��°
.0 () m �•.
3
w
c - E N
0 0 0
o) .a3 ° o L
a) w ai iu n.
3 �,
n s E
rn
z
O
o v
:-° m y
- m E 0
v �_ o o
a)
v c
0 N O a) C
U) �` 3 C o
u) ( H
' Fn
co o
•-
C a)
O i > U U
G a)
• a) Li a)
co 0 Lo
CL °
._ 0
a
C „ )
cnN
H
_O
^j rn?3
0 •w cn
0
E v m Lu -
c Q = v
a) �� 0
M m
= N' N
V
•_ .0 -= O O C L1 d
cc E
U w d C
N
? N
CO O 0 , ) a) •C
WW c v y
N X aj 0 3 C C U .S
m m w N
z
U
N V a)
Q
N= N N
L= o v ro io
E
• co E v v c O cn a v- i
- to 5
m
a c o o
•
O 5 a) ia 0 �
Z
U O O N
7 w •C H CO N O U U
C Z` N
O C6
N
C j N
O
N 7 0 L .�
y E • rn
>
0
N >, a 0 E to a) o
CO () •C U .0
n w e
0
a
m e
cm
0 3 M c
O O o d N
-o
C --. W w
V m c m o n
a) 76 a)
3 c 0
_c O
E
O CU E
v n
n` n w cm
zz
U) C7
F
Z
Q
0
0
N
Ch
F
F-
ul
LL
N
N
�-
"'
N
Ch
J
Ch
L6
m
ui
L6
2
cn
6
E
R
OuD
0
CL
on
c
0
c
0
c
0
v
LM
z
N
M
O
N
J_
LL
Q
O
J
Q
Z
E
w
00
0
a.
on
S
ft-
C
0
c
0
cc
ca
ao
m
00
N
m
O
0
N
J_
o_
Q
J
Q
Z
LL-
ea +•
v
ofm
Ta
w O
c C
0-
v
C W D
l6 C40
0
R1
V N
d
d
O
V
c
O E
5
E
t O
E
�U
O
Q
V
w
O
O
C
�
0
Qm
c _
3
m
Cf
c
m
d
C
. CD
c
W
tm c
c
C 'y
L
L
N
N
a.
o
0
CL
O
Q-
¢ 0
a) Mn
d w
..0.. .L
C
m m
y C C M
a C .Q
L
D o
o
3 c U +7
m m
U d
c
O
c n m
O L - 9
0 0 =
co CL
3 a`"i �° c
c as
c _Co
� m� E o
8a - )
ccAe
E
m
EL ui a)
L L N
,=
w cm
ai N C L C
0
Co c m
N o a�
c N
y m cm
(n
A
N C_
a) w
L
N
v c
fO E o
a)
U
(C N m
L •p -,5
m
" — C N m
ac °aw
Co
a °
E2 2E
— a
y�
O
0 3 c
m
N_
Y ..-•
N ;
0 L
C N U f0
CL
cn 0
O
O ?.
cc
m
a
E _O
- Fu
n W o
o E
Co
C O
O w O
p cu
f p
"O C cc
U
CL
_
5 uyi
a3�'Q
T a
i5 aim
m a m t
U 4- CL U)
M
to
00
cri
L6
E
w
00
0
a.
on
S
ft-
C
0
c
0
cc
ca
ao
m
00
N
m
O
0
N
J_
o_
Q
J
Q
Z
LL-
r
I
L
r
L
L
F
L
ii t
L
F
L
L
r
L
r
L
L
F
L
L
L
f
L
f
L
14.0 Comments and Responses
10,
r BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
G
14.0 COMMENTS AND RESPO
In accordance with Section 15088, 15089 and 15132 of the California Environmental
QIUdIIL Act (CE QA) v;:ideiineu the City of Seal Beach has prepare the
�+ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Boeing Specific Plan Project (SCH
#2002031015).
U
G i
U
G
G
L
i
0
1
This Comments and Responses section combined with the Draft EIR, which was
circulated from December 27, 2002 to February 10, 2003, make up the Final EIR.
The City of Seal Beach accepted public comments through early March, 2003. Any
additional City recommendations or requirements during the certification process will
make up the final components of this EIR.
The following is an excerpt from the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132:
"The Final EIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft EIR or a version of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim
or in summary.
(c) A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft
EIR.
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised
in the review and consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency."
This Comments and Responses section includes all of the above - required
components and shall be attached to the revised Draft EIR to make up the Final EIR.
Each comment letter is followed by the corresponding responses. A response is
provided for each comment raising significant environmental issues, as received by
the City during the Draft EIR review period. Added or modified text is double
underlined ( example ) while deleted text is struck out (example).
FINAL ® APRIL 2003
14 -1
Comments and Responses
Cl of ����
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
1. Doug Dancs, City of Seal Beach
2. Haissai i i'. Sallow i , California Department of Toxic Substances Control
3. Thomas E. Barratt, Golden Rain Foundation
4. Stephen J. Buswell, California Department of Transportation
5. Mac Cummins /Lee Whittenberg, City of Seal Beach
6. Environmental Quality Control Board Public Hearing, January 29, 2003
7. David Rosenman, M.D., Seal Beach Resident
8. Sandy Hesnard, California Department of Transportation
9. Samuel H. Dunlap, Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council
10. Jeffrey Smith, Southern California Association of Governments
11. George Derry, Long Beach Resident
12. Frances Howard, Long Beach Resident
13. David Ludwig, Orange County Sanitation District
14. Donald Chadwick, California Department of Fish and Game
15. Timothy Neely, County of Orange, Planning and Development Services
Department
16. Bill Hurley, Seal Beach Resident/EQCB Board Member
17. Gene Begnell, Orange County Fire Authority
18. Glen Campbell, Orange County Transportation Authority
19. Clayton Corwin, StoneCreek Company /Boeing Realty Corporation
20. Michelle Thomas, Long Beach Resident
21. Dave Bates, Island Village Home Owner Association
22. Roy Herndon, Orange County Water District
23. Steve Smith, South Coast Air Quality Management District
24. Robert Joseph, California Department of Transportation
25. Karl Schwing, California Coastal Commission
26. Angela Reynolds, City of Long Beach
27. Robert Dorame, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
28. William Hoy, Seal Beach Resident/Archaeological Advisory Committee Member
29. Lee Whittenberg, City of Seal Beach
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -2 Comments and Responses
L
C®MMENI" NO. 1
[� er
Lee Whittenb g FILE COP
(_ From: Doug Dancs
U Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:08 PM
To: Mac Cummins
Cc: Mark Vukojevic; Lee Whittenberg; Ron Brust (E -mail)
I LJ ! Subject: Boeing EIR comments
f
Mac,
`-'
We limited our comments to those that would cost the City money if not included in the Draft EIR.
❑ Traffic Signal @ Lopez Drive: Page 5.3.57. This section was somehow deleted as a mitigation
p
A
measure. We want the Developer to install and pay for this Signal in addition to paying their traffic
impact fees and should be included as a mitigation measure.
❑ Lopez Pump Station: Page 5.1.15. The report still mentions fair share costs at the Lopez Pump
1
Station. There should be no reference to this station and Boeing will pay for all the costs of their private
lift station.
[j
❑ 4051Overcrossing: Page 5.3.37. The report mentions that there will be additional auxiliary lanes on
in any of the
1 C
the 405 Overcrossing. This is not accurate and the auxiliary lanes are not referenced
City's applications or reports with Caltrans.
r I
LJ
Let's discuss at the meeting you are setting up next week with City staff.
Doug
Douglas A. Dancs, P.E., Director
Department of Public Works
v
LI
El
14 -3
1 `22'200:
C, o ,C s� r
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 1
Doug Dancs, City of Seal Beach
January 6, 2003
1A. Page 5.3 -56 of the Draft EIR, under Mitigation Measure 5.3-1c, the
U
following bullet/text has been added to the Final EIR:
® Seal Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive — Seal Beach at Adolfo Lope _z Drivels
currently unsignalized. An analysis of this intersection indicates that the
"Permissive" turning movements onto Seal Beach Boulevard from Adolfo Lopez
Drive experience delays indicative of LOS E/F conditions with the addition of p roject
traffic (see HCM /LOS calculations sheets in Appendix B of the Traffic Stud
contained as Appendix 15.2 of this EIR ). This can be expected g iven the hi
volume of traffic that exists on Seal Beach Boulevard and the lackof sufficient gaps
in the continuous north -south traffic durin the PM oeak commute hour. jt i
recommended that a three - phased traffic signal with a separate right turn lane be
installed at this location. This improvement shall be the sole responsibilit of the
Bo eing Sp ecific Plan p
moject. A ppendix C of the Traffic Study contained as
Appendix 15.2 of this EIR, cont ins s the traffic si nal warrant worksheet for this key_
stud iv ntersection.
7
a
1B. Page 5.11 -15, Paragraph 4 of the Draft EIR, has been revised as follows r�
in the Final EIR: U
Improvements in accordance with the Water and Sewer Master Plan, along with
replacement of the Boeing Pump Station and PaymeRt of the fair-share Gests f4a
FGP'aG8M8At of IhA_ A.d-olfb Lopez Pump Station would reduce potential impacts to less than
significant levels.
0
1C. Page 5.3 -37, Paragraph 5 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows in
the Final EIR: 0
The phased approach was -pursued because of the uncertainty of future freewa
improvements impacting the brides during the process and ack of funding for reconstructin
the brid required to accommodate the bridge widening for three lan in ea ch direction.
Recent correspondence from OCTA has indicated that impacts to the facility would not
happen until 2020. If the widening were constructed now, this would aive the facility less
than an a 15 - y ear life since the future�roiect would again need to replace the
bridg The current cost ba accommodate both the widening and the lengthenin for the
future HOV_proiect is estimated at $14.000.000. It is still the intent of the City to widen the
bridge to three lanes in each direction even if there is no freeway roiect or traffic conditions
warrant it sooner. The City intends to aapl for the next reauthorization of the Federal TEA
Program, as havema_ other agencies along the 1 -405 corridor for similar bridge t ym
widening pro e
Avei;ue, Seal Bearhil 495 Sguthbound ramps, as well ar, the Seal Bear.141 405 NoFthbouncl_
Capital improvement Program (CIP). cwmnt C112 'd9Rinq of the SARI
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -4 Comments and Responses
1
0
r
0
0
N mr. 1 mr-3r.
Page 5.5 - 43 ; Paragraph 7 of the Draft EIR, has been revised as follows in
the Final EIR:
G
1 1
G
G
L
L
0
G
El
♦ Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 Southbound Ramps — Widen Seal Beach Boulevard
Overcrossing to provide a third northbound and southbound through lane, p4k&-a
north-ba-und- auxiliary lane on the bridg&, and a second southbound left -turn lane.
Modify traffic signal accordingly.
A review of the Project Study Report/Project Report for Route 1-405 at
Seal Beach Boulevard identifies that the first phase of the interchange
improvement project includes the widening of the existing exit ramps to
provide for three lanes on the 1-405 southbound off -ramp, and widening of
the 1 -405 northbound off -ramp to provide an additional right turn lane to
Seal Beach Boulevard, widening the ramp intersections to provide dual
left turn lanes for southbound Seal Beach Boulevard at the 1 -405
southbound on -ramp and 1 -405 northbound on -ramp, and widening of the
1 -405 overcrossing approaches to provide three northbound through travel
lanes on Seal Beach Boulevard at the 1 -405 southbound and northbound
ramps that transition to two through travel lanes in each direction on the
Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing (the existing bridge would not be
modified). This phase will prevent both the North and South intersections
of 1 -405 and Seal Beach Boulevard from reaching a level of service F and
would improve traffic flow to a LOS of E or better. Please refer to Sheets
L -1 and L -2 of the "Project Study Report/Project Report on Route 1 -405 at
Seal Beach Boulevard" (included in the pages which follow this response)
for a graphic representation of these proposed improvements.
The phased approach was pursued because of the uncertainty of future
freeway improvements impacting this bridge during the process and lack
of funding for reconstructing the bridge required to accommodate the
bridge widening for three lanes in each direction. Recent correspondence
from OCTA has mentioned that impacts to the facility would not happen
until 2020. If the widening were constructed now, this would give the
facility less than an approximately 15 -year life since the future project
would need again to replace the bridge. The current cost to
accommodate both the widening and the lengthening for the future HOV
project is estimated at $14,000,000. It is still the intent of the City to
widen the bridge to three lanes in each direction even if there is no
freeway project or traffic conditions warrant it sooner. The City intends to
apply for the next reauthorization of the Federal TEA Program, as have
many other agencies along the 1 -405 corridor for similar bridge type
widenings. Also refer to Response to Commentor 5F.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -5 Comments and Responses
c w s�Re-CA
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
N mr. 1 mr-3r.
Page 5.5 - 43 ; Paragraph 7 of the Draft EIR, has been revised as follows in
the Final EIR:
G
1 1
G
G
L
L
0
G
El
♦ Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 Southbound Ramps — Widen Seal Beach Boulevard
Overcrossing to provide a third northbound and southbound through lane, p4k&-a
north-ba-und- auxiliary lane on the bridg&, and a second southbound left -turn lane.
Modify traffic signal accordingly.
A review of the Project Study Report/Project Report for Route 1-405 at
Seal Beach Boulevard identifies that the first phase of the interchange
improvement project includes the widening of the existing exit ramps to
provide for three lanes on the 1-405 southbound off -ramp, and widening of
the 1 -405 northbound off -ramp to provide an additional right turn lane to
Seal Beach Boulevard, widening the ramp intersections to provide dual
left turn lanes for southbound Seal Beach Boulevard at the 1 -405
southbound on -ramp and 1 -405 northbound on -ramp, and widening of the
1 -405 overcrossing approaches to provide three northbound through travel
lanes on Seal Beach Boulevard at the 1 -405 southbound and northbound
ramps that transition to two through travel lanes in each direction on the
Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing (the existing bridge would not be
modified). This phase will prevent both the North and South intersections
of 1 -405 and Seal Beach Boulevard from reaching a level of service F and
would improve traffic flow to a LOS of E or better. Please refer to Sheets
L -1 and L -2 of the "Project Study Report/Project Report on Route 1 -405 at
Seal Beach Boulevard" (included in the pages which follow this response)
for a graphic representation of these proposed improvements.
The phased approach was pursued because of the uncertainty of future
freeway improvements impacting this bridge during the process and lack
of funding for reconstructing the bridge required to accommodate the
bridge widening for three lanes in each direction. Recent correspondence
from OCTA has mentioned that impacts to the facility would not happen
until 2020. If the widening were constructed now, this would give the
facility less than an approximately 15 -year life since the future project
would need again to replace the bridge. The current cost to
accommodate both the widening and the lengthening for the future HOV
project is estimated at $14,000,000. It is still the intent of the City to
widen the bridge to three lanes in each direction even if there is no
freeway project or traffic conditions warrant it sooner. The City intends to
apply for the next reauthorization of the Federal TEA Program, as have
many other agencies along the 1 -405 corridor for similar bridge type
widenings. Also refer to Response to Commentor 5F.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -5 Comments and Responses
- Imo. I I S i3'
n
CL
� Y
O
e
e = O
i `a m� c
— WU 2
-
5 0 W" U _
� a C NIAW U
w g ohm c
m
yll ^I I I6IUtV I
u
t
°i
03SIA3H 31xO
AS 03SIA3?J
i -
I '
I �
Ir r i
�I
I _
I
1
i
1 I 1
+ I
I ,
� I I
I
' II 'I II
II
' 1b /.
\ Z
AS 03M33H3
.8 03NOIS30
O J_:
<o
oa
a�
OW-9/V
14 -6
;I 00'00 +9L vls Z 133HS 33S 3NIl HOIVVY
I
I
i
1�J
U
U
G
rI 1
lJ
Ll
U
I
I
U
U
1
U
U
L..J
i
t t `\ 1111 W LL1 < � LL1111 IlL��1111111111�1` 11111111111111 J ` -
p E Z
O ; �.
W o c, < i G Q
— s < a¢-'T lz J a 1
m
�-�10 I
NO I
e .
� N I I(t VNV R��I�i 44 � 1 • I . J '
I Il I i'
D
.1
I
N / N
COZ
:2
j Wu.
W / I °O
ca
Q
IW �
/
/ s4 '
00 +91 vls L 133HS 33S 3N1 HOIVW
03SIA34 31v0 ZO /6 A8 037103110 r_9/y *--7
AS MSIA3a ZO 6 16 03101530
�v tlINNOjlltlO
/a3ivin��v� 1 4_7 . 3AO 1OIS30 NOI1v1NOd5NVHI 30 1N3W1HUN - j0 31tl15
Winston H. Hickox
Agency Secretary
California Environmental
Protection Agency
COMMENT
Department of Toxic Substances Control
January 23, 2003
Edwin F. Lowry, Director
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
CRY OF SEAL BEACH
JAN 2 7 2003
DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT SE RVICES
Mr. Mac Cummins
Assistant Planner
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
(I
01
Gray Davis
Governor
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (SCH #2002031015)
Dear Mr. Cummins:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Notice of
Completion (NOC) of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above -
mentioned project.
Based on the review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows:
1) DTSC's March 18 2002 - comments regarding the Notice to Preparation of a draft
EIR have not been adequately addressed in the currently submitted draft EIR, 2A
especially Comments No. 3, 6, 10, and 16.
2) Page 5.10 -15, Table 5.10 -5: Chemicals detected at the project site during Phase
II Environmental Assessment are compared with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) Preliminary Remediation Goals
(PRGs). These numbers are not the screening criteria and are not acceptable 2B
for DTSC. PRGs are U.S. EPA's nation wide cleanup standards. Site specific
health risk assessment is the criterion used by DTSC for evaluating sites and
determining cleanup numbers.
3) Page 5.10 -22, Study Area 2, Bullet #2: The draft EIR states that soil sampling
and analysis was conducted for five of the underground storage tanks (USTs)
and subsequent soil testing has concluded that no contamination exists from the 2C
sixth UST that was removed. It should be indicated in the draft EIR the name of
the regulatory agency that oversaw the investigation and whether they issued a
"No Further Action" certification.
The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption.
For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Web -site at www.dtsc.ca.gov.
9 Printed 14 -8 :ycled Paper
r 1
U
U'i
E
L
I l
I
I
L
Mr. Mac Cummins
January 23, 2003
Page 2
4) Page 5.10 -22, Study Area 2, Bullet #5: The draft EIR states that soil sampling
analyses confirmed that there is no soil or groundwater contamination as a result
of the original hazardous waste storage located south of Building 89. As noted in
the above comment, the regulatory agency information should be presented in
the report. The report also states that all levels of chemicals and metals
detected in the soil samples were within typical ranges, resulting in less than
significant impacts. Please present and identify sources of typical ranges. If the
typical ranges are referring to the background sample concentrations, present it
in the draft EIR. Unless it is clarified, DTSC is unable to make a
recommendation.
ME
5) Page 5.10 -23, Study Area 2, Bullet #2: As stated in the above comment, typical
ranges should be provided for verification purposes unless it is overseen by a 2l,
regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous waste cleanups.
6) Page 5.10 -23, Study Area 2, Bullet #3: As mentioned above, adequate data
should be provided to validate the information that volatile organic compound 2F
(VOC) and California Code of Regulations (CCR) metals concentrations were not
elevated or at hazardous levels.
(j
7) Page 5.10 -23, Study Area 2, Bullet #4: Above comment is applicable to this
1 2G-
LLJJ
section too.
{
8) Page 5.10 -23, Study Area 2, Bullet #5: Provide more information as stated
2H
U
above.
'
9) In addition to the above, the draft EIR indicated in several areas that further
t�
studies would be conducted, and if concentrations of hazardous chemicals are
2�
detected above regulatory cleanup levels, mitigation measures would be
'
implemented. Please make these as conditions of approval of the draft EIR.
10) Page 5.1 -28: Finally, no mitigation measures are recommended in the draft EIR.
(?
Unless a complete environmental investigation of the project site is conducted,
2J
the draft EIR should not be approved. Therefore, DTSC recommends that
appropriate data gaps should be resolved prior to the final approval.
DTSC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA)
preparation and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP).
For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC's web site at
www.dtsc.ca.gov.
L —
' 14 -9
Mr. Mac Cummins
January 23, 2003
Page 3
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Johnson P. Abraham,
Project Manager at (714) 484 -5476.
Sincerely,
AA- --All -,
Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E.
Unit Chief
Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch
Cypress Office
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812 -3044
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento,. California 95812 -0806
14 -10
I
(I BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 2
Haissam Y. Salloum, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
�x January 23, 2003
ll
2A. Comment 3 in DTSC's March 18, 2002 letter is as follows:
Ir -�
�D
I
u
G
E
L
L
rl
V
U
L
L
"The draft EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any
required investigation and /or remediation for any site that may
require remediation, and the government agency to provide
appropriate regulatory oversight."
The "trigger" for initiating an investigation is an indication that potentially
hazardous chemicals were used, stored, disposed, or otherwise handled
in a particular area. Classic examples of areas likely to warrant
investigations are underground storage tanks (USTs), sumps, chemical
storage areas, and the like. When an impact to the subsurface
environment is confirmed, at that time, the appropriate regulatory
agency(s) would be notified and would oversee Boeing's response. For
soil and some types of groundwater impact related to USTs, the Orange
County Health Care Agency ( OCHCA) would be the lead regulatory
agency. For other types of groundwater impact, the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB) would be
the lead regulatory agency. It is noted that the remaining active USTs at
the Seal Beach facility were permitted through OCHCA and are operated
in compliance with OCHCA's permit conditions and other applicable
regulations. Boeing's obligation with respect to these USTs would be to
obtain permits for their removal and collect invert soil samples for
chemical analysis after they are removed. When the one remaining
active UST is no longer needed to support on -going operations, Boeing
shall be required to follow OCHCA's requirements for closure, including
those for invert soil sampling and reporting.
Comment 6 in DTSC's March 18, 2002 letter is as follows:
"All environmental investigation and /or remediation should be
conducted under a Workplan which is approved by a regulatory
agency who has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous waste
cleanups. Complete characterization of the soil is needed prior to
any excavation or removal action."
When an impact to the subsurface environment is confirmed, at that time,
the appropriate regulatory agency(s) would be notified and would oversee
Boeing's response. Through its permitting program for UST closures,
OCHCA would oversee and direct investigations related to active USTs at
the site. OCHCA and any other involved agency typically require
comprehensive characterization prior to excavation or other removal
actions. Investigations performed in response to a regulatory agency
request or under the guidance of a regulatory agency would be performed
in accordance with an approved work plan.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
14 -11
Comments ana Kesponses
C, o,c s� A
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
In addition, Mitigation Measure 5.10 -1a has been revised in the Final EIR
as follows:
5. 10-1? .Soil r_.harar_.terization and sampling of PECA's in the redevelopment
areas of the Project site shall be conducted as needed to
determine the presence or absence of hazardous materials, prior
to grading activities.
Comment 10 in DTSC's March 18, 2002 letter is as follows:
"The project construction may require soil excavation and /or filling
in certain areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal
of the excavated soil. If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose
it rather than placing it in another location. Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. Also, if the
project is planning to import soil to backfill the areas excavated,
proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the
imported soil is free of contamination."
DTSC's comments on characterizing excavated and imported fill
materials are valid and are a part of Boeing's due diligence program.
Typically, soil being removed from, or relocated within, a site is analyzed
for the constituents likely to be present based on past land use(s). The
results of these analyses are used to profile the material for offsite
disposal or recycling as appropriate. The results may also be used in a
risk assessment to determine whether the soil may be used as fill material
within the site boundary. Similarly, soil imported from offsite locations,
including so- called "greenfield" locations, is analyzed prior to
transportation to Boeing property. Absent any indication of probable
contaminants, imported soil is screened for common organic and
inorganic compounds, such as petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and metals. Refer also to Mitigation Measure No.
5.10 -1 in the Draft and Final EIR.
Comment 16 in DTSC's March 18, 2002 letter is as follows:
"A groundwater investigation may also be necessary based on the
nature of onsite contaminants and the depth to groundwater. The
NOP states that the Phase 1 Environmental Assessments
concluded that past operations within the project area have
included. underground storage tanks, groundwater monitoring
wells, water wells, a wastewater discharge line extending from the
existing building operations to the San Gabriel River, piping
connecting plating tanks, sumps/clarifiers, electrical substations
that utilize PCB - containing fluids, chemical and hazardous waste
storage and an oil well. Additionally, a trichloroethylene (TCE)
groundwater plume associated with the historic storage of
hazardous substances on the USNWS (U.S. Naval Weapons
Station) has traveled in a southeasterly direction adjacent to the
site. "
r111M ® HrKIL LUU3 14 -12 Comments and Responses
L
I,
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
L
According to Tait Environmental Management, Inc.'s (TEM's) Phase I
r ESA report for Study Area 3, the depth to groundwater beneath the site,
as measured in on -site monitoring wells, has ranged from 15 to 20 feet
below ground surface (bgs). That said, however, Phase II ESA borings
a a,
4 1I a I to 1 1 5% feet b gs in Ma rch 2002 did not encounter groundwater or
saturated soils. Typically, a groundwater quality investigation would be
triggered by the discovery of a significant vadose zone impact or a
release from a subsurface structure, such as a UST, where the distance
to groundwater is small. Groundwater quality investigations and
remediation related to former USTs have been completed at the site
under the direction of OCHCA and OCHCA has issued "No Further
Action" (NFA) letters for these remedial actions. The NFA letters are
L referenced as follows:
1 ♦ July 31, 1990 — OCHCA Case #90UT36
♦ December 27, 1994 — OCHCA Case #94UT28
♦ January 13, 1996 — 3,000 Gallon Diesel UST (S. Bldg 81)
�' ♦ May 22, 1996 — OCHA Case #87UT132
` o February 5, 1997 — OCHCA Case #896UT29
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -13
Comments ana Kesponses
With respect to current site conditions, Boeing's Phase I and Phase 11
investigations have not encountered any vadose zone condition that
warrants a groundwater quality investigation. With respect to the
USNWS, the information in Appendix G to TEM's Phase I ESA report for
Study Area 3 shows that the TCE plume is moving to the southeast, away
from Boeing's Seal Beach facility. Based on the above, a groundwater
T
quality investigation is not warranted at this time.
in Table 5.10 the
2B. The results of the soil sample analyses summarized -5 of
Draft and Final EIR and compared to the Preliminary Redmediation Goals
(;
(PRGs) included metals and certain aromatic hydrocarbons. The soil
U
samples were collected from borings drilled in and around the following
PECAs:
1
o A former hazardous materials storage area south of Building 89 in
Study Areas 2 and 3 (Borings SB -1 through SB -10A)
♦ A former plating area inside the southwest corner of Building 86 in
Study Area 2 (Borings SBA 1, SBA 2, SBA 3, and SBA 6)
o A former sump that collected air compressor condensate outside
2 SBA 5)
the western wall of Building 86 in Study Area (Boring
i
♦ A former underground UST, used for plating rinse water, south of
g
Building 86 and west of Building 85 in Study Area 2
(Borings SB -17 and SB -18)
r;
o A former clarifier near the southwest corner of Building 86 in Study
Area 2 (Boring SB -21).
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -13
Comments ana Kesponses
oikofS��
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
These features were identified as potential environmental concern areas
(PECAs) in the Phase I ESA reports for Study Areas 1 and 2 based on
the types of operation conducted and /or the documented use or handling
of potentially hazardous materials. It should be noted, however, that
t ^ ind^ation (e n documented releases or results of previous
u der a was � ^ w i
u wwuaiv. ...�., ............,.
investigations) that potentially hazardous materials had actually been
released at any of the PECAs investigated.
The soil samples analyzed by TEM contained metals and low
concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons. According to TEM, PRGs are
not necessarily the most relevant regulatory agency standard against
which to compare the metals concentrations. A comparison to site -
specific background metals concentrations would have been more
appropriate, however, no evaluation of background metals concentrations
has been performed for the Seal Beach facility. Absent any site - specific
data, the background metals data published by the Kearney Foundation
of Soil Science (Bradford et. al., March 1996) are the most widely used
and accepted data set. A comparison of the metals concentrations
reported at the subject site and the average concentrations in soils from
50 different locations within California (Bradford et. al., March 1996) is
presented in Table 1 (which follows). Table 1 also includes data from an
evaluation of background metals concentrations at Boeing's nearby Long
Beach facility (Haley & Aldrich, July 2001), which is located in a broadly
similar depositional environment. The comparison presented in Table 1
shows that the metals concentrations reported in soils at the Seal Beach
facility are within background concentrations. As such, TEM has
concluded that no remedial action or additional investigations are
recommended.
With respect to the aromatic hydrocarbons, none of which typically occur
naturally in the site vicinity, a comparison of the reported concentrations
to PRGs is useful for screening purposes. According to EPA Region IX,
PRGs are "risk -based concentrations that are intended to assist risk
assessors and others in initial screening -level evaluations of
environmental measurements." In the context of the voluntary Phase
II investigations conducted by TEM, and in the absence of any other
information, the use of PRGs in the Draft EIR was not inappropriate. In
any event, the reported aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations are very low
by any reasonable and objective standard, including PRGs. As such,
TEM interpreted the data as indicating there are no significant
environmental impacts in the areas investigated. TEM has concluded
that no additional investigation, remediation, or risk assessment for the
PECAs is warranted.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -14 Comments and Responses
U
L
r
r
L
r�
m
C
U
a
e
N
� U �
� T
w 'a
1 �
e Y
0
m
F a �
u R
av y
c�
d, c
�
1
1.J
I
1.
P '
Li
�'' aa
V'
14 -15
Y
u
u
s
U
z
v
a
v
" E
v
g U
u & 3
O Cg u
N
� v
Y ° U
.O •� Y 6 .Q �
c v E U
b m $ u
C C •a a u > �i
C 5 v 6 w o o :o t '•
Y•y c m O
Y 0°0 't{a{a��
C� O
a9 o v e v E E Ed
mzv IF
rzf °FY
O
,O N l- 00 M
n O O O R
CD 0
N
- C
O O •� N .� 00 V 7 �. p O p^
t` G O O N O
O
$ m
O O O N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 _O y� O_ O O
�
V
D 0 0 0 � 0 O
O
O 00� 1 0
r 1
V V N V V M ,..� � .-. .... ,� .-, V V .-. N
c;
O
61
a vi O %O In O N
N N
N M N V N N
O p 0 O
O
U e
o 0 0 O
O
o
p
m
a O
fV r- N
a m
m
O
o
p
O
N O O ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v1 O O
M � O Yl ^ M O O In P O O, v1 O
O 00 O O C
n N u'1 l-
O
1-
KY E •
p
m
�^ N , D M M Y, O
0
M
M In �O N
N
Y
o
o:
u 7 p U
(7N N t N In
Y O '` y .T,
C
V1 ... N r4 .--. h N 0 c
en co C ... .-. oo N
t
qq
m C
w C
00
f�+,
^ 00 N
1 1 ;
1
O
V V V v Lu
m m o
en
U m
°
o • m `�
M
a n r- ^ c, V, M^
N^ r O+ a O a\ 0 0 00 ^
r oa en
0
1
T
O^
,
1
O
O
$
U o
Y
O
U
e
e o :
cc
u
00 'm In ID
M t` ? N O a0 h
o o
• y
O
.
O M C, —10 N In
U [i rn
h N N N
M
m
m
o _ c
r
ao
p pA N
_
y cO N N
00 ^ N N a
L o
O
O N 00 ^ O �c
= Y
O
�
fi o r
U
t�
u o
V
O
°
tn
r z
O
O O M O C M N ON N O O O, 0 0 0
N ^
1
1 1
E w m
c
.M-.
e e u 'o
X0+1
.. O
m
n
e
e
is
r
°
a
U
y U X E "
m
? o
r= °'�=
u u
G m E E v�� u E
— u u
u Y W+
S. S Xi
W
Y
C N U W C O O m N O U W > ^
L N T 6 y N
K
O. %
m m U U U U `� rn rn F` >
O — ° --
E o F- F
14 -15
Y
u
u
s
U
z
v
a
v
" E
v
g U
u & 3
O Cg u
N
� v
Y ° U
.O •� Y 6 .Q �
c v E U
b m $ u
C C •a a u > �i
C 5 v 6 w o o :o t '•
Y•y c m O
Y 0°0 't{a{a��
C� O
a9 o v e v E E Ed
mzv IF
rzf °FY
O
C
O
Cd
N
C �
r �
C
F rA
c
L a
N ^'
LV
F c v
L r
LOIM
'p e0
C d
�
bq
O
�+ O
c
rA
14 -16
�.
y
0 0 2
o
�
0 0
Q o 0 o Q
>azzz>
tf
y
G
F F,
Vl
00
R
O O
Q
x
ea F co
G y Y y
•_ �
a cV + • C
A O °
V
L >
V
y
C
0 1 o o 00 "o 0
C G
G1
V1
y
3 3
O°
Q
�
H y
C C
c
G
bo bA A
V v ca to
a a V 0
Ilul
0 0 0 o
O u
o 0 0 0 o vi vi
o a
o o vi n o Wn Wn
en
U
1 0 %0 %D %0 %0 N y
W 00 00 bb OO 7
V
bq bo bo to bo o
o
c a e e C `.�
Y
F 0. 0 1
m 00 A0 a a
A L
x
O o � �
F Z
F
FL : :f E= E F
14 -16
r?
U
�U
'J
f'
�U
I
�1
G
r'
U
!
0
I � a
L�
�
C; ofSS�'PearA
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
2C. OCHCA was, and still is, the lead regulatory agency for UST and related
issues in Seal Beach. As such, OCHCA oversaw the permitting,
operation, and removal of the USTs at the Boeing Seal Beach facility.
The available records show that there have been a total of seven USTs in
Study Ar -a 2. Of these seven ! STs, cix have been removed and one is
still in use. It is noted that two of the seven tanks, specifically the
1,000 - gallon plating rinse water tank and the 550 - gallon diesel tank
associated with the Pump House, were replacements and may have been
installed in the excavations from which the original tanks were removed.
OCHCA has issued NFA letters for three of the six removed USTs. In
addition, Boeing has an engineering report (McLaren Hart, September 29,
1987) that states that OCHCA verbally indicated that no further action
was required for the original 1,000 - gallon plating rinse water tank and the
original 550 - gallon diesel tank associated with the Pump House. The
replacement plating rinse water tank was itself removed in 1992 but it is
not clear whether OCHCA issued a written or verbal NFA. Accordingly,
TEM investigated this former UST location during the Phase II
investigation via Borings SB -17 and SB -18 (TEM, April 24, 2002). As
discussed in more detail above, the analysis of soil samples collected
from these two borings indicates that metals concentrations are within the
range of background concentrations, which suggests that the tank did not
leak. Although several aromatic hydrocarbons were reported in the soil
samples from these borings, the concentrations were very low, in all but
one instance estimated concentrations were less than the reporting limit.
Based on these data, the impact of the former replacement plating rinse
water tank on the subsurface environment appears to have been
negligible and Boeing plans to pursue a formal, written NFA letter for this
tank from OCHCA. Boeing also intends to pursue a formal NFA letter for
the original plating rinse water and diesel storage tanks. The remaining
active UST will be addressed at a later date when it is no longer needed
to support Boeing's Seal Beach operations. A summary of the foregoing
information is presented in Table 2 which follows.
2D. There was no regulatory agency oversight, or any obligation to have the
investigation overseen, by any regulatory agency. That said, however, it
should be noted that Boeing and its contractors perform all such
investigations in accordance with currently accepted professional
standards with a view to developing defensible data for decision - making
and, in this case, to support redevelopment of the site.
The Phase II investigation was conducted to assess whether hazardous
waste storage activities may have impacted the subsurface environment.
As discussed in Response to Commentor No. 2B, the results of the
analyses of soil samples collected from Borings SBA through SB -10A
indicate that metals concentrations were within typical background ranges
(Table 1) and that organic chemical concentrations were very low. In
most cases, the organic chemical concentrations were estimated
concentrations less than the reporting limit. Based on these data, no
additional investigations, remediation, or other action related to the former
hazardous waste storage area are anticipated.
FINAL ® APRIL 2003
14 -11
Comments and Responses
clf� of s�
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
2E. The bullet referenced in this Comment pertains to TEM's Phase II
investigation of the former 1,000 gallon plating rinse water UST (Tank T-
7) that was located outside Building 86. This former UST location was
investigated via Borings SB -17 and SB -18. Soil samples from these
borings were analyzed for metal pH,--and VOCs_ In TEM's report on the
Phase II investigation (April 24, 2002) and the Draft EIR, the results of the
soil sample analyses were compared to PRGs. Since then, the results
have been compared to, and are within, typical background metal
concentration ranges (Table 1) and organic chemical concentrations were
negligible. Based on these data, no additional investigations,
remediation, or other action regarding the former plating rinse water tank
are anticipated.
2F. The bullet referenced in this Comment pertains to TEM's Phase II
investigation of the subsurface piping between the former aboveground
plating tanks inside Building 86 and the former 1,000 - gallon plating rinse
water UST that was located outside Building 86. This piping was
investigated via Borings SB -11, SB -12, SBA 3, and SBA 6. Soil samples
from these borings were analyzed for metals, pH, and VOCs. None of the
VOCs analyzed were reported at detectable concentrations, let alone
"elevated" or "hazardous" levels. As discussed in the responses to other
DTSC comments, the reported metals concentrations have been
compared to published and unpublished background concentrations
(Table 1). All of the reported metals concentrations in the soil samples
from Borings SBA 1, SBA 2, SBA 3, and SBA are within the background
ranges presented in Table 1. Accordingly, the reported metals
concentrations are not considered "elevated" or "hazardous."
2G. The bullet referenced in this Comment pertains to a former sump and a
former clarifier located outside the southwest corner of Building 86. The
sump and clarifier were investigated via Borings SB -15 and SB -21,
respectively. Soil samples from these borings were analyzed for VOCs,
total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), metals, and pH. None of the VOCs
analyzed were reported at detectable concentrations, let alone "elevated"
or "hazardous" levels. Similarly, TPH was not reported at detectable
concentrations in any of the soil samples analyzed. As discussed in the
responses to other DTSC comments, the reported metals concentrations
have been compared to published and unpublished background
concentrations (Table 1). All of the reported metals concentrations in the
soil samples from Borings SB -15 and SB -21 are within the background
ranges presented in Table 1. Accordingly, the reported metals
concentrations are not considered "elevated" or "hazardous." The
reported soil pH ranged from 8.61 to 9.81, which is within the range of pH
values reported elsewhere at the site and is, thus, considered within the
background range.
2H. The bullet referenced in this Comment pertains to an area outside of
Building 86 where two 55- gallon drums of muriatic (hydrochloric) acid
were observed during TEM's Phase I ESA. The muriatic acid drum
storage area was subsequently investigated via Borings SB -19 and
SB -20. Soil samples from these borings were analyzed for pH and VOCs
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -18 Comments and Responses
G
fl
U�
C ,
4J
L
f;
U
U
U
r
r'
L
G
I r
u;
G
Cv�,f <��
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
only. The reported soil pH values of 8.68 and 8.94 were within the range
of values reported elsewhere at the site and on the alkaline side of
neutral, indicating that the soil had not been impacted by a release of
acid. None of the VOCs analyzed were reported at detectable
. concen trat i ons, and are not considered "elevated" or "hazardous ".
21. Mitigation measures referenced in the Draft and Final EIR shall be
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the subject project.
2J. The commentor references Page 5.1 -28, but it is believed that the
reference was intended to be Page 5.10 -28. Based upon the significance
conclusion in the impact analysis subsections, mitigation measures are
referenced for hazardous materials, agricultural chemicals, asbestos
containing materials and lead based paint. Thus, mitigation measures
are recommended in the Draft EIR. Refer to Mitigation Measures 5-
10.1 a, 5-10.1b, 5-10.1c, 5- 10.2a, 5- 10.2b, 5- 10.3a, 5- 10.3b, 5- 10.3c, 5-
10.4a, 5- 10.4b, 5 -10.4c and 5- 10.4d. These mitigation measures relate to
hazardous materials, agricultural contamination, asbestos containing
materials and lead based paint. The conclusions for Emergency
Response Plan and Cumulative Impacts do not require mitigation.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
14 -19
Comments and Responses
I
�-J
ouncft on
- z. -'-._ BENCH
January 23, 2003
Mr. Mac Cummins
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
211 8` street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
c!re OE SEAL SEACH
DEVELOP VIEiV7 SE+'VICES
RE: COMMENTS: BOEING PROJECT EIR
Dear Mr. Cummins:
Representatives of the Golden Rain Foundation in Seal Beach Leisure World have
reviewed the proposed Boeing Specific Plan Project EIR and have a few comments:
The population of the Leisure World community averages 78 years in age. This age
group is extremely sensitive to all environmental issues. In addition to airborne 3A
particulates, noise, dust, etc., we are also concerned about transportation and traffic
issues from the proposed project.
The traffic studies we reviewed do not mention the intersection of Golden Rain Road and
Seal Beach Boulevard. Presently, 2,000,000 vehicles per year enter Leisure World at the
Golden Rain Road entrance and 1,000,000 per year at the St. Andrews Drive entrance.
Seal Beach Boulevard is already extremely congested during certain periods of the day. 3B
We have concerns about a huge increase in the volume of traffic from the proposed
project during peak hours, such as morning and evening commutes and noon time
errands run by employees of the proposed project.
We feel that the language in the final plans should say, "shall" rather than "should" for all
mitigation measures regarding aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, water quality, noise, transportation and traffic issues. The residents 3C
of Seal Beach LeiSWre World sincerely hope that should the new project be approved, the
site will be a "good neighbor" on all environmental issues which will affect the quality of
life of 9,000 senior citizens.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Barratt, President
Golden Rain Foundation
cc: C. Wiggins, GRF Security, Bus & Traffic Committee Chair
H. Narang, GRF Administrator
T. Sears, GRF Security and Transportation Manager
C. Martinez, GRF Physical Property Supervisor
P () BOX 2069 SEAL BEACH, CALIF. 9 14 -20
0 • (562) X31 -6586 FAX (562) 598 -2009
i
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 3
Thomas E. Barratt, Golden Rain Foundation
January 23, 2003
1�
' 3A. Comment is noted. Issues related to air quality, noise and traffic for the
subject project have been evaluated in the Draft and Final EIR. Please
refer to Sections 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 of the Draft and Final EIR to review the
evaluations and determinations regarding traffic and circulation, air quality
and noise.
r
3B. In response to concerns expressed by the Golden Rain Foundation, a
near -term (Year 2006) analysis was conducted at the intersections of
�. Seal Beach Boulevard /Golden Rain Road and Seal Beach Boulevard/
Saint Andrews Drive to determine the potential impact of the Boeing
Specific Plan project. The significance of the potential impacts of the
project at these two intersections was then evaluated using the LOS
standards and traffic impact criteria established in the Draft EIR.
Review of the table below shows that the intersections of Seal Beach
Boulevard /Golden Rain Road and Seal Beach Boulevard /Saint Andrews
Drive currently operate at LOS A or B during the AM peak commute hour
and PM peak commute hour. Upon completion and occupancy of the
1 proposed project in the Year 2006, both intersections are forecast to
continue to operate at an acceptable level of service, when compared to
the City of Seal Beach level of service criteria. Thus, it is concluded that
the Boeing Specific Plan project would not have a significant impact at
either Seat Beach Boulevard /Golden Rain Road or Seal Beach
Boulevard /Saint Andrews Drive.
( l i
G
G
F
U
L
"i
' Year 2002
`Year 2006 ' `
• •Year 2006 .,
Year 2006
Existing °"
Background, . '
"`- a
`:• -Plus Project
Project Only
Traffic
^ a Traffic ° °- < ;,
Traffic
Significant Impact
Time :'
"Conditions
Conditions
w Conditions
ICU.
Los-'
ICU '
LOS
ICU ,
• ` LOS
Inc.*
YIN :<
Key Intersections
Period ;
Seal Beach Blvd at Golden
AM
0.516
A
0.560
A
0.650
B
0.090
N
Rain Road
PM
0.616
B
0.680
B
0.700
B
0.020
N
➢ Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.360
A
0.393
A
0.483
A
0.090
N
Saint Andrews Drive
PM
0.432
A
0.480
A
0.499
A
0.019
N
*Inc = Incremental ICU
3C. Mitigation measures cited throughout the Draft EIR utilize the operative
word "shall ". The wording is appropriate and typical for an EIR. The
mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval
for the subject project.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
14 -21
Comments and Responses
( J
COMMENT NO. 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAvIS Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7, REGIONAL PLANNING
IGR /CEQA $RANCH
120 SO. SPRING ST.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 MY OF SEAL. BEACH
PHONE (213) 897 -6536
FAX (213) 897 -1337 2 7 2003
E- Mail:NersesYerjanianCdot.ca.gov JAN
DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Mr. Mac Cummins
Planning Department
City of Seal Beach
211 8 -th St.
Seal Beach, CA. 90740
IGR/CEQA# 021264NY
Boeing Headquarters Site EIR
2,210,500 SF Commercial
SCH #2002031015
OC/405/19.16
January 24, 2003
Dear Mr. Cummins:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the
environmental review process for the Boeing Headquarters Site Project.
a
Flex your power!
Be energy effi'cient.'
The I-405 / Seal Beach Blvd. UC needs traffic mitigation because it is reaching capacity. We
anticipate District 12 will run the Equitable Share Responsibility formula, Guide for the
preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, Appendix B, page 2 to identify Boeing's total share and 4A
request it be applied to the I/C improvement as well as other impacted facilities to be identified
by D -12.
The definition of Level of Service, in terms of delay for signalized intersection in Column 4 of
Table 5.3 -1, is not consistent with the LOS description in Column 3 of Table 2 (Appendix Vol. 4B 1).
If you have any questions regarding this response, please call the Project Engineer /Coordinator
Mr. Yerjanian at (213) 897 -6536 and refer to IGR/CEQA # 021264NY.
Sincerely,
STEPHEN J. BUSWELL
IGR/CEQA Branch Chief
Transportation Planning Office
CC: Ms. Maryam Molavi/District 12
'Caltrans improves mobility across California'
14 -22
G
U
r
1
U r-,
I
Level of
Service
of s�---PeacA
'Vic Ratio
(ICU)
D�
Signalized- ��
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
LOS "A„
Response to Commentor No. 4
0.00 -0.60
Stephen J. Buswell, California Department of Transportation
0.95.0
0.0-10.0
January 24, 2003
�J
4A. As indicated on Page 5.3 -12 of the Draft EIR, the City of Seal Beach has
10.1 -20.0
established a transportation impact fee program for development projects
within right -of -way controlled or proposed to be controlled by the City of
j
Seal Beach. The City of Seal Beach Transportation Fee Program (Traffic
Fee Program) is intended to provide intersection and roadway segment
improvements as development occurs within right -of -way controlled or
proposed to be controlled by the City. The City's Traffic Fee Program
LOS "C"
funds are utilized for improvements at Seal Beach Boulevard and the I-
0.71 -0.80
405 overcrossing.
�..
U Please
24K.b for discussions
with others in the traffic stream.
refer to Response to Commentor 24K.a and
of actions that Caltrans can undertake to improve or maintain existing
(,
LOS levels on the 1 -405 Freeway Southbound and Northbound On-
0.81 -0.90
Ramps without significant costs.
2n�
251 35 0
4B. Page 5.3 -2, Table 5.3 -1 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR
convenience.
as follows:
Table 5.3 -1
G
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method Level of Service Definitions
G
U
r
1
U r-,
I
Level of
Service
Description (Assumes Uninterrupted Flow)
'Vic Ratio
(ICU)
Avg. DelaylVehicl (s ec.)
Signalized- ��
Unsignalized
LOS "A„
Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of
others in the traffic stream.
0.00 -0.60
0.0 -10.0
0.95.0
0.0-10.0
LOS "B"
The traffic stream begins to be noticeable and freedom to
select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a
0.61 -0.70
10.1 -20.0
5-t-4 .0
101 15 0
slight decline in the freedom to maneuver.
LOS "C"
The beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of
individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions
0.71 -0.80
20.1 -35.0
i0 A 20.0
151 25 0
with others in the traffic stream.
LOS "D"
Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and
the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and
0.81 -0.90
35.1 - 55.0
2n�
251 35 0
convenience.
LOS "E"
All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniformed
value. Small increases in flow will causes breakdowns in
.91 -1.00
55.1 -80.0
381 -45-9
35
traffic movement.
LOS "F"
This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic
approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse
the point. Queues form behind such locations.
Above 1.0
Above 80.0
Above 45.0-
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
14 -23
Comments and Responses
t � n 1I
L 61,
e
y � - -W
r'f q 21, �00
5 A
M EWMAM OF& =a a% MAft
wiziurcandum
To: Glenn Lajoie, RBF
From: Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Date: January 27, 2003
SUBJECT: COMMENTS RE: BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR
Provided below are our initial comments on the Boeing Specific Plan DEIR:
❑
Page 1 -2, "COMPLIANCE WITH CEQX, first paragraph, last sentence: This
sentence indicates a copy of the Notice of Completion ( "NOC ") is provided at
5 A
the front of the document. It is not, and it should be clarified as to where a
copy of the NOC is provided.
❑
Page 2 -7, "Long -Term Operational Impacts ", EIR Section 5-4.2,
"Significance After Mitigation" column: Add the paragraph language as
��
provided at the end of EIR Section 5-4.1 regarding the necessity to adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
13
Page 2 -7, "Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan ", EIR Section
5-4.3, "Significance After Mitigation" column: Add the paragraph language as
5C
provided at the end of EIR Section 5 -4.1 regarding the necessity to adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
❑
Page 3 -20, second bullet point, fourth line: eliminate the second "within the
exterior walls of the building shall' language.
( 5�
❑
Page 5.2 -2, Planning Area 3 , fifth sentence: at the end of sentence after
"electrical transmission and distribution" add the word " facilities ".
I 5
❑
Page 5.3 -37, next to last paragraph — Verify that description of SBB /1-405
Overpass does include the "auxiliary ramp merge lanes" as currently
5F
described. If not indicate the appropriate revision to the description.
❑
Page 5.3 -38, paragraph immediately above 'PROJECT IMPACT TRAFFIC
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ": This paragraph indicates that the feasibility of
5G
identified traffic improvements outside the City is beyond the control of eh
14 -24
�1
Planning Deparmenr Comments
Boeing Specific PIWI DEIR
January 29. 2003
City. Does this determination also require a "Statement of Overriding
- Corisideratidns" * "-
i
❑
Page 5.3 -40, ROADWAY LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS, Year 2002 Traffic
Conditions, third paragraph: The last sentence is repeated again at the end
of the fourth paragraph. It seems more appropriate at the end of the fourth
LJ
IU
❑
paragraph. Please delete from the third paragraph.
Page 5.3 -42, Table 5.3 -11, Intersection J — PCH north of Seal Beach
Boulevard: Why are the forecast traffic numbers the same for columns 2 and
3? Is there no traffic impact at this intersection due to the Boeing project,
which seems not possible since the table indicates impacts on PCH at
r '
intersections I and K.
❑
Page 5.3 -43, first complete paragraph on page: This paragraph seems
contradictory with the indicated LOS on PCH as "F". This needs to be
explained better and is a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" necessary
due to the LOS "F" level on the PCH roadway segments?
r `
❑
❑
Page 5.3.43, last bullet point: Same comment as for Page 5.3 -37.
Page 5.3 -44, Recommended Improvements, Seal Beach Boulevard at
Westminster Avenue Clarify description to indicate that the widening on
Westminster Avenue is to maintain the existing right -turn lane for either
i
❑
westbound or eastbound traffic.
Page 5.3 -56, Mitigation Measure 5.3 -1c Add language regarding " Seal
Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive Project Specific Traffic Improvement
❑
as described on Page 5.3 -46. This will clearly indicate the project proponent
is responsible for this traffic improvement.
Page 5.4 -17, paragraph before "CONSISTENCY WITH AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PLAN ": Please review and revise, the paragraph seems to
be incomplete. Also, please indicate if the "CO hot spot" concerns would be
at intersections requiring public improvements only, or also at other
❑
intersections with a pre- existing LOS "E" or "F".
Page 5.6 -21, Section 5.6 -3, Jurisdictional Waters or Resources: It would
seem appropriate to also provide a copy of Figure 3-4, 'Water Quality Basin
and Retention Concept" as an Exhibit in this section of the DEIR to more
clearly delineate the proposed location of the channels and water quality
basins.
❑
Page 5.6 -25, MITIGATION MEASURES, Special Status Species, Measure
5.6 -1 a: Why is it necessary to have an off -site component, is it not possible to
relocate all plants to the subject site? Is there a biological reason for an "off-
,
❑
site" restoration program? Please clarify.
Page 5.11 -15, paragraph above "SOLID WASTE ", eliminate "and payment of
the fair -share costs for replacement of the Adolfo Lopez Pump Station ". The
project will not be connecting to this facility and therefore no far share costs
can be imposed.
V
'
Draft =1R Comment Memo 2
14 -25
5G
514
n
5J
� 5K
51J
5M
5N
50
5P
5Q
Pew
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 5
Mac Cumminskee Whittenberg, City of Seal Beach
January 27, 2003
5A. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was included in each copy of the Draft
EIR that was submitted to the State Clearinghouse to initiate the 45 -day
Public Review Period on December 27, 2002. A copy of the NOC will be
included in each copy produced for the Final EIR.
5B. The paragraph stating the adoption of overriding considerations at the
bottom of Page 2 -6 of the Draft EIR will be repeated on Page 2 -7 of the
Final EIR. The paragraph reads as follows:
If the City of Seal Beach approves the Project. the City shall be mauired to adopt findin n
accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a Statement of
Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CE—QA Guidelines
5C. The paragraph stating the adoption of overriding considerations at the
bottom of Page 2 -6 of the Draft EIR will be repeated on Page 2 -7 of the
Final EIR. The paragraph reads as follows:
If the Ci of Seal Beach approves the Project. the City shall be required to adopt findin in
accordance with Sec 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a Statement of
Overridina Considerations in accordance with Section 1509�f the CEQA Guidelines
u
5D. Page 3 -20 of the Draft EIR, second bullet paragraph, has been revised as
follows in the Final EIR: 0
4 FAR is defined as the ratio between the amount of gross floor area permitted to be
constructed on a legal building lot and the size of the lot. In computing gross floor
area of a building, the gross area confined within the exterior walls of the building
shall be considered as the floor area of
each floor of the building. This includes space devoted to hallways, stairwells,
elevator shafts, lobbies, light courts and basement storage. Gross floor area does
not include covered parking floor space with necessary interior driveways and
ramps thereto, space within a roof structure or penthouse for the housing of
equipment or machinery incidental to the operation of the building, and space for
loading and storage of helicopters.
5E. Page 5.2 -2 of the Draft EIR, Paragraph 2, has been revised as follows in
the Final EIR:
Planning Area 3 . Planning Area 3 consists of approximately 45 acres and is bordered by
Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2 to the east, Adolfo Lopez Drive to the south, a
drainage channel to the west and Westminster Avenue to the north. Building 97, the only
U
0
U
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -26 Comments and Responses U
u'
G
f�
L
U.
D
0
r�
L
L
__�
BOEINGS ECI < C PLAN PROJECT EIR
structure existing within the area, is located at the southern portion of Planning Area 3.
Building 97 is essentially a covered area used to protect equipment/materials. The
property's northern parking lots extend into the northeastern portion of Planning Area 3.
The remainder of Planning Area 3 consists of vacant land with limited improvements
includinq three man -made drainage ditches, and electrical transmission and distribution
facilities (refer to Exhibit 5.2 -3, Photographs Planning Area 3). The vacant land lacks any
topographical features. This undeveloped portion of Planning Area 3 is maintained on a
regular basis for fire control, weed abatement, and drainage purposes.
5F. Comment is noted. A review of the Project Study ReporbProject Report
for Route 1 -405 at Seal Beach Boulevard identifies that the first phase of
the interchange improvement project includes the widening of the existing
exit ramps to provide for three lanes on the 1 -405 southbound off -ramp,
and widening of the 1 -405 northbound off -ramp to provide an additional
right turn lane to Seal Beach Boulevard, widening the ramp intersections
to provide dual left turn lanes for southbound Seal Beach Boulevard at
the 1 -405 southbound on -ramp and 1 -405 northbound on -ramp, and
widening of the 1 -405 overcrossing approaches to provide three
northbound through travel lanes on Seal Beach Boulevard at the 1 -405
southbound and northbound ramps that transition to two through travel
lanes in each direction on the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing (the
existing bridge would not be modified). This phase will prevent both the
North and South intersections of 1 -405 and Seal Beach Boulevard from
reaching a level of service F and would improve traffic flow to a LOS of E
or better.
The phased approach was pursued because of the uncertainty of future
freeway improvements impacting this bridge during the process and lack
of funding for reconstructing the bridge required to accommodate the
bridge widening for three lanes in each direction. Recent correspondence
from OCTA has mentioned that impacts to the facility would not happen
until 2020. If the widening were constructed now, this would give the
facility less than an approximately 15 -year life since the future project
would need again to replace the bridge. The current cost to
accommodate both the widening and the lengthening for the future HOV
project is estimated at $14,000,000. It is still the intent of the City tc
widen the bridge to three lanes in each direction even if there is no
freeway project or traffic conditions warrant it sooner. The City intends to
apply for the next reauthorization of the Federal TEA Program, as have
many other agencies along the 1 -405 corridor for similar bridge type
widenings.
t The table below summarizes the results of updated level of service
calculations, based on the ICU method of analysis, for the Seal Beach
Boulevard /1 -405 Southbound Ramps and Seal Beach Boulevard /1 -405
Northbound Ramps intersections, assuming implementation of the first
i phase improvements identified in the Route 1 -405 at Seal Beach
L� Boulevard PSR/PR.
G'
FINAL ® APRIL 2003
14 -27
Comments and Responses
o of s�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
As shown, the phasing of improvements at the Seal Beach Boulevard /1-
405 Freeway Overcrossing does not change the findings of the Draft EIR.
Both study intersections would be significantly impacted by the proposed
Boeing Specific Plan project. However, mitigation is referenced involving
project participation in the City of Seal Beach Transportation Fee
Program. Please note the existing and projected services levels identified
in the table above reflect an adjustment in the existing and projected PM
peak hour traffic volumes between the Seal Beach Boulevard /1 -405
southbound ramp and the Seal Beach Boulevard /1-405 northbound ramp
to provide a "balanced" flow, in accordance with a comment from
Caltrans, between these two study intersections. The results of
"balancing" the PM peak hour traffic volumes do not change the findings
of the Draft EIR. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 1C and 24K.a
and 24K.b."
5G. Although the feasibility of improvements outside of the City has been
noted, mitigation has been referenced involving Fair Share contributions
for improvements.
5H. Page 5.3 -40 of the Draft EIR, Paragraph 5, has been revised as follows r 1
for the Final EIR: U
Review of Columns 2 and 3 of Table 5.3 -10, shows that traffic associated with the Boeing
Specific Plan project would have a significant impact at three of the eleven study roadway
links when compared to the City's standards and significant impact criteria defined earlier.
The seven roadway segments are PFGj6Gted to opeFate at L=GS G or betteF eR a daily basis-.
51. The forecast daily traffic volumes for roadway segment J (Pacific Coast
Highway north of Seal Beach Boulevard) are the same for columns 2 and
3 in Table 5.3 -11, Page 5.3 -42 of the Draft EIR since Boeing Specific
Plan project traffic was not projected to travel along this segment of
Pacific Coast Highway, between Main Street/Bolsa Avenue and Seal
Beach Boulevard. Exhibits 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E and 7F contained in
Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study, present the traffic distribution patterns for
the Boeing Specific Plan project. As shown in these exhibits, vehicles
traveling north on Pacific Coast Highway would make a westbound right-
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -28 Comments and Responses
v
u
J
. Year 2002 :„ :
°` Year2006
Year 2006
Year 2006 •, .
; ; ,, O` Existing .
Background
Plus Project "
Project Only - a
Traffic'
Traffic Al "
Traffic
" "
Significant
<•" Year 2006 vrith
Time
Conditions, ,
Con Mon ;
'Conditions ''
Impact
Improvements
Key Intersections
Peri
ICU
: 'LOS <
.ICJ'`
LO%V '.
ICI!
LOS
!. ^.t *
VIN
i( " "" '
LOS
➢ Seal Beach Blvd at
AM
0.888
D
0.984
E
1'049
F
.065
Y
0.742
C
1-405 SB Ramps
PM
1.021
F
1.153
F
1.243
F
.090
Y
0.925
E
➢ Seal Beach Blvd at
AM
0.706
C
0.794
C
0.929
E
.135
Y
0.686
B
1-405 NB Ramps
PM
0.946
E
1.094
F
1.114
F
.020
Y
0.813
D
* Inc = Incremental ICU
Represents anticipated operating conditions with implementation of Alternative 5 Improvements identified in the Project Study Report/Project
Report for Route 1 -405 at Seal Beach Boulevard.
As shown, the phasing of improvements at the Seal Beach Boulevard /1-
405 Freeway Overcrossing does not change the findings of the Draft EIR.
Both study intersections would be significantly impacted by the proposed
Boeing Specific Plan project. However, mitigation is referenced involving
project participation in the City of Seal Beach Transportation Fee
Program. Please note the existing and projected services levels identified
in the table above reflect an adjustment in the existing and projected PM
peak hour traffic volumes between the Seal Beach Boulevard /1 -405
southbound ramp and the Seal Beach Boulevard /1-405 northbound ramp
to provide a "balanced" flow, in accordance with a comment from
Caltrans, between these two study intersections. The results of
"balancing" the PM peak hour traffic volumes do not change the findings
of the Draft EIR. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 1C and 24K.a
and 24K.b."
5G. Although the feasibility of improvements outside of the City has been
noted, mitigation has been referenced involving Fair Share contributions
for improvements.
5H. Page 5.3 -40 of the Draft EIR, Paragraph 5, has been revised as follows r 1
for the Final EIR: U
Review of Columns 2 and 3 of Table 5.3 -10, shows that traffic associated with the Boeing
Specific Plan project would have a significant impact at three of the eleven study roadway
links when compared to the City's standards and significant impact criteria defined earlier.
The seven roadway segments are PFGj6Gted to opeFate at L=GS G or betteF eR a daily basis-.
51. The forecast daily traffic volumes for roadway segment J (Pacific Coast
Highway north of Seal Beach Boulevard) are the same for columns 2 and
3 in Table 5.3 -11, Page 5.3 -42 of the Draft EIR since Boeing Specific
Plan project traffic was not projected to travel along this segment of
Pacific Coast Highway, between Main Street/Bolsa Avenue and Seal
Beach Boulevard. Exhibits 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E and 7F contained in
Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study, present the traffic distribution patterns for
the Boeing Specific Plan project. As shown in these exhibits, vehicles
traveling north on Pacific Coast Highway would make a westbound right-
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -28 Comments and Responses
v
u
J
U
L'.
G
l�1
C
U
G
u
�i
i
if
L
G
� eaC4
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
turn at Seal Beach Boulevard and travel to the project site. Vehicles
traveling south on Pacific Coast Highway would make a southbound left -
turn at Bolsa Avenue and travel back to Seal Beach Boulevard to arrive at
the project site. The utilization of Bolsa Avenue, between Pacific Coast
1l•,ghway and Seal Beach Boulevard, -by Boeing Specific Plan project
traffic is an indication of the project's potential impact on this two -lane
street, which is now used as a "cut- through" route and congestion on
Pacific Coast Highway. Thus, the project traffic distribution patterns
documented in the traffic study are concluded to be accurate and valid.
Also refer to Response to Commentor No.24D.
5J. As stated on Page 5.3 -43, Paragraph 1 of the Draft EIR, two roadway
links along Pacific Coast Highway are forecast to operate at LOS F on a
daily basis. Although roadway link volume thresholds are an indication of
performance, they are typically superceded by an analysis of the local
intersection performance during the AM and PM peak hours. If the
terminal intersections operate satisfactorily (and traffic moves at both
ends), the traffic flow along the segment (in the center) can flow
satisfactorily. Hence, utilizing the criteria established in the Boeing
Specific Plan Project Draft EIR, it is concluded that the proposed project
would not have a "daily" impact on Pacific Coast Highway since the study
intersections of Pacific Coast Highway /Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific
Coast Highway /Main Street - Bolsa Avenue are projected to operate at
satisfactory levels of service (LOS D or better) during the AM and PM
peak commute hours (See Table 5.3 -8 on Page 5.3 -36 of the Draft EIR).
Thus, a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" is not required.
5K. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 1 C.
5L. Page 5.3 -44 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
0 Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue — Widen Seal Beach Boulevard to
provide a northbound right -turn lane and widen Westminster Avenue to maintain the
existing westbound right -turn lane. These lanes are not a part of the eltimate current) _
planned improvements for this intersection, but may be
considered for future construction by the City of Seal Beach. As previously stated,
improvements at the Seal Beach Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection are
concluded as remaining significant due to the uncertainty of acquiring right -of -way from
the Navy by the 2006 horizon year condition.
Further, it should be clarified that these improvements are not a part of
the Seal Beach Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection
improvements, but are a part of the ultimate planned improvements for
this intersection.
5M. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 1 A.
5N. Page 5.4 -17 of the Draft EIR, Impact Statement 5.4 -3, has been revised
as follows for the Final EIR:
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
14 -29
Comments and Responses
C 0'CsWe=A
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
5.4 -3 The project mq) - would conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
Analysis has concluded that the proposed project is inconsistent with the AQMP
criteria. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Project - related Carbon Monoxide hotspots are anticipated at intersections
within the Project study area where the intersection Level of Service
(LOS) is reduced to an "E" or "F" with the contribution of Project traffic.
As stated on Page 5.4 -17 of the Draft EIR, the project would contribute to
traffic impacts at three of the nine State Study intersections. Thus,
intersections would be significantly impacted by project generated traffic
beyond the current levels and it is concluded that a CO hot spot could
occur, resulting in a significant impact.
50. The impact discussion for jurisdictional waters or resources in Section
5.6, Biological Resources, includes a cross - reference to Exhibit 5.9 -5,
Water Quality Assurance Plan, in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Drainage.
5P. The City of Seal Beach agrees that the Translocation Program should
apply to on -site conditions. Mitigation Measure 5.6 -1 a has been revised
in the Final EIR as follows:
5.6 -1 a In order to mitigate adverse impacts to 385 individual of southern tarplant, a
translocation program shall he has been developed, that inGludes on-site and effnite
,Plants would- - shall be translocated on -site to the terraces
adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B. 04site, #ansloGated plants would be FnGV484
t.
5Q. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 1 B.
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -30 Comments and Responses
L
U
1
2
LJ 3
4
5
lU 7
8
(( 9
� 10
11
� �� 12
L,.1 13
14
U 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
U 25
26
27
j 28
29
30
r 31
32
33
,( 34
LJ 35
36
U 37
38
39
40
41
42
43
COMMENT NO. 6
'CITY 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 5:30 p.m. The meeting was held in City Council Chambers
and began with the Salute to the Flag.
�• r
I Pledge of Allegiance
t:
11 Roll Call `F.A .
au .r. ..
Present: Chairperson Unrath, Members. Turley, Barton, and Voce
Absent: None
Also
Present: Department of Develooment Services
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner'
Mr. Cummins noted that Member Jones # subini :* — is letter of resignation from the
Environmental Quality Contro (EQCBr and iti has been placed on the City
Council (CC) Agenda for. tthi6rrie:�ting of Monday, February 10, 2003. He stated that
after the CC accepts the �Fknation, a new '6oard Member will be appointed.
111 Approval of Age -Oda ? ':
MOTION by_Hurley; SE&0 D by Unrath to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION i
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
. tone
None-
IV Oral Communications
None.
n, Hurley, Unrath, and Voce
1 These Minutes were transcribed from an audiotape of the meeting.
L t1Carmen_data%EGCEft01-29-03 EQC8 Minutes.doc 1
14 -31
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
1
V Consent Calendar
2
3
1.
R .- -CEIVE AND FILE — Memorandum Re: Receipt of Approved Mitigation
4
Measures — Bellflower Oil Drill Site (Located on Haynes Steam Plant Property
5
— West of Leisure World), dated January 9, 2003.
6
7
2.
RECEIVE AND FILE — Staff Report to EQCB Re: Department of Navy RAB
8
update letter. Letter dated December 18, 2002.
9
10
3.
RECEIVE AND FILE — Memo to EQCB Re: Boeing .-Specific Plan Draft EIR —
11
Meeting Schedule and Document Availability, Mer;io`dated January 8, 2003.
12;
13
4.
RECEIVE AND FILE — Staff Report to EQCB. Notice of Preparation of an
14
kw..
Environmental Impact Report and Notice i4publid --;Sooping Meeting for the
15
PacifiCenter at Long Beach Project. •` '" `' -
17
5.
RECEIVE AND FILE — Staff Repid6 to EQCB, Re: Receipt of Proposed
18
Plan /Draft Remedial Action Plana :Site 40, .!Aaval Weapons Station, Seal
19
Beach.
f" •Fv+yJ
21
6.
• . r.N
RECEIVE AND FILE — Memorandum Re5'?acific Coast Highway and Seal
22
Beach Boulevard Contaminddri .: Memo dated : ecember 9, 2002.
24
7.
RECEIVE AND FILE — CC's Utter to ZityT.of Long Beach Re: City of Seal
25
'Beach comments rte' Final Env ro rmierit al - Impact Report for the Bellflower Oil
26
Drill Site. d
27
28
8.
IiY 1 L ••:�= 1 'i
RECEIVE Af�O:;: LE;` Register Article Re: "Money for 22
29
_Orapge,
Freeway In Douat''�Decembi: -003.
30
31
9.
RECEIVE AND' TILE'`'= A�lemo to EQCB Re: Seal Beach Weapons Support
32
Feoility — Instaliatlon Resfdration Program -- Status Report Re: RAB Project
33
Update. Memo dated November 12, 2002.
34
35
MOTION
by Voce;' S .-ECON9U by Hurley to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.
36
37
MOTION CARRIED. 4 — 0
38
AYES:
Barton, Hurley, Unrath, and Voce
39
NOES:
None
40
ABSENT:
None
41
.
42
43
VI Scheduled Matters
44
45
10.
REVIEW and RECEIPT Of Public Comments Boeing Specific Plan Project
46
Draft EIR.
Z•1Carm*n dataW0C9%01 -29 -03 EDCB Minutes.doc 2
14 -32
0
E ll city of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
1 Staff Rego
2
3 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report along with a slide presentation on this item.
4 (Staff Report and Boeing Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) are on file for
5 inspection in the Department of Development Services.) He stated that the intent
6 tonight is to receive comments on the DEIR, which has been circulated for public
7 review. He said that under state and environmental laws any type of environmental
8 document must be circulated for public review for 45 days. He indicated that the 45-day
9 review period ends on February 10, 2003. He noted that any comments received will be
10 forwarded to the City - selected EIR Consultant and will be addressed in the Final EIR,
11 which will be presented to the EQCB for review. Mr. Currirrtins then provided some
and briefly reviewed#: -the California Environmental
12 background information on this item
13 Quality Act (CEQA) process as it relates to EIRs. Hd: stated„ that once the City has
14 prepared the Response to Comments letter, formal public ,.hearings before the
15 Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB), the- Olanning Cojt6. lssion (PC) and the
L ; 16 City Council (CC) will be conducted and the EIR either be approved or denied. He
17 noted that copies of the EIR document are.` "available on the C'rt a 'website, in the
18 Department of Development Services, at th*e ;:local librgiries, or the City Clerk's office.
j 19 He indicated that comment forms are available' tonight for anyone wishing to submit
U 20 their comments. The Associate Planner then =- •' tated that the EQCB is charged
21 principally with making recommendations, -to the CC 'on environmental matters, not land
r ,r 22 use matters. He noted that in this •casG:.the, must. focus on whether the EIR
L 23 document and its Appendices adequately . 'address. the dhvironmental impacts of the
24 proposed project, and not whether the 'E-QCB : believes a different land use would be
J 25 more appropriate.
27 Mr. Cummins then provitled an overview of ho Boeing Project noting the four Planning
28 Areas as designated oN.."•the sitemag:• : Hescribed the proposed projects for each
U 29 planning area as follows:
31 Planning 1:::G ::_Existing Ing Company campus.
32 Plarttiig Area 2: '•.Existing Boeing buildings that may or may not be replaced
33 Mih new Light Industrial development.
34 Planning:' Area 3: Undeveloped portion of the property on the for western side.
35 Planning . •4; . Hotel and ancillary retail uses.
36 •; t:r::�i_;:
f , 37 He explained that street:' access to the project is proposed off of both Westminster
38 Boulevard and Seal Beach Boulevard with a potential connection point going through if
39 Planning Area 2 is developed. He noted that all of the existing entrance and exit, areas
40 are to remain. Mr. Cummins then described the square footages for the proposed
41 project as. described in the DEIR noting that at ultimate build out Planning Area•1 could
42 comprise. 1,150,000 square feet. He stated that currently there are 345,000 square feet
43 In Planning Area 2, where currently there are buildings that have satellite and line-of-
44 sight connections to other buildings, so they are not yet scheduled for removal. He said
45 that if these buildings were removed, that square footage would be added to Planning
46 Area 1 for a total of 1,150,000 square feet. He stated that Planning Area 3 comprises a
Z:1Carrnen_data%EOC1310149 -03 EQCB Minutes.doc 3
U
14 -33
Z:1Carmen_data%EQC8101 -29 -03 EQCB Mlnutes.doe 4
14 -34
Control Board
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
1
little over 625,000 square feet and Planning Area 4, potentially a 120 -room hotel and
2
additional ancillary retail. Member Unrath confirmed that all of the traffic, noise, and
3
environmental Impacts include the additional 345 square feet that. may be added to
4
Planning Area 1. Mr. Cummins confirmed that this was correct. He then proceeded to
5
explain that the purpose of an EIR is to provide a disclosure document and is not
6
designed as a "catch all" to fix everything that may be wrong with a particular
7
development.
8
9
10
Public Comments
11
f
Chairperson Unrath opened for public comments. ''' "-
12
13
Mr. Terry Sears, Transportation and Security Manager: at: Leisure Worid (LW), stated
14
that he had reviewed the EIR and was In disagree merit''!`VCiith the traffic survey,
15
particularly as it affects LW. He stated that J6 widening'•'of € the 405 Freeway
16
overcrossing would probably not be completed ur til after 2006 due to*.fui nding questions.
17
He noted that the bottleneck that occurs at this.'overcrossing will be exacerbated by this
18
project, and in turn will impact the entrance` He said that he disagreed with the
19
EIR determination that no traffic impacts would. bcdur'at St Andrews Drive and Seal
20
Beach Boulevard. He stated that 2 million cars pet year use the Golden Rain entrance
( J
21
to LW. He noted that the City had recently attempted to :. synchronize the traffic signals
22
along Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB) arni'i4d h 1 sequently the amount of time in front of LW
; 1
23
was lengthened creating massive gridlock insldethe. community, so LW approached the
U
24
City about changing the timing on the signals, to: fl i i he City very quickly responded.
25
He cautioned that this presents: the possilriiity.jbi hazardous situations as LW receives
( l
26
an average of 110 paramedic cails'per. month and emergency vehicles exiting LW would
27
get caught in the gridloi w.of cars attempting to": SBB from the LW exit. Mr. Sears
6A
28
stated that a more thor6b§ shoifid be completed. He then noted that the
29
existing noise levels frori:L'•the`= 111/estmindtdr Boulevard area of LW are already at
'
30
discomfort thresholds; and h'e disagrees with the stated average automobile speed of
31
40 -55 mph as fisted in' EIR. 140: stated that 45 -65 mph were more realistic numbers
r -
32
and they substantially increase the anise decibel level. Mr. Sears commented that the
33
noise level increase "during construction and afterwards with the increase in
34
35
traffic. He not%d':that recentl'+y a project that involved pile driving and oil drilling was
being completed' ori: the western border of LW. He said that the developer for that
r
36
project had installecr'44he"ir own expense double- paned, soundproof windows in all of
37
38
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
39
commented that the air quality issue as addressed in the EIR deals with the population
40
in general, but does not take into consideration the effects of a large amount of dust and
41
airborne particles on a senior population with an average age of 79 years. He indicated
42
that the criteria used in the EIR for high winds, as 35 mph for over an hour is
43
unacceptable, as at least 5 -7 times a year there are periodic winds coming from the
44
south and moving northward across the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) area moving
45
toward LW. Vice - Chairperson Hurley asked Mr. Sears if he could cite any medical
46
professionals that would substantiate his comments regarding the air quality issue. Mr.
J
Z:1Carmen_data%EQC8101 -29 -03 EQCB Mlnutes.doe 4
14 -34
u
r
v
U 1
2
4
5
r' 6
7
8
r� 9
10
11
F , 12
U 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
U 20
21
22
23
24
25
�I 26
27
28
29
30
(i 31
� 32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
f!
U
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 6A
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'd.O` of the DER 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 td any questions she might
have at that time. "
Y.Y.
There being no one also wishing to spea Chairperson Unrath closed the public
comment period. L.
A:
Board Comments _
Member Barton stated that the conceit s- expressed by -Mr Sears and Ms. Dorch are
also her main concerns, in particular fot-the residents of LW living along the perimeter of
Westminster Boulevard facing the Boeirij facility. She' she was not certain what
kind of mitigation measur+e5go- "Would work4* best,' but she feels it is important to do
everything necessary tq:,fielp "minimize the; ?,impact upon these residents. She then
asked the Associate Planner wh i Boeing haddecided to develop this land when it had
been vacant for so long*;:-'.: Mr. Curhmins.j Sponded that he was not certain what the
reason might be.
Vice - Chairperson Hu stated:!'that he had questions regarding items that were not
adequately.: eXplained in the.: EIR. Ar Cummins noted that it might be best that Vice -
Chairpersoii :Myriey prepare:a list of these items to which Mr. Cummins could prepare a
- ••
written responsar ;:Vice- Cha #rperson Hurley noted that it would help him prepare any
written comments i—submittal before February 10, 2003, if he had some answers to his
::•::
questions tonight. ,., 09mins 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 atI
other comments had been received tonight.
Vice- Chairperson Hurley referenced the following page numbers in the DER with
regard to the questions he had:
Pa. 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
ZACarmen_detnXEQCW01 -M -03 EQCB Minutm.doc 5
14 -35
AM
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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 61)
the date- He believed it was published in_ early January.
Pa. 2-6. Sec. 5.4 -1 The mitigation for high winds states greater than 35 mph average
for over one hour. Does this means that in high winds work would �l
not be halted until an hour has passed? Mr. Cummins stated that
this would be correct.
Pa. 2- 10.Sec.5.6 -3
The mitigation ratio for the wetlands drainage ditches is, staffed as
23:1. Does this refer to the planting"vf•23 plants for every one
plant removed? Mr. Cummins stated that he would review this
information and provide a response lbiirb
eg. 2- 12.Sec.5.7 -2
Who would be responsible :f6r finding pa1econtologic resources?
Will there be archasologicmonitors on site?' M{ ,Cummins stated
that during the grading phases of the project as It" now mitigated
there would be a Nativd"America6`monitor and an archaeologist
on site. Vice- Chalrperson Hurley requested clarification on the
difference between paleontoiogy and archaeology. Members
Voce and Unrath provided clarification. Vice - Chairperson Hurley
stated that the fact;.'Chat, monitors would be present should be
clearly stated.
Pg. 3- 23,Sec.3 -5
Line 11
: ;:::;' . •. �:.: •: ':
ThIOM• tense would `te-id more clearly if it stated, "It is currently
anticipated that all lof':construction would be completed by BRC
ard�or.sold: purchasers who would be responsible
fortlie;carisfrU' don oi'tfie buildings..."
Pg. 4- 2,Table 4
1 1tio -of T&* Js Js stated differently in the last paragraph of Page
�
4 -1 :-Ii des 1 and 4. Member Unrath noted that all No. 3 items on
" k
TabI9*1 (Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan) should reflect a Status
:.
stating -that all projects are built out and occupied.
Pg:. 5 - 12
Fugitive Dust
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 - Chalrperson . Hurley stated that the
document should be explanatory to the general public and more
specific rather than generalized terms should be used.
Pg. 5.5
m
Z:\Cermer datalEQCB101 -29-03 E009 Uinuf m.dec 6
14 -36
U
1J
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
1 Table 5.5 -2 How does Table 5.5 -2 show the acceptability of indoor noise
Page 5.5-4 are outdoor
2 exposures when all that is discussed on Pa g
3 noise Pxnosures? Mr. Glenn Lajoie of RBF Consulting, Project
4 Manager for the EIR, stated that the Staff of RBF were taking
5 diligent notes in order to address all concerns expressed tonight
U 6 by the Board members and the public. He said that he is unable
7 to respond to questions on the information in Table 5.5 -2,
8 however, a noise specialist team would be able to address these
r g comments when preparing the Final EIR. He noted that for the
U 10 most part this would be the case with. comments presented
11 tonight, but he would attempt to respond immediately to questions
12 presented tonight whenever possible: ':
13
14 Pct. 5.5 -6.
15 Table 5.5-4 Provide further clarification of maximum AIIowed Duration Period
` 16 for the category, "Noise Standard for a curAMt ve period" which
u 17 reflects "30 minutes in .any one hour." Mr. Cuinmins stated that
18 within the City's noise.: standards; • readings are taken over the
r i 19 span of 30 minutes to get a, sense of what the actual noise eve
i-1 20 is, and this becomes the baseline, with the rest of the readings
21 indicating dB(Ai) fluctuations allowed beyond the baseline.
24 Table 5.5 -7 Were field measurements ;'completed for Westminster Boulevard
25 taken; +vhile, the .. Boeidig properly or across the street next to
26 :.:
LW ?� •lVlr �Laloie stated::that typically noise readings are taken a
27 thii property: nine of the: :proposed project site. He noted that given
x .11
28 tFi :" �ensitiv*ityj.of.;.LW.,residents, this reading was taken on the
29 north-., rde* of Wdsfimirister Boulevard. A typo was noted under
30 Time dri, Site No. 4. Vice - Chairperson Hurley requested a
31 def nition'o #: "angle of view" and "hard or soft." . Mr. LaJoie stated
U 32 that angle of view" referenced second story windows that have a
33 direct;`:e of site to a noise source, and "hard" refers to
34 concrete/paved surfaces while "soft" refers to landscape
35 = .:materials.
36 •fi •'.': by � M.N,?
f ; 37 Pc. 5.5 -10.
38 Table 5,5.8 The paragraph on Existing Traffic Noise Levels discusses noise
39 levels in "CNELs" and Table 5.5 -8 discusses "Ldns." Which is
40 correct? Mr. LaJoie stated that he would acquire this information
41 from the noise .specialist team and provide the information later. -
42 Vice - Chairperson Hurley recommended that these terms be
43 consistent.
44
46
46
AN
p
l
M
ZACarmen_dat"QC810 -29 -03 EQCR Minutao.doc 7
tL 14 -31
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
2
3
4
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
Pa. 5.5 -13.
Para Is it possible to state when the importing of soil will begin after the 1 60
initial onset of construction activity?
PQ. 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 6P
5.6 -10? What is the meaning of the phrase In Table 5.5 -10
"Maximum Level. dB (50 feet: thence)?
Pa. 5.5 -15 Para 1 ^w
Lines 6 4 9 The phrase "These Communities PO face a sly increase in
noise levels..." is too sublective4 :On Line 9, which states,
"ambient levels in the area are - r�entlq' above 65 dBA," could this
conclusion be referenced to.jhi information °either on Page 5.5 -9
or 5.5 -10 for this section ?s"."Also the phragWlhat states, "these
noise levels are not expected to intrude past *'tlie first row of
residential units...," whi cta. noise level dBA are they referring to?
Pa. 5.7- 12.5.7 -1f Who will monitor excavationsiW 5 feet gr less Mr. Cummins
stated that typically this is t i66 threshold for having a Native
American monifo $resent. He said;: that if the concern is that a
monitor be present whenever: any kind of grading is being done,
the City would certainly consider'this request. He noted that the
Archaedlogical Advisory:•' Committee (AAC) would also be
reviewing' the EIR at it$ next scheduled meeting of February 5,
Vice-Chairperson Hurley re - t -;
f rred' 'Sdaldri Noise on Page 5.5 -1 and commented
Vice -Chaff
on the inadequacy,:a:_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.; hit the LW "i�e 'dents'•' are not like the general population for whom the
standards ' wkted in the EIR appropriate. He reiterated that the average age is 78
and many of theresidents ai;e;;not in good health. He said that this failure leads to other
failures based uporr- assumptions and speculation. He noted that another
basic flaw in the EIR ii the:2ssumption that if an impact lasts only 7 or 8 months it is not
significant regardless of&a 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:
A
0
M
P . 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 6T
data.
Pg. 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. 61J
ZACarmen dataZQC8%Q1.29 -03 EQCB Minutes.dx
14 -38
!U
L
a
1 Pg. 5.5-12
2 5 —ec J. 5 -1
L
U
U
v
�r -
r'
{J
1, ,
L
1
U.
r�
4
5
7
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 Seat Beach Environmental Qualify Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
Discussion is quite confusing. Some of the information is useful,
but app - 'Ars to undermine the conclusion that the impact will not
be significant. He noted that the City Municipal Code limits the
amount of construction noise only to the hours between 7:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m.
5.5- 13
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-de-0 b el level of noise. in
Paragraph 3 of this page the soil impor schedule provides a basis
for estimating that site preparati , .will take at least 7 months (210
days). '
Table 5.5 -11 According to this Table, Leisure World ' ressidents 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.' .. .
PQ 5.5-15, Line 5 The statement, "Both comrrrunities typically feature one -story
:.
structures;: and are' situated so that the side and rear yards ace
the; walls; "`:`"i.s false. Ten LW buildings have six
apt
artmen s each which. #ace the perimeter wall. On Line 7, even
a "slight" : increase. would be a significant impact according to
Table'S:,� -9, vittich shows that an ambient noise level above 65
' decibels °:leads to a significant impact occurring if it is 1 decibel or
ridre. Tie:!: statement Line 10, "these noise levels are not
�•. '• Y X.
expedted 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. Paragraph 3,
Line z ;f `
Which states, construction impacts are concluded to be
less.1 " n significant," flies in the face of the so called analysis
aldnd with 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."
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
m
WA
M e
6Z
L Z: \Carmen data\FQCB \01.29 -03 EQCB Minutee.doc 14 -39
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
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
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 Existin
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 7 1 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 Andres 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 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 Traffc!:and_ Circulation and
stated that he believes signal timing evaluations..are needed up a6d down SBB and the
adjacent areas of the property along Westminstegr Boulevard to get a Hefter idea of what
drivers will experience on a daily basis both during andr'after the construction. He noted
that the timing of signals would determine the levet 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 SBBwill Whelp to alleviate traffic congestion on this
boulevard. He continued by stating• : that the: Measures should discuss
whether any trees will be removed when widening•• Either Westminster Boulevard or
SBB, and if so, what type of _*ieplacement•.•mifloation will be planned. He ended by
pointing out that the M1t1gatib ' Measures" 'do not discuss consequences for any
violations.
Chairperson Unrath stated that, N3 .e'would- provide specific question in writing, but he did
want to state that •jngeneral •fie: has a problem with the SBB overcrossing. He noted
that the City. -has• bedh:-. holding ` 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
q . •y:•
with regard to w idening the overcrossing even if the freeway is never widened. He then
asked what the term: "point ijf sale for light industrial" means. Chairperson Unrath then
noted that traffic coiitfol..traiveling 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
transporting LW residents needing medical attention to the Los Alamltos 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
*• •' -r;
AM
ZACarmen data%EQC8101•Z9 -0S EQCB Minutes-doe 10
14 -40
IN
r
city of Seat Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
1
SBB was to be constructed, as well as the signal at Adolfo Lopez Drive, would any
2
consideration be given to reconfiguring the plans to designate Adolfo Lopez Drive as the
T)
3
� - - +t ^ eo in a separate new signalized. entrance? Member Unrath
entrance rat,per t � Qn Cr•.. -• g
(.�
4
this
then noted that e permitted land uses for this project is warehousing and finis
one of th
5
would involve numerous large trucks entering and exiting the complex adding to the
6
every day ambient and traffic noise along SBB and Westminster Boulevard. Member
that
7
Unrath continued by referring to Page 5.10 -7 under Study Area 1 and stated
found he believes it is important that a closer
8
considering the volatility of the chemicals
r ;
9
look at these contaminated areas be conducted.
U
10
11
Mr. Cummins stated that Staff would provide responses to.... he comments made and
12
present them with the Final EIR. Vice - Chairperson Hurley:asked if the public would be
13
invited to the hearing before the Planning Commission,:Mr:: Cummins stated that notice
is to be heard. He
14
would be published notifying the public of the date that this' item
that the schedule of meetings is tentative based on how muCh.�time is involved in
'
15
16
noted
completing the response to comments and the Final EIR. He said that-it, is possible that
17
this process could be completed sooner than indidated on the project timeline.
r
19
30,.2002
20
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —October
U 22
Recommendation: Approve Minutes subject to..,any corrections determined
23
appropriate.
F,
25
Member Barton noted a correction on Pa6ge•-' Line 38. Member Unrath also noted
U
26
,., •.
errors on Page 4, Line 38 ;, i�age•S; 15; atitl Page 3, Line 10.
28
MOTION by Hurley: SECbND by:Voce: to ..approve the Meeting Minutes of October 30,
29
2002 as amended.
31
MOTION CARRIED: . _0:;�:,
j
32
AYES: ' Barton; Hurley, Unrath, and Voce
,,�'.:••
33
34
NOES: ;:;:; None
ABSENT:
U
36
n
12. City Response, L";�tter Re: Site 40 Phase II Pilot Test, Work Plan for Pilot Tes
37
Program at IRSites 40 & 70.
38
39
Recommendation: Authorize the Chairman to sign the draft response letter
40
with any additional comments determined appropriate, and instruct Staff to
�j
41
forward to the City Council for information.
42
43
Mr. Cummins noted that the Board is quite familiar with both Site 40, and what is before
j 44
the EQCB now is the Pilot Test Program to commence work at this site. He said that
45
Staff has reviewed the report and it is very similar to previous reports received with the
that may be emitted from the soil,
46
exception of one item that details the possibility gases
U
• ;r
Z:%Cartnen daWTQCBW1.29 -03 EQCB Minutes.doc 11
L 14 -41
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
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
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
Na'vji 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: 4-0
AYES: Barton, Hurley, Unrath, and Vdee. :: ..
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
VII Staff Concerns
Mr. Cummins extended thanks to Member Jones -on behalf of the City for his service on
the EQCB.
Vill Board Concems
Member Barton asked if a.••letter.of recognition`aould be sent to Member Jones. Mr.
Cummins stated that he would inquire about this.
Vice - Chairperson Hurley: referred;:fio :the Minutes of October 30, 2002, Page 3 regarding
a memorandum to be ere' ated Staff providing clarification on whether the City met
with the Department; dif Water and Power. He then referred to Page 6 of the minutes
and asked if had'. been prepared by Staff requesting that City Council
investigate :: : legal remede9 ":for having the Naval Weapons Station participate in
mitigation of =con amination that extends in concentric rings from Site 73 onto Seal
Beach Boulevard Mr_ Cummitis 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 repbited 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.
Respectfully Submitted,
Z:%Carmen_deta%EQCB%D1 -29 -03 EQCB Ninutes.doe 12
14 -42
U
U
G
V
V
V
I
l.J
1...J
1
G
U
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control E08rd
Meeting Minutes of January 29, 2003
1
3 Carrnen PAUIvaroZ, ±lye Secretary
4 Department of Development Services
5
, 2003 approved the Minutes of the Environmental
6 The Board on
7 Quality Control Board of Wednesday, January 29, 2003.
8
Y�
.L. .. • P. %
••.•f 1 ^ -fit -
r
• t•..
Z \Carmen datalEQC5%01 - 29 -03 EQC8 Minute9.doc 13
14 -43
ReaA
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 6
Environmental Quality Control Board Public Hearing
January 23, 2003
6A. With regard to traffic impacts which affect the Leisure World Community
and in particular, impacts at St. Andrews Drive and Seal Beach
Boulevard, refer to Response to Commentor No. 3B.
The area of Seal Beach Boulevard at the intersections of St. Andrews
Drive and Golden Rain was reviewed in the Draft EIR roadway link
analysis which showed an insignificant increase of traffic on Seal Beach
Boulevard in this area. Since no project traffic is expected to enter or exit
Leisure World the impact to the Leisure World entrances will be
insignificant.
The City's signals operate using a time -based coordination system. Some
signals that are interconnected by fiber optic lines allow the traffic
engineer to make adjustments to allow the system to operate more
efficiently. Each intersection can be unique and traffic timing and signals
may need to be handled accordingly. For example, the queuing of
vehicles within a shopping center may be an acceptable method to allow
for free flow traffic on a major arterial similar to what happens on
signalized freeway on- ramps. In this instance, the cycle timing of the
intersection will be adjusted accordingly to allow for a balance of flow of
traffic on the major road while allowing less queuing of traffic on the minor
road where instances warrant.
Page 5.3 -57 of the Boeing Specific Plan Project Draft EIR recognizes that
the improvements planned as part of the Seal Beach Boulevard /1-405
Freeway Overcrossing Improvements may not be completed until after
Year 2006. Further, if the City of Seal Beach approves the project, the
City shall be required to adopt findings in accordance with Section 15091
of the State CEQA Guidelines and prepare a Statement of Overriding
Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
The first response to a medical emergency involves paramedic services,
primarily from the Fire Station along Beverly Manor Road. No response
time issues have been identified for service from that facility. Accessibility
issues resulting from emergency vehicles egressing Leisure World have
also not been identified.
Automobile speeds referenced in the Draft EIR have been verified in the
Final EIR. The following is excerpted from the August 12, 2002 Council
Memo which adopted the City's latest Speed Survey:
FINAL o APRIL 2003 14 -44 Comments and Responses
L
I �
0
U
u
V
U
E
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
STREET
SEGMENT
SPEED LIMIT
Existing
Proposed
Seal Beach Blvd.
Electric to PCH
35
35
Seal Beach Blvd.
PCH to Boise
40
45
ea l n-- -ti oi...+
g ocaun 01 Vu. aol
Onlne f Foresta
uvwu p
40
45
Seal Beach Blvd.
Forestall to Westminster
50
50
Seal Beach Blvd.
Westminster to 1 -405 Fwy
45
50
Seal Beach Blvd.
1 -405 Fwy to North City Limit
40
40
WestminsterAve.
East City Limits to Kitts Highway
55
55
Westminster Ave.
Road "B" to Kitts Highway
45
45
Westminster Ave.
Road V to West City Limit
50
50
Overall, the project would not result in significant mobile noise impacts
along the roadway segments analyzed. As indicated in Table 5.5 -13 of
the Draft and Final EIR, mobile source noise level increases along the
roadway segments analyzed would be a maximum of 1.1 dBA. Changes
in community noise levels of less than 3 dBA are normally not noticeable
and are therefore concluded to be less than significant, based on the
noted threshold.
It is acknowledged by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the South Coast Air Quality
Management Agency (SCAQMD) that senior citizen population should be
deemed "sensitive receptors." Other sensitive receptor populations
include children, asthmatics and pregnant women. The analysis in the
EIR has provided a comprehensive analysis of short -term and long -term
impacts with respect to the residents of Leisure World.
The term "greater than 35 miles per hour averaged over one hour' is a
component of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(SCAQMD) Rule 403 relating to standards to mitigate air quality impacts
r ; due to grading activities. When wind speeds average 35 miles per hour
{J over a one -hour period, grading activities would be halted until the winds
fall below 35 miles per hour over a one -hour period."
i 1 6B. The Draft EIR addresses impacts resulting from the proposed Project.
Mitigation measures have been identified in order to reduce the
significance of impacts.
6C. With regard to affects to Leisure World residents in the vicinity of
Westminster Avenue, Section 5.4, Air Quality, and Section 5.5, Noise,
j 1 provide a comprehensive review of those particular affects. Section 3.2,
U Background and History, of the EIR provides background information
related to the previous development application considered by the City of
r, Seal Beach, referred to as the Pacific Gateway Project. No additional
U information has been provided as to reasons for portions of the project
area to continue to be vacant.
6D. The commentor's reference to Page 1 -2 is in regard to the Notice of
Preparation of the Draft EIR which was published in March 2002 "The
SUN," a newspaper of general circulation. The notice of EIR availability
was published in the "SUN" newspaper on January 16, 2003 and included
a project description, dates of the comment period, and locations to view
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -45 Comments and Responses
0
C+ of ( 3am --- 9e= .
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
the EIR document. A copy of the published noticed is available at the
City of Seal Beach City Hall.
6E. With regard to wind measurements of 35 miles per hour, refer to
Response to Commentor No. 6A.
6F. The commentor's assertion of a 23:1 mitigation ratio for habitat creation is
correct in that it is based upon land area and not on the number of plants.
6G. The commentor's concern for monitoring of paleontological resources is
satisfied under Mitigation Measures 5.7 -1c and 5.7 -1f which refers to
requirements if discovery of cultural resources occurs during grading and
excavation. A City - selected archeologist and a native American monitor
will be observing all grading activities pursuant to Mitigation Measures
5.7 -1 c and 5.7 -1 f and they will have sufficient knowledge to recognize any
paleontological resources that may be discovered.
6H. Page 3 -23 of the Draft EIR, Paragraph 2 of Subsection 3.5, Phasing, has
been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
Rough site grading, demolition, and construction of the public roadway and required public
infrastructure improvements to serve Planning Areas 2 and 3 of the project are anticipated
to begin by the end of 2003 and be completed by mid -2004 in a single phase. Building
construction may commence by early 2004 for the portion of Planning Area 3 located
adjacent to Westminster Avenue and continue in a southerly progression. Building
construction in Planning Area 4 may also commence by early 2005. It is currently
anticipated that all buildings /lots would be constructed by BRC and /or sold to individual lot
purchasers who would be responsible for the construction of the buildings in accordance
with the approved development plans. Occupancy is anticipated to occur as early as mid -
2004, with full occupancy expected by the end of 2006.
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -46 Comments and Responses
U
U
U
U
U
U�
�1
i
�J
U
U
l
U
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
61. Table 4 -1 has been revised for the Final EIR to read as follows:
Table 4 -1"
Approved and Pending Cumulative Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Site
Key
Project Name
Description
Location
Status
Map
70 Single- family residential units
West of Seal Beach
Boulevard, southerly
1
Hellman Specific Plan
and a 20,000 square foot
visitor /recreation /community
of The Seal Beach
Approved
commercial center
Police Department
Facility, Seal Beach
Center rehabilitation and addition
Seal Beach
Boulevard /Saint
Under
2
Rossmoor Center
of Kohl Store for a total of 77,503
Cloud Drive, Seal
construction
sq. ft.
Beach
Northeast corner of
Plans
3
Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan
Vacant floor area of Bixby Old
Ranch Master Plan (Area A)
Seal Beach
Boulevard and the I-
approved and
bMLilt mdef
405/22 Freeway,
eeps#RU-stiea
Seal Beach
Northeast comer of
Plans
3
Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan
Vacant floor area of Bixby Old
Seal Beach
Boulevard and the I-
approved and
Ranch Master Plan (Area B)
405/22 Freeway,
under
Seal Beach
construction
Northeast corner of
Plans
3
Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan
Vacant floor area of Bixby Old
Seal Beach
Boulevard and the I-
approved and
Ranch Master Plan (Area C)
405/22 Freeway,
built mda
mien
Seal Beach
Northeast comer of
Plans
3
Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan
Vacant floor area of Bixby Old
Ranch Master Plan (Area D)
Seal Beach
Boulevard and the I-
approved and
built aadeF
405/22 Freeway,
Seal Beach
1 Street, west of
Allowable by
4
5c
Marina /1 Street Hotel
150 -Room hotel
Marina Drive, Seal
Specific Plan
Beach
North of Katella
5
Los Alamitos Medical Center
Development of 60,000 square
Avenue, between
Cherry Street and
Approved
foot medical office building
Kaylor Avenue, Los
Alamitos
6
10921 Cherry Street Medical
Development of 7,685 square
10921 Cherry Street,
Approved
Center Office Building
foot medical office building
Los Alamitos
7
Residential Development
52 Single- family residential units
301 Manila Ave,
Long Beach
Under
Construction
Entitlements
granted;
19,500 Square foot commercial
190 Marina Drive,
pending
8
Commercial Development
building
Long Beach
passage by
Coastal
Commission
'Note: At t Mme of of tI]e Daft EIR the current inform�on in Lh�ebl� was ac�� rate_
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -47
Comments and Responses
C+ of s�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Page 5.3 -27, Table 5.3.6 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR to read as follows:
Table 5.3 -6
*Kelat`dm Project Traffic Generation Forecast
Related Projects Description
Daily'
2 -Way
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
In
`Out
Total
In
Out
Total
1.
Rossmoor Center (77,503 square feet shopping center)
1,691
26
17
43
80
84
164
2
Area A - Old Ranch Town Center Net Entitled Trips (36,106
square feet of Vacant GLA)
779
16
10
26
38
38
76
3
Area B — Lampson Center (10,348 square feet of Vacant
GLA,112 Room Hotel, 155 unit Assisted Living Facility)
2,102
64
49
113
141
122
263
4.
Area C — Public Golf Driving Range (37 Tees)
463
14
10
24
20
27
47
5
Area D — Old Ranch Residential (31 unoccupied dwelling
units)
296
6
18
24
20
11
31
6.
Hellman Specific Plan
1,710
38
54
92
91
65
156
7.
Marina/1st Street Hotel (150 Rooms)
1,240
51
33
84
48
44
92
8.
Los Alamitos Medical Center (60,000 square feet)
2,170
116
30
146
60
160
220
9.
10921 Cherry Street (7,685 square feet)
280
15
4
19
8
21
29
TOTAL RELATED PROJECT TRIPS
10,731
346
225
571
506
572
1,078
*Note: At the time of preparation of the Draft EIR, the current information in the Table was accurate.
6J. In the context of the air quality analysis, the following definitions are used
for "nuisance" and "substantial ": 0
Nuisance — A use of property or course of conduct that interferes with the
legal rights of others by causing damage, annoyance, or inconvenience.
Additionally, nuisance is defined by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Regulation IV— Rule 402 as "A person rl
shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of U
contaminants or other material which may cause injury, detriment,
nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the n
public, or which endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any u
such persons or the public, or which cause, or have the natural tendency
to cause injury or damage to business or property."
Substantial — Large in size, value or importance. To determine the extent
of a Project's impact and the significance of such impact, the Project
should be compared to established levels of significance. CEQA requires U
that in evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a Project, U
the lead agency shall consider both direct and indirect consequences
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(d)). The SCAQMD recommends that (�
the following thresholds be used by lead agencies in making a U
determination of significance:
55 pounds /day ROG U
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -48 Comments and Responses 0
u
Ell
u
0
u
0
`u
u
U
L
E ll
E
U
i
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PR OJECT EIR
55 pounds /day NOx
550 pounds /day CO
150 pounds /day PM10
150 pounds /day SOx
California- State 1 -hour or 8 -hour CO
However, the final determination of whether or not a Project's impact is
significant is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to Section
150564(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
6K. The noise levels depicted in Table 5.5 -2, California Land Use
Compatibility Noise Guidelines, of the Draft EIR, reflect the maximum
outdoor noise levels, per category, as established by the California
Department of Health Office of Noise Exposure.
6L. Per the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 13D, Noise Control,
the "Noise Standard for a Cumulative Period" reflecting 30 minutes in any
one hour dictates that readings are taken over a 30 minute period to
establish a baseline. Subsequent measurements indicate any
fluctuations over the baseline. To establish a valid measurement in
relation to the environment, it is essential to determine whether the
existing ambient noise levels are within limits of the Municipal Code.
When a baseline is established, it can be determined whether subsequent
readings fluctuate above or below the City's guidelines.
6M. As noted, noise reading No. 4 was taken on the north side of Westminster
Avenue. The angle of view refers to second story windows that have a
direct line of site to a noise source. "Hard" refers to concrete /paved
surfaces and "soft" refers to landscape materials. Table 5.5 -7 of the Draft
EIR has been revised as follows in the Final EIR:
Table 5.5 -7
Noise Measurements
(Based on Field Measurements)
6N. The values provided in Table 5.5 -8 — Existing Traffic Noise Contour
Levels, 5.5 -12 — 65 CNEL Contour Projections (Existing Plus Project) and
Table 5.5 -13 — 65 CNEL Contour Projections (Existing Plus Growth Plus
Related projects Plus Project) in the Draft EIR are revised in the Final EIR
as follows:
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -49 Comments and Responses
Location
A)
Time
Time/Comments
Noe
(d
1
Adolfo Lopez Drive Cul de Sac
49.0
10:05 a.m. —10:20 a.m.
Clear, sunny, no wind
Westminster Ave.
66.8
10:30 a.m. —10:45 a.m.
Clear, sunny, little wind
2
Just east of Del Taco
Seal Beach Blvd.
65.3
10:55 a.m. —11:10 a.m.
Clear, sunny, variable
3
South of future hotel site
winds
Westminster Sk4—. Avg_.
69.0
11:20 a.m. — 44 a.m.
Clear, sunny, no winds
4
West area of project
Source: Noise Monitoring Survey conducted by RBF
Consulting, February 2002.
6N. The values provided in Table 5.5 -8 — Existing Traffic Noise Contour
Levels, 5.5 -12 — 65 CNEL Contour Projections (Existing Plus Project) and
Table 5.5 -13 — 65 CNEL Contour Projections (Existing Plus Growth Plus
Related projects Plus Project) in the Draft EIR are revised in the Final EIR
as follows:
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -49 Comments and Responses
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Table 5.5 -8
Existing Traffic Noise Contour Levels
(Based on Peak Hour Traffic Volumes)
Roadway Segment
ADT
DBA @ it7u Feet
from Roadway ,
Centerline
Distance from Roadway Centerline u;: (Feet)
60 L& ME - No' - Ise
contour
651& SPIEL
Noise Contour
701& 011
Noise Contour
Westminster Avenue:
Studebaker Road to Road A
23,066
63.6
197
92
42
Road A to Road B
23,204
63.6
198
92
43
Road B to Seal Beach Boulevard
23,204
63.6
198
92
43
Seal Beach Blvd. to Bolsa Chica Road
24,137
67.3
350
163
75
Adolfo Lopez Drive:
West of Seal Beach Boulevard
1,389
51.9
30
14
7
Seal Beach Boulevard:
Golden Rain Road to Saint Andrews
33,790
66.2
310
144
67
Saint Andrews to Westminster
33,790
66.2
310
144
67
Westminster Avenue to Road C
26,975
66.4
319
148
69
Road C to Road A
26,975
66.4
319
148
69
Road A to Pacific Coast Highway
20,666
62.8
183
85
40
Table 5.5 -12
65 CNEL Contour Projections (Existing Plus Project) !1
Existing
Existing
Plus Project
Distance from Roadway
Distance from Roadway Centeriine
Difference in
DBA @ 100
Centerline to: (Feet)
DBA @ 100
to: (Feet)
DBA @100
Roadway Segment
y
ADT
Feet from
Roadway
ADT
feet from:
Roadway
Feet from
Roadway
60 Lda
65 L�rr
70 fin
60.t do
65 Edn
70 Edn CN
Centerline
cm
CHM
GE
Centerline
chi
lEL
'Noise
.
Noise
Noise .
Noise
Noise
Woke
contour
Contour
Contour
contour
Contour
Contour
W estminster Avenue:
Studebaker Rd. to Road A
23,066
63.6
197
92
42
26,271
64.1
215
100
46
0.5
Road A to Road B
23,204
63.6
198
92
43
28,882
64.6
229
106
49
1.0
Road B to Seal Beach Blvd.
23,204
63.6
198
92
43
29,718
64.7
234
108
50
1.1
Seal Beach Blvd. to Boise
Chico Rd.
24,137
67.3
350
163
75
28,830
68.1
394
183
85
0.8
Adolfo Lopez Drive:
West of Seal Beach Blvd.
1,389
51.9
30
14
7
1,744 52.8
35
16
8
0.9
Seal Beach Boulevard:
Golden Rain Rd. to Saint
Andrews
33,790
66.2
310
144
67
38,923
66.8
341
158
73
0.6
Saint Andrews to
Westminster
33,790
66.2
310
144
67
38,923
66.8
341
158
73
0.6
Westminster Ave. to Road C
26,975
66.4
319
148
69
33,377
67.4
368
171
79
1.0
Road C to Road A
26,975
66.4
319
148
69
31,241
67.1
352
163
76
0.7
Road A to Pacific Coast
Highwa
20,666
62.8
183
85
40
22,096
63.1
192
89
41
0.3
Note: Noise level models computed for 2006 scenarios utilized existing 2000 roadway cross - section data.
J
J
J
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -50 Comments and Responses 0
L
u
o o ,c sWRe-A
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Table 5.5 -13
r j 65 CNEL Contour Projections
�J (Existing Plus Growth Plus Related Projects Plus Project)
L.
u
E
i
0
u
G
r
u
G
u
v
U
^ Existing + Future Growth ' + Related Projects
Existing + Future Growth + Related Projects + Project
Difference in DBA
Distance from Roadway
Distance from Roadway Centerline
DBA @ 100
Centerline to: (Feet)
DBA @ 100
to: (Feet)
@100 Feet from
Roadway Segment
-ADT
Feet from .
Roadway
ADT .
feet from
Roadway
Roadway
60 Un
65 Ldn
70 Ldn
60 f_dn
65 Ldn
70 Lin CNEL
Centerline
ME
OU
Centerline
MI
CHEL
Noise
Noise:
Noise
Noise • �
Noise
Noise
Contour
contour
.Contour
Contour
contour
Contour
Westminster Avenue:
Studebaker Rd. to Road A
25,389
64.0
210
98
45
28,594
64.5
228
106
49
0.5
Road A to Road B
25,538
64.0
211
98
45
31,216
64.9
242
112
52
0.9
Road B to Seal Beach Blvd.
25,538
64.0
211
98
45
32,052
65
246
114
53
1.0
Seal Beach Blvd. to Bolsa
26,698
67.7
374
174
81
31,391
68.5
417
194
90
0.8
Chica Rd.
Adolfo Lopez Drive:
West of Seal Beach Blvd.
1,500
52.2
32
15
7
1,855
53.1
37
17
8
0.9
Seal Beach Boulevard:
Golden Rain Rd. to Saint
38,080
66.8
336
156
72
42,213
67.2
359
167
77
0.4
Andrews
Saint Andrews to
38,080
66.8
336
156
72
42,213
67.2
359
167
77
0.4
Westminster
Westminster Ave. to Road C
30,554
67.0
347
161
75
39,956
68.1
415
193
89
1.1
Road C to Road A
30,554
67.0
347
161
75
34,820
67.5
379
176
82
0.5
Road A to Pacific Coast
23,401
63.4
199
92
43
24,831
63.6
2071
96
1 45
1 0.2
Highwa
Note: Noise level models computed for 2006 scenarios utilized existing 2000 roadway cross - section data.
60. The assumptions for timing for the import activity considers transport to
occur over a period of 200 days during construction. The assumption
does not specify the precise timing of import during the construction time
period.
6P. The calculation provided is for the following equipment:
® Scraper - 88 dBA
o Heavy Truck - 88 dBA
o Bulldozer - 87 dBA
The equation is as follows:
dBA (Total) = 101og10[ 10dBA (1Y10 +10dBA(2)/10 +10dBAt3yl
92 dBA = 101og +10 88/10 +10
The phrase "Maximum Level, dB (50 feet thence)" implies that the sound
level of the individual pieces of equipment given in Table 5.5 -10, Typical
Construction Noise Levels, are assumed 50 feet from the source. For
example a person standing 50 feet away from a typical bulldozer would
be exposed to noise levels of 88 dBA.
FINAL ® APRIL 2003
14 -51
Comments and Responses
Cof� ReacA
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
6Q. Based upon the analysis in Table 5.5 -11, Estimated Construction Noise in
the Project Area, noise levels within Leisure World are not expected to
exceed 86 dBA. This is a "worst case" scenario estimation and does not
take into consideration attenuation by the existing perimeter wall.
A +Mic natimotinn is for 100 feet from the proiect site. The
closest receptors are within 150 feet. By accounting for attenuation of up
to 6 dBA for the perimeter wall and accounting for the closest receptor
being 150 feet from the Project site, worst -case noise levels would be on
the order of 77 dBA for the residents adjacent to the perimeter wall. This
noise level would be attenuated even further by "row blockage" or more
specifically attenuation from buildings. The structures on the perimeter of
Leisure World would block noise levels from the project site even further
and reduce levels to within 70 to 71 dBA.
6R. As noted, grading operations of five feet or less below the surface is the
typical threshold for having a Native American monitor present on -site
during grading. A City- selected archaeologist and a Native American
monitor will be observing all grading activities pursuant to Mitigation
Measures 5.7 -1c and 5.7 -1f and they will have sufficient knowledge to
recognize any paleontological resources that may be discovered.
6S. Pursuant to the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code, Section 13D, Noise a
Control, the following activities are exempt from the Noise Code:
® Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or
grading of any real property, provided said activities take place
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays,
between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and do not take
place at any time on Sunday or local, State or Federal holidays;
and
o Noise sources associated with the maintenance of any real
property, provided said activities take place between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 8:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on Sunday or local, State or Federal holidays.
Additionally, per the City of Long Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80,
Noise, construction activities are exempt from the Noise Code during the
following times:
o Weekdays and federal Holidays — Except for emergency work,
construction noise is prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m.
® Saturdays — Except for emergency work, construction noise is
prohibited between the hours of 7:00 p.m. on Friday and 9:00 a.m.
on Saturday, as well as after 6:00 p.m. on Saturday.
® Sundays — Except for emergency work, construction noise is
prohibited at all times on Sunday.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -52 Comments and Responses
U
i
L BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN P ROJ E C T EIR
With adherence to the Municipal Code and implementation of the short-
term construction noise mitigation measures, impacts are concluded to be
less than significant.
r ` T . 1 �.,a�,.., +oa , ale 5.5 - are intended to provide the b
6 1 . Noise m easuremen ts i 11 I41�.rG1,.4 n T uv
reviewer with the representative noise environment at each measurement
location in the given timeframe. The data is provided for informational
purposes and is not utilized in the contour modeling shown in Table 5.5 -8.
L The FHWA model is based upon existing conditions traffic data. The
modeling input/output cannot account for other ambient and background
noise conditions which would be in addition to vehicular noise
measurements.
Field noise measurements sufficiently identify the noise environment
i along the north side of Westminster Avenue. Noise measurements were
LJ taken along Westminster Avenue, adjacent to the road right -of -way,
outside of the Leisure World community perimeter wall. A typical wall
which has a similar dimension as the Leisure World perimeter wall has a
noise attenuation factor of approximately 5 to 11 decibels. Additionally,
the effects of the Project are negligible above existing conditions since
the primary source of noise in the area is a result of traffic along
Westminster Avenue. Traffic noise increases due to the Project are also
negligible since Project traffic would add 1.1 dBA when compared to
without Project conditions. A decibel (dBA) increase less than 3.0 dBA is
typically not noticeable to humans.
6U. Page 5.5 -10 of the Draft EIR, following Table 5.5 -8, Existing Traffic Noise
Contour Levels, the following paragraph has been added in the Final EIR.
U
t
U
L"
In order to assess the�otential for mobile source noise impacts it is necessary to determine
the noise currentiv vehicles travelin throu the p ect area. Values
reflected in Table 5.5 -7 -Noise Measurements. are used to verify the accuracy of the
Federal Highwey Administration ( FHWA Noise Prediction Model (CALVENO Curves .Note
that the values predicted by the model compare favorably with the model values given inin
Table 5.5-8 - Existing Traffic Noise Contour Levels. This then verifies the accuracy of the
m del -- - -- -
6V. In summary, construction related impacts are short-term and would cease
upon completion of the grading /construction phase. As such,
[j construction impacts are concluded to be less than significant with
adherence to the City of Seal Beach and City of Long Beach Municipal
F Code, as well as implementation of mitigation measures cited in the Draft
U and Final EIR.
It should be noted that the estimated construction noise levels do not
L account for noise attenuation due to existing walls, berms, intervening
structures or topography. The primary sources of acoustical disturbance
will be random incidents, which would last less than one minute, such as
dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of
U machinery lifts. However, based upon the analysis, the local receptors
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -53 Comments and Responses
c, o 'c s�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
would not experience ambient construction noise levels that are in excess
of existing levels. With adherence to the Municipal Code, and due to the
relatively short period of construction, noise and vibration impacts are
concluded to be less than significant.
6W. Please refer to Table 5.5 -11, Estimated Construction Noise in the Project
Area, which reflects the noise levels for three pieces of equipment as the
distance from the source is doubled.
6X. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 6Q.
6Y. The generation of noise associated with the proposed Project would
occur over the short-term for site preparation and construction activities in
order to implement the proposed Project. Short-term noise impacts are
associated with site preparation, grading, and construction of the
proposed land uses. The construction- related short-term noise levels
would be higher than the existing or ambient noise levels in the project
area today, but would no longer occur once buildout of the project area is
complete.
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of
the proposed Project. First, the transport of workers and equipment to
the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site
access roadways. There would be a relatively high single event noise
exposure potential with passing trucks (the increase in noise would be
less than 1 dBA when averaged over a 24 -hour period), and would
therefore have a less than significant impact on noise receptors along the
truck routes.
The second type of impact is related to noise generated by on -site
construction operations and local residents could be subject to elevated
noise levels due to the operation of onsite construction equipment.
Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has
its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise characteristics.
These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise
levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Despite the
variety in the type and size of construction equipment, the dominant noise
sources and patterns of operation have been found to be similar during all
phases of construction, although the actual construction of the structures
produces somewhat less noise due to the use of smaller equipment.
The grading and site preparation phase tends to create the highest noise
levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is found in the
earthmoving equipment category. This category includes excavating
machinery (backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, front loaders, etc.) and
earthmoving and compacting equipment (compactors, scrapers, graders,
etc.) Typical operating cycles may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power
operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Noise
levels at 50 feet from earthmoving equipment range from 73 to 96 dBA
while Leq noise levels range up to about 89 dBA. The later construction
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -54 Comments and Responses
L
i
G
f
L '
I r �
U
u
C
C• o� � eaC4
BOEINGS I AN PROJECT EIR
of structures is somewhat reduced from this value and the physical
presence of the structure may break up line -of -sight noise propagation.
The nearest residential units are the residences within Island Village at
nroXima 195 feet from the nroiPrt site and residences within Leisure
World at approximately 155 feet from the project site. Based on an Leq
value of 92 dBA as measured at a distance of 50 feet, resultant noise
levels could be on the order of 95 dBA Leq. During the vast majority of
the construction period, however, noise levels would be 30 to 40 dBA
lower due to lower power settings and sound attenuation effect provided
by longer distances and partial blocking by intervening structures. While
construction is limited to the hours included within the City of Seal Beach
Municipal Code, it could constitute a nuisance to proximate residents and
Mitigation Measure 5.5 -1 is recommended.
6Z. Comment is noted.
6aa. With regard to impacts at St. Andrews Drive and Golden Rain and to the
corrected speed limits on Seal Beach Boulevard, refer to Response to
Commentor Nos. 313 and 6A.
Comment is noted. Exhibit 5.3 -1 shall be revised to include the
intersections of Seal Beach Boulevard /Golden Rain Road and Seal
Beach Boulevard /Saint Andrews Drive.
With regard to signal timing, the City of Seal Beach recently updated the
timing along Seal Beach Boulevard. The City Traffic Engineer
periodically reviews signal timing and traffic flows as necessary. Refer
also to Response to Commentor No. 6A.
It is further noted that traffic engineer's have adopted a standard indicator
to provide the public an idea of what traffic conditions they will experience
while driving on a roadway. Traffic congestion is best expressed in terms
of level of service (LOS) as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM). In addition to traffic volume, LOS is affected by conditions like
number of access points, lane width, number of lanes, and percentage of
large vehicles. The conditions defining LOS are:
o LOS A . Represents the best operating conditions and is
considered free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by
the presence of others in the traffic stream.
o LOS B . Represents reasonably free - flowing conditions but with
some influence by others.
o LOS C . Represents a constrained constant flow below speed
(i limits, with additional attention required by drivers to maintain safe
U operations. Comfort levels of the driver decline noticeably.
o LOS D . Represents traffic operations approaching unstable flow
U with high passing demand and passing capacity near zero,
U FINAL o APRIL 2003 14 -55 Comments and Responses
01�of < ��di�eaA
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
i
characterized by drivers being severely restricted in
maneuverability. R
o LOS E . Represents unstable flow near capacity. LOS E often
qui% 1 1 a.i Dui �y�.0 a
� % nhange%S t „ v L ..... OS F because of disturbances (road
conditions, accidents, etc.) in traffic flow.
o LOS F . Represents the worst conditions with heavily congested
flow and traffic demand exceeding capacity, characterized by
stop- and -go waves, poor travel time, low comfort and
convenience, and increased accident exposure.
The traffic analysis report prepared by LL &G has provided LOS's for
segments and intersections affected by this development proposal.
With regard to the widening of the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing
bridge to alleviate traffic congestion, Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation,
of the EIR provides a comprehensive review of local and regional impacts
which includes the Seal Beach overcrossing. Under the Subsection
"Area -wide Traffic Improvements," the bridge overcrossing is
acknowledged under the City of Seal Beach Capital Improvement
Program (CIP), which is acknowledged in the analysis. The section
concludes by stating that although the City's 2006 CIP shows the bridge
improvement, it would realistically occur after 2006 resulting in continued
deficiencies for bridge operations /access. Since 2006 is the horizon year
of the traffic analysis, impacts are concluded to be significant and
unavoidable due to the uncertainty of implementation of CIP
improvements. Refer also to Response to Commentor No. 1 C.
As stated in Mitigation Measure 5.3 -2, the Project Applicant shall be
responsible for all sidewalk and landscaping improvements /replacements
necessary as a result of right -of -way acquisition required in order to
implement improvements.
There are no punitive consequences in place. The City would issue "Stop
Work Orders" to responsible parties from proceeding if any mitigation
measures are violated. Specific types of violations may also be subject to
enforcement actions by other agencies (e.g., California Coastal
Commission, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, Orange County Fire Authority,
Orange County Health Care Agency, Regional Water Quality Control
Board).
Refer also to Response to Commentor No. 5F.
Refer to Response to Commentor No. 1 C.
Point of Sale refers to a business which sells something from the location
within the business park and sales tax is generated. Point of Sale
industrial uses include manufacturing, fabrication, assembly or other
FINAL o APRIL 2003 14 -56 Comments and Responses
U
A
U
U
s
Yeaf2002
Year2006
Year2006
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Existing
business uses that also generate sales tax revenues as a portion of their
(j
U
business operations; thereby generating sales tax revenues to the City.
A near -term (Year 2006) analysis was conducted at the intersections of
Traffic
_ Seal Beach B /L Mmnenn AVPnue Seal B each Boulevard /St.
Traffic,
Cloud Drive and Los Alamitos Boulevard /Katella Avenue to determine the
potential impact of the Boeing Specific Plan project. The significance of
Conditions
the potential impacts of the project at these three intersections was then
, Conditions
evaluated using the LOS standards and traffic impact criteria established
ICU
in the Boeing Specific Plan Project DEIR
ICU
Review of the table below shows that the intersections of Seal Beach
ICU
Boulevard /Lampson Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard /St. Cloud Drive, and
Inc.
Los Alamitos Boulevard /Katella Avenue currently operate at an
Key Intersections
acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hours and are
CJ
forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service in the
0.736
Year 2006 with the addition of project traffic. Thus, it is concluded that
(;
the Boeing Specific Plan project would not have a significant impact at
0.821
those locations.
U
A
U
U
s
With regard to Policy 1.5 on Page 5.1 -6 of the Draft EIR, it is unknown as
to the number of employees to be generated for each and every use
within the Project area. The project consistency analysis for Policy 1.5
acknowledges that future development within the Specific Plan area
creating over 100 jobs would be subject to compliance with TDM
measures as adopted by City Ordinance.
Consideration was given to reconfiguring the proposed site plan for
Planning Areas 2 and 3 of the Boeing Specific Plan project to utilize
Adolfo Lopez Drive as the primary access. However, due to wetlands
u issues and physical constraints of existing buildings, this could not be
�J accomplished.
(i As indicated in Exhibit 5.3 -1 of the Draft EIR, the traffic signal on Seal
Lj Beach Boulevard at Road A (Apollo Drive) is an existing signal that
currently serves the project site; it is not a new signal. A new traffic signal
would be installed at Seal Beach Boulevard and Adolfo Lopez Drive to
mitigate the Boeing Specific Plan Project's traffic impact at this location.
U FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -57 Comments and Responses
Yeaf2002
Year2006
Year2006
Existing
Background
Plus Project
Year 2006
Traffic
Traffic
Traffic,
Project Only
Time
Conditions
Conditions
, Conditions
Significant Impact
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
Inc.
YIN
Key Intersections
Period:
➢ Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.736
C
0.803
C
0.821
D
0.018
N
Lam son Avenue
PM
0.631
B
0.742
C
0.755
C
0.013
N
➢ Seal Beach Boulevard at St.
AM
0.582
A
0.638
B
0.650
B
0.012
N
Cloud Drive
PM
0.704
B
0.791
C
0.795
C
0.004
N
➢ Los Alamitos Boulevard at
AM
0.787
C
0.854
D
0.866
D
0.012
N
Katella Avenue
PM
0.712
C
0.787
C
0.791
C
0.004
1 N
Inc = Incremental ICU
With regard to Policy 1.5 on Page 5.1 -6 of the Draft EIR, it is unknown as
to the number of employees to be generated for each and every use
within the Project area. The project consistency analysis for Policy 1.5
acknowledges that future development within the Specific Plan area
creating over 100 jobs would be subject to compliance with TDM
measures as adopted by City Ordinance.
Consideration was given to reconfiguring the proposed site plan for
Planning Areas 2 and 3 of the Boeing Specific Plan project to utilize
Adolfo Lopez Drive as the primary access. However, due to wetlands
u issues and physical constraints of existing buildings, this could not be
�J accomplished.
(i As indicated in Exhibit 5.3 -1 of the Draft EIR, the traffic signal on Seal
Lj Beach Boulevard at Road A (Apollo Drive) is an existing signal that
currently serves the project site; it is not a new signal. A new traffic signal
would be installed at Seal Beach Boulevard and Adolfo Lopez Drive to
mitigate the Boeing Specific Plan Project's traffic impact at this location.
U FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -57 Comments and Responses
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
This improvement shall be the sole responsibility of the Boeing Specific
Plan project.
The new traffic signal would primarily service the existing uses located
along Adolfo Lopez Drive. The ne.. signal ig not expected to impart traffic
flow on Seal Beach Boulevard. The City would require that the proposed
traffic signal at Seal Beach Boulevard and Adolfo Lopez Drive be
interconnected with the existing traffic signal at the Seal Beach
Boulevard /Road A (Apollo Drive) intersection. Interconnecting the traffic
signals would allow the signals to be coordinated so traffic progression
can be maintained and the impact of an additional traffic signal on Seal
Beach Boulevard will be minimized.
The vehicular mix considered in the Noise Analysis for project generation
considers trucking operations based upon several of the potential uses.
As stated in the impact analysis for Study Area No. 1, further soil
sampling analysis would be required for the wastewater discharge line
that traverses Study Area No. 1, as a precursor to grading activities.
Should concentrations of materials be detected in subsurface soil above
regulatory cleanup levels, mitigation measures would be initiated.
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -58 Comments and Responses
I,
U
El C®MMENI" NO. 7
David Roseman, M.D.
P0 Box 3192
Seal Beach, California 90740
L January 29, 2003
Environmental Quality Control Board
L� City of Seal Beach
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Re: Review of EIR - Boeing Project
G
Gentlepersons:
In reviewing the document it appears that full traffic measurements were not
done at both St. Andrews and Golden Rain Streets.
im
LI
VI
u
F1
f '
G
L
J
This lack of important traffic data in and of itself it a reason to find this EIR incomplete at
this time and not ready at this time to be forwarded either to the Planning Commission or
the City Council for further consideration.
I believe that one of the major impacts of this project - given the lack of
improvement to the bridge over the 1 -405 Freeway, and the additional traffic
generated by the opening of the Kohl's Department Store,
- Will be a situation close to gridlock during rush hour for certain and close to it at
other times.
M
When I was on the Environmental Quality Control Board and we reviewed the EIR
for the Bixby project - there was already a concern in the record that it would be 7C
difficult for Emergency Vehicles /Ambulances to exit Leisure World and reach any
hospital, either in Los Alamitos or Long Beach.
Given this lack of data cited above, 1 believe that the delineation of various meaningful
project alternatives: "full - build ", "partial build ", "no build ", are an incomplete and flawed
disclosure of said alternatives and are a second reason to find the EIR incomplete at this
time.
With the data available, the partial and full -build alternatives lack a coherent and
compl: -te discussion of the public safety /medical ramifications of the project.
Regards, q�
V I
David Rosenman, M.D.
14 -59
UE
C&To s�
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 7
David Rosenman, M.D., Seal Beach Resident
January 29, 2003
7A. Refer to Response to Commentor Nos. 3B, 6A and 6aa.
7B. The conditions at the Seal Beach bridge overcrossing at the 1 -405
Freeway have been documented in Section 5.3 of the EIR. The Kohl's
Department Store is included in the Cumulative Impact analysis (refer to
Page 5.3 -26 of the Draft EIR and Table 4 -1 on Page 4 -2 which indicates
the Kohl Department Store in Key Map No. 2).
As shown in Table 5.3 -8 on Page 5.3 -36, the intersections of Seal Beach
Boulevard at the 1 -405 Northbound Ramps and Seal Beach Boulevard at
the 1 -405 Southbound Ramps are forecast in the Year 2006 to operate at
unacceptable level of services during the AM and PM peak hours if
improvements are not completed at the Seal Beach Boulevard /1 -405
Freeway Overcrossing. Please note that the trips generated by the Kohl's
Department Store were included in the background condition of the near -
term (Year 2006) analysis.
7C. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 6A.
7D. The City has fully complied with the provisions of CEQA with regard to
Alternatives. Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, was
prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of CEQA which describes a
range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project, which could
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed Project but
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
proposed Project. The evaluation considers the comparative merits of
each alternative. The analysis focuses on alternatives capable of
eliminating significant environmental effects or reducing them to less than
significant levels, even if these alternatives would impede, to some
degree, the attainment of the Project objectives. Potential environmental
impacts associated with three separate alternatives are compared to
impacts from the proposed Project. The alternatives include the "No
Project/No Development ", "No Project/Existing Designation" and a
"Residential Component" Alternative. The chapter concludes with
identification of the "Environmentally Superior" Alternative.
e
0
0
u
J
0
u
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -60 Comments and Responses
L
L
r�
J,
U
U
G
r
u
I
r)
tj
u
C�
V
L
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BL'SNESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOCSNG AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S. #40
1120 N STREET
P. 0. BOX 942873
SACRAMENTO, CA 94273 -0001
PHONE (916) 654 -4959
FAX (916) 653 -9531
January 31, 2003
Mr. Mac Cummins
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Mr. Cummins:
COMMENT NO. 8
W
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
r =SEAL_ BEACH
FEB 1 0 2003
DEI'r T t -t, GOvtcEs
DEVELq ?7,' i -r-
Re: City of Seal Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)- Boeing Specific
Plan Project EIR; SCH# 2002031015
The California Department of Transportation (Department), Division of Aeronautics,
reviewed the above - referenced document with respect to airport - related noise and
safety impacts and regional aviation land use planning issues pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The following comments are offered
for your consideration.
The proposal is for a mixed -use business park development on approximately 107
acres in the vicinity of Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard.
Pg. 5.5 -24 of the DEIR states that "private helicopter landing /takeoff facilities" are
located on the Boeing property site. According to our records, there is currently one
active special -use heliport with a State Heliport Permit issued by the Division of
Aeronautics. This heliport is located at the southwest corner of Planning Area 1.
Helicopters generally approach and depart to the southeast and southwest. Planning
Area 3 buildings 6,7 and8 are in the vicinity of the southwest approach/departure
flight path. Penetration of navigable airspace by these structures is a concern.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations
Part 77 may require a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460 -1).
For further technical information, please refer to FAA's Air Traffic and Airspace
Management web page at http: // wwwl. faa .gov /ats /ata/ATA400 /oeaaa.html.
These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Department's Division of
Aeronautics with respect to airport- related noise and safety impacts and regional
airport land use planning issues. We advise you to contact our district office
concerning surface transportation issues.
"Caltrans Improves 14 -61 zcross Californw"
Mr. Mac Cummins
January 31, 2003
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to review aril comment on t his proposal. if you have
any questions, please call me at (916) 654 -5314.
Sincerely,
c4.1 c)- 1 IC'O'
SANDY HESNARD
Aviation Environmental Planner
c: State Clearinghouse
Thomas Murphy - Assistant Chief Pilot, Long Beach -The Boeing Company
"Caltrans improves m 14 -62 ross California"
C
-
BOEINGS ECI FIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 8
Sandy Hesnard, Department of Transportation
January 31, 2003
L I
U�
r ,
i
U
7�J
r�
r
i�
r•
�h
L
ri
1 i
U
I r ,
1�
8A. Comment is noted. Section 3.6 of the Draft and Final EIR acknowledges
that other agency's, which would include the California Department of
Transportation, may have requirements and approvals applicable to the
proposed project. Consultation and coordination with the Federal
Aviation Administration would be required. Page 3 -24, under the heading
of "Other Agencies" has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
Other Agencies
California Coastal Commission
- Coastal Development Permit Approval
0 California Department of Fish and Game
1603 Permit
0 Regional Water Quality Control Board
- Section 402 NPDES Permit
Waste Discharge Permit
® Federal Aviation Administration
Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Form
0 Any other approvals deemed necessary during the entitlement process
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
14 -63
Comments and Responses
7, uM . NANCY
=k. NC. . 309 676 -3635= Fe c o. 34 ;PZ c'S: _or(" . -
COMMENT NO.
GABRIELINO /TONGVA TRIBAL COUNCIL
of the
GA IRIELINO TONGVA NATION
501 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500
Santa Monica, CA 90401 -2415
(310) 587 -2203
(310) 587 -2281 (fax)
www.Tonm aTrihLm
Tribal Council
Hon. Martin Alcala
Hon. Cindi Alvitre
Hou. Virginia Carmelo
Hon. Snmuel Dunlap
Hon Shirley Machado
Hon. Edgar Perez
February 3, 2003
Sent by Facsimile: 562 -431 -4067
Attn: Mac Cummins
Dept. of Development Services
City of Seal Beach
211 8' Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report 02 -1
Boeing Specific Plan Project
Dear Mr. Cummins:
Tribal General Counsel: Rae Lamothe
Tribal Technology Officer: Bruce Becker
This Tribal Council would like to take the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR 02 -1 currently being
circulated. After careful review of the cultural resource section of this document, we would like to make the
following recommendations.
Section 5.0 (5.7 Cultural Resources) outlines the potential environmental impacts that this project may incur
upon the archaeological resources of our tribal group. The mitigation measures outlined in the Cultural
Resources section of the document recommends Native American and archaeological monitoring during
certain phases of the construction activity. It is our recommendation and request that our tribal group be
included in the Native American monitoring selection process. It has been our experience that the proper
disposition of Native American burials and associated grave goods requires special consideration in their
care and handling.
We look forward to participating in the on -going environmental review process for this project. Please feel
free to contact me at any time or call me directly at (909) 262 -9351
Si Y.
-'Samuel H. Dunlap
Tribal Secretary
cc: RBF Consulting - Glenn Lajoie
NAHC
California Coastal Commission
"One Tribe, One ration, For all Crabrielinos"
0
L
14 -64
r".
?
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 9
1 Samuel H. Dunlap, Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council
V February 3, 2003
L; 9A. The monitoring provision referenced by the commentor involves
Mitigation Measure 5.7 -1f. The Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council will be
included in the Native American monitoring selection process by the City
of Seal Beach.
U
f .
L
U
U
r '
V
r;
(
U
r;
Lj
N.,
L
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -65 Comments and Responses
CIT° BEACH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA February 4, 2003
Mr. Mac Cummins L DEVEi_OPfvsi =l`: f =S
Assistant Planner
City of Seal Beach
Department and Development Services
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
ASSOCIATION of RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Boeing
GOVERNMENTS Specific Plan Project — SCAG No.1 20020659
Main Office
818 West Seventh Street Dear Mr. Cummins:
12th Floor
Thank you for submitting the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Boeing
Los Angeles, California Specific Plan Project to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse
90017 for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans,
projects, and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's
t (213) 236 -a800 responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws
f (213) 2361825 and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local
agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of
regional goals and policies.
www.scag.ca.gov
Officers: President Conmtlmenaber Hal
It is recognized that the proposed Project considers a Specific Plan for the Boeing
C. -I b--., Sun. Vanes • Cart Mnrenouse. Sal.
Berman. Ins A:igrea Se cnr Vitt ond Vice Preuaem President
Mayor 1— Pern•, B •
Headquarters Site. The proposed Project would provide for four planning areas, which
Supervisor Charles South Oran County
would maintain the existing Boeing operations, provide for approximately 973,000 square
Ventura Counn ] • TTansou urns Commsuson.
. as u Sus: Vanes
_ 14-66
Imperial County: Hank Kuiper, Imperial
County• • lu Shields, B—im
feet of light industrial space, a new 120 room hotel, 32,500 square feet of retail space,
Los An Counry.1vonn, Bratbwaue Bur
and create approximately 1,400 jobs. The 107 -acre project area would also include an
Lcs An Counts - Z., Yamsuv,s,. -s
Counts • Melanie
interior roadway system along with supporting utilities and other infrastructure systems.
.Angeles Anoresys, Compton -
Harn Baldwir., San Gahnel • Bruce Barrows.
The proposed Project is located at 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard in the City of Seal Beach.
Cerruos • Grnrve bas•. Bed • Hal Bernson. Lus
4nZ,6 Ken Biackw,eia Lomita • Rohen
br°e,rh Rusemrad - Gene Daniell. Paramount •
SCAG staff has evaluated the Draft Environmental
Alike D,spenta, Palmaale • luas Dunlap
Ingce —oo • Ruth Gatanrer, Lan Angeles - Eric
Im act Report for consistency with
P P Y
the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) and Regional Transportation Plan
G L Hal • An gel es - lamee . Las
veiea es Hahii L n An
4n eies • Ja m es
(RTP). The Draft EIR, in Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, states that the
Halm Los Angelo• • Nate Holden Los Angelo. •
Sahara :a.c•"s El Seguiia. • Tom .abung,. La,
purpose of the Section, "..is to identify the existing land use conditions, analyze project
Aiigetes • Bonnie Lrnsenthal. Lone beach • Korth
Af,l.arn Dunes •
compatibility with existing uses and consistency with relevant planning policies..
u v. Gnas Misakow ns.•s4. La
Angeles • Pam O'Cottnn: Santa - • Nici
Information presented in this section is based upon ... the Southern California Association
es
Pacire,o LnsA
' Prrn fa An - Be u Pr
Murree
of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ".
it e m
e ao. P.
un, Pr
Rn • era Ed yeses L- Angeles Karen
Rosenthal Cl.rein,rn: Dirk S`anr °rd, Musa
ion: Sykes V4amu: - Paul Till- Uhambra
The Draft EIR did not include an analysis of project consistency with relevant and
1 0A
.K bL: ,, - Deer Wasnnum Ca,.m,. - lack
applicable policies of SCAG's RCPG and RTP, which were outlined in our March 8, 2002
Wen. Las Angeles • IY,bYbusefian. Glen °ale -
m
Lkns P 2me, L- Angeles
letter on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Draft EIR.. It would be helpful if the
Orange County Charie, Smid Orange County
Final EIR would provide a discussion and address the manner in which the proposed
• tint Bates. Las .4�ansi,us • An Bnrwr. Buena
Project is consistent with or detracts from the
Pus U,. Bone Tustin Cau—n D Iioung,
guna Niguv Ri,nit. Ms... Lase Fare.:
achievement of RCPG and RTP policies.
SCAG's March 8, 2002 letter is attached for your information.
-
Alu Duke Ca nt
Palma - Snes McCracken.
Anaham • Be, Port bm, • Tod Rwgessas
Ness i—I Bear
We expect the Final EIR to specifically cite the appropriate SCAG policies and address
U
Rl-n unn•
Miller Corona L., Co fsr °ronr.
• sn::asr•iagc. R:ve-Ge erviae - • i ell Mule
the manner in which the Project is consistent with applicable core policies or supportive
G: •C :t..... Calm — , Cn, • For. Robert,.
r:n • W'mte Mua
of applicable ancillary policies. Please use our policy numbers to refer to them in your
r ahe'
San Bernardi
B
Bernardino Counr,: Oau: u: 6iane San
Draft EIR. Also, we would encourage you to use a side -by -side comparison of SCAG
b---o C °ant, • Bi, Aleaanaer Rancn°
Cu,ambuga • Lawrrnse •
policies with a discussion of the consistency or support of the policy with the proposed
Jai, Barstow Lee 4nr.
Garcia Gran Terrace • Suun Longvtlle San
Project. This was done for the General Plan Consistency analysis on 5.1 -3 and
b r " " ° "" G— ° "`' ° i " "° ° e°°r"
ancn
R :°r.. nuuc
page
detailed in Table 5.1 -1.
Ventura Countv: lua• Moen Ventura Counn •
C. -I b--., Sun. Vanes • Cart Mnrenouse. Sal.
Buei -emu,. • Tnnilu.. Rm Hueneme
Ri —iae Counn Transportation Cornmuuon-
Ventura Counn ] • TTansou urns Commsuson.
. as u Sus: Vanes
_ 14-66
,) l
r'
February 4, 2003
Mr. Mac Cummins
Page 2
1
((
Based on the information provided in the Draft EIR, we are unable to determine whether
the Project is consistent with SCAV policies. if you have any questions, please Contact
me at (213) 236 -1867. Thank you.
Sincerely,
h
r
1 M. MITH, AICP
Senior Re ' nal Planner
Intergovemmental Review
1
Attachment: SCAG Letter, March 8, 2002
V
1
0
U
r
L
U
G
0
I
E lk 14 -67
U
0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
O ffs— Ptendent snpervisor Ion M,keh,County
March 8, 2002
eraardrn Xa .1 • First vin ont mbe
l Btrnsoo. Lm Angengelles
I t -" ,duat
_ .
Mr. Mac Cummins
I I
mAlamnm
Assistant Planner
LLLJJJ
"
City of Seal Beach
enco
encom a more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. CEQA requires that EIRs discuss
:aaat • Harry Gild'" "• tan Gabnd ' aria
. C—.,. George Bau. Hell Hal
Department and Development Services
°" , °' . )o Anne Darcy; Sams N n . De neCm`�
Gm Daniels.
Daniels, Param oum • Jo
plans (Section 15125 [d]). If there are inconsistencies, an explanation and rationalization for
211 Eighth Street
such inconsistencies should be provided.
P
ASSOCIATION of
Seal Beach, CA 90740
:e Hardsson,Tsuranee • Nine Holden, Lm Angela
Odra Jacobs• o kg� • Lae n Jerry.
GOVERNMENTS
. San
sh r M"C Bm ` -Ci M nnkowsk,. km Long B e ac h L •
M� nhv. Downey • em
Plan, which may be applicable to your project, are outlined in the attachment. We expect the
-gel. • Sucev m
Murph,, Burbank • Pa
"Cannm. Sams Mmuca • Nick ft berg. Im
RE: Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental Impact Report
"g ` °' A � Padi ll i• L otAnge l "' h °'"ryLon
n ale, • Bun,tePr°°.Picaa.era. Mark Alde
which the Project
j ct is consistent with applicable core policies or supportive of applicable
for the Boeing Headquarters Site — SCAG No.1 20020111
ancillary policies. Please use our policy numbers to refer to them in your Draft EIR.
Main Office
Also, we would encourage you to use a side -by -side comparison of SCAG policies with
m
Dena wabbmn, C alabaua • tart wen,' Im
a discussion of the consistency or support of the with the Proposed Project.
Dear Mr. Cummins:
policy
828 West Seventh Street
22th Floor
Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental Impact
Los Angeles, California
Report for the Boeing Headquarters Site to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide
90027.3435
clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local
i
plans, projects, and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's
responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and
t (zT3) z 36 -
regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and
I 1
r (2 236.1825
project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and
policies.
www.scag.ca.gov
O ffs— Ptendent snpervisor Ion M,keh,County
We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental Impact Report for
eraardrn Xa .1 • First vin ont mbe
l Btrnsoo. Lm Angengelles
I t -" ,duat
the Boeing Headquarters Site, and have determined that the proposed Project is regionally
Pressdenl: road Pro Text een Gso, Perry.
Pit, Mayor Preadenr. Ron
per California Environmental Qualit Act (CEOA) Guidelines (Section 15206). The
mAlamnm
proposed Project considers a proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or
.mperW `°a°'y Ratak X po.Impmal CO1try
industrial park to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or
a Angela Cowry. Y,Tarc Yat°il Loa A ngelo
m Angola Canary • 2n
enco
encom a more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. CEQA requires that EIRs discuss
:aaat • Harry Gild'" "• tan Gabnd ' aria
. C—.,. George Bau. Hell Hal
an inconsistencies between the proposed roject and applicable general plans and regional
i
Y project PP 9 P g
°" , °' . )o Anne Darcy; Sams N n . De neCm`�
Gm Daniels.
Daniels, Param oum • Jo
plans (Section 15125 [d]). If there are inconsistencies, an explanation and rationalization for
Dana • Rush Gil A
anser, Lmngelea • Fnc G.
•
'
such inconsistencies should be provided.
P
Art
.m Agela Ray Grabs -h. Long Beach • Jame
iahn Im Angelo • pact Hahn. Los Angela
:e Hardsson,Tsuranee • Nine Holden, Lm Angela
Odra Jacobs• o kg� • Lae n Jerry.
Policies of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and Regional Transportation
. San
sh r M"C Bm ` -Ci M nnkowsk,. km Long B e ac h L •
M� nhv. Downey • em
Plan, which may be applicable to your project, are outlined in the attachment. We expect the
-gel. • Sucev m
Murph,, Burbank • Pa
"Cannm. Sams Mmuca • Nick ft berg. Im
Draft EIR to specifically cite the appropriate SCAG policies and address the manner in
"g ` °' A � Padi ll i• L otAnge l "' h °'"ryLon
n ale, • Bun,tePr°°.Picaa.era. Mark Alde
which the Project
j ct is consistent with applicable core policies or supportive of applicable
nra, R Los "' • Ed R Lm Angers •
.area A- ea slsal, Claremont • Dick sck Ssas(or°. Anuu
ancillary policies. Please use our policy numbers to refer to them in your Draft EIR.
Tun Svka walnut • Paid Talbert, Alhambra •
.k_ Tyler. Jr.. Pasadena • )od Wachs. Im Angela
Also, we would encourage you to use a side -by -side comparison of SCAG policies with
m
Dena wabbmn, C alabaua • tart wen,' Im
a discussion of the consistency or support of the with the Proposed Project.
mgdes • Derma A Loe, Los Angeles
policy
ha°ge Counry. Charles Smith. Orange County
.on Baas. 8s 'A Park Park • lnn Bons, Tmm Bauer. boot. mn
—6 • An Brown, B Please provide a minimum of 45 days for SCAG to review the Draft EIR when this document is
.1-bed: C—. C - n Mau • Cathr DeYoun available. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact me at
'gun. Niguel • Richard Dix=. We rotas • Alit
.nke, La Palma • Smiley McCrae Anaheim • (213) 236 -1867. Thank you.
w Perry Brea • Tod JUdge vay. Newport Beach
.amide Couory: Bob Baser. lu—nie County -
ac Lovenage. R,rerude • Greg Perm• Cashednl �--Sincerely,
r
sn Ron Roxru Temecula Jan Rudman, - j
ormu • Canna white. Moreno Villa r
an evoardmo County. Jon Mikeh. San
t.. ' at.. Count) • Bill Aletanoer. Rancao X RFY //( ( /I monga • D—d kshleman. Fontana • Lee Ann f ' �( • Grand Terrace • Bob Hunter, Vm-11e • - Non°n -Port), Chin° Hills • Judith Villa M SMITH Glr.p
::alai Senior Planner
::_=m ju"y Msteh, Lemurs Counn
-:cc:: Sms Valle, • Donna D< Paon St. Intergovernmental Review
.,enavenrura • Tom Young Pon l+ueneme
,seaside Count) Tramponaoon eomsmuion:
. +nits Lc_ )xm
enmra Counts 7'r— poruuon Conumunt n•
.:sit. S.•n. sines
14 -68
U
ll
L
L.
U
U
fr
March 8, 2002
Mr. Mac Cummins
Page 2
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
BOEING HEADQUARTERS SITE
SCAG NO. 1 20020111
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project considers a Specific Plan for the Boeing Headquarters Site. The
proposed Project would provide for four planning areas, which would maintain the existing
Boeing operations, provide for approximately 870,300 square feet of light industrial
space, a new 120 room hotel and 32,500 square feet of retail space. The Project would
also include an interior roadway system along with supporting utilities and other
infrastructure systems. The proposed Project is located at 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard in
the City of Seal Beach.
CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE POLICIES
The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and
Guide (RCPG) contains the following policies that are particularly applicable and should
be addressed in the Draft EIR for the Boeing Headquarters Site.
3.09 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's
1J Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG
in all phases of implementation and review.
Regional Growth Forecasts
The Draft EIR should reflect the most current SCAG forecasts which are the 2001 RTP
(April 2001) Population, Household and Employment forecasts for the Orange County
Council of Governments (OCCOG) subregion and the City of Seal Beach. These
forecasts are as follows:
OCCOG
Subregional
Forecasts 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
1 r Population 2,865,828 3,006,094 3,168,932 3,270,699 3,343,824
Households 909,705 966,587 1,001,220 1,034,445 1,050,352
Employment 1,502,429 1,667,788 1,897,730 1,975,072 2,043,660
14 -69
March 8, 2002
10 Mr. Mac Cummins
Page 3
City of
Seal Beach
Forecasts
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Population
26,545
26,734
27,819
28,497
28,984
Households
13,321
13,405
13,596
13,697
13,764
Employment
10,009
11.237
12,188
12,929
13,500
3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and
transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth
policies.
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has goals, objectives, policies and
actions pertinent to this proposed project. This RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility
with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing
energy consumption, promoting transportation - friendly development patterns, and
encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio- economic,
geographic and commercial limitations. Among the relevant goals, objectives, policies and
actions of the RTP are the following:
Core Regional Transportation Plan Policies
4.09 Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional
Performance Indicators:
Mobil - Transportation Systems should meet the public need for improved
access, and for safe, comfortable, convenient, faster and• economical movements
of people and goods.
• Average Work Trip Travel Time in Minutes — 25 minutes (Auto)
• PM Peak Freeway Travel Speed — 45 minutes (Transit)
• PM Peak Non - Freeway Travel Speed
• Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay (Fwy)
• Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay (Non -Fwy)
Accessibility - Transportation system should ensure the ease with which
opportunities are reached. Transportation and land use measures should be
employed to ensure minimal time and cost.
• Work Opportunities within 45 Minutes door to door travel time (Mode Neutral)
• Average transit access time
:7
14 -70
L
L
I March 8. 2002
Mr. Mac Cummins
Page 4
Environment - Transportation _ system should sustain development and
preservation of the existing system and the environment. (All Trips)
CO, ROG, NOx, PM10, PM2.5 — Meet the applicable SIP Emission Budget and
® the Transportation Conformity requirements
Reliabilit — Transportation system should have reasonable and dependable levels
of service by mode. (All Trips)
Transit — 63
. Highway — 76%
Safety - Transportation systems should provide minimal accident, death and injury.
I (All Trips)
. Fatalities Per Million Passenger Miles — 0
. Injury Accidents — 0
Equi4oEnvironmental Justice - The benefits of transportation investments should
C~ be equitably distributed among all ethnic, age and income groups. (All trips)
U . . By Income Groups Share of Net Benefits — Equitable Distribution of Benefits
among all income Quintiles
1�
Cost - Effectiveness - Maximize return on transportation investment (All Trips). Air
Quality, Mobility, Accessibility and Safety
. Retum on Total investment — Optimize return on Transportation Investments
4.02 p
Trans ortation investments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable
level.
E ll 4.04 Transportation Control Measures shall be a priority.
�1
4.16 Maintaining and operating the existing transportation system will be a priority over
expanding capacity.
GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL
STANDARD OF LIVING
The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals to spend
less income on housing cost, that minimize public and private development costs, and
that enable firms to be more competitive, strengthen the regional strategic goal to
stimulate the regional economy. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the
following policies would be intended to guide efforts toward achievement of such goals
I U1
L ` 14 -71
March 8, 2002
Mr. Mac Cummins
Page 5
and does not infer regional interference with local land use powers.
3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use, which reduce costs on
infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities.
3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public
service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and
the provision of services.
3.10 Support local jurisdictions' actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting
process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness.
GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL
QUALITY OF LIFE
The Growth Management goals to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop
urban forms that enhance quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles, that
preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and
preserve the character of communities, enhance the regional strategic goal of maintaining
the regional quality of life. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the
following policies would be intended to provide direction for plan implementation, and
does not allude to regional mandates.
3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing
land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for
roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled,
and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike.
3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized
areas accessible to transit through infrll and redevelopment.
3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation corridors,
underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and
redevelopment.
3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause environmental
impact.
3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge
areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered
plants and animals.
14 -12
f
r•,
i
l ..
�. March 8, 2002
Mr. Mac Cummins
Page 6
3.21 Encourage the implementation -of measures aimed at the preservation and
protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites.
3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in
i f areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards.
1J
3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures
aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would
reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to
develop emergency response and recovery plans.
GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO PROVIDE SOCIAL, POLITICAL,
AND CULTURAL EQUITY
The Growth Management Goal to develop urban forms that avoid economic and social
polarization promotes the regional strategic goal of minimizing social and geographic
disparities and of reaching equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the
proposed project in relation to the policy stated below is intended guide direction for the
accomplishment of this goal, and does not infer regional mandates and interference with
local land use powers.
r , 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop
f sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society,
u accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care,
social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection.
r;
AIR QUALITY CHAPTER CORE ACTIONS
U The Air Quality Chapter core actions related to the proposed project includes:
5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source
U rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community based shuttle
services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle- miles-
(�� traveled /emission fees) so that options to command and control regulations can be
assessed.
5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at all
levels of govemment (regional, air basin, county, subregional and local) consider
air quality, land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure
14 -73
March 8, 2002
Mr. Mac Cummins
Page 7
consistency and minimize conflicts.
WATER QUALITY CHAPTER RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS
The Water Quality Chapter core recommendations and policy options relate to the two
water quality goals: to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity
of the nation's water; and, to achieve and maintain water quality objectives that are
necessary to protect all beneficial uses of all waters.
11.07 Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost - effective,
feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater
discharges. Cunent administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater
should be addressed.
CONCLUSIONS
All feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative regional impacts
associated with the proposed project should be implemented and monitored, as required
ah by CEQA.
IP
14 -74
Li
c
' March 8, 2002
Mr. Mac Cummins
Page 8
G
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Roles and Authorities
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Agency established
under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Under federal and state law, SCAG is designated as a Council
( of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization
1 (MPO). SCAG's mandated roles and responsibilities include the following:
SCAG is designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization and mandated to
I maintain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional
LJ Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. '134, 49 U.S.C. '5301
et seq., 23 C.F.R. 450, and 49 C.F.R. '613. SCAG is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency,
r and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation
I ( Improvement Program (RTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080 and 65082 respectively.
SCAG is responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing, employment,
' and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan,
pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460(b) -(c). SCAG is also designated under 42 U.S.C. '7504(a)
as a Co -Lead Agency for air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air Basin District.
{ SCAG is responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformity of Projects, Plans and Programs to
the State Implementation Plan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '7506.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2, SCAG is responsible for reviewing all Congestion
Management Plans (CMPs) for consistency with regional transportation plans required by Section 65080 of the
Government Code. SCAG must also evaluate the consistency and compatibility of such programs within the region.
SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Inter - Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial
assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372 (replacing A -95 Review).
SCAG reviews, pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087, Environmental Impacts Reports of
projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans [California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
r ` Sections 15206 and 15125(b)].
u Pursuant 33 U.S.C. '1288(a)(2) (Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act), SCAG is the authorized
Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency.
SCAG is responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, pursuant to California Government
Code Section 65584(a).
SCAG is responsible (with the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments,
and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments) for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste
Management Plan pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25135.3.
Revised July 2001
L
s
i
U
U k 14 -75
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 10
Jeffrey Smith, Southern California Association of Governments
February 4, 2003
10A. Page 5.1 -31 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows
SCAG's REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAIN AND GUIDE
5. 1-4 The proposed Proiect would not conflict with relevant policies of SCAGs
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. Analvsis has concluded that the
proposed Proiect is considered consistent with relevant and applicable policies.
The consistency analysis of the proposed Proiect with relevant and ap licable polici o_f
SCAG's Re i nal Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) is provided in Table 51 -3
SCAG Policy Consistency Anal sis As detailed in Table 5.1- 3 the proposed ro is
considered consistent with relevant and applicable policies of the RCPG
CUMULATIVE
5.1� 7 5 The proposed Project, combined with other future development, could increase
the intensity of land uses in the area. Analysis has concluded that impacts are
less than significant and no mitigation is recommended. Projects are evaluated
on a project -by- project basis in accordance with the criteria set forth within the
jurisdiction in which the cumulative project is located.
Table 5.1 -3, SCAG Policy Consistency Analysis, of the Draft EIR has
been added to the Final EIR at the end of Section 5.1, Land Use and
Relevant Planning.
Table 5.1 -3
SCAG Policy Consistency Analv
SCAG RCPG Policies
Consistency
Statement
Growth
Manaaement Chapter
301
The population, housing, and lobs forecasts.
Consistent. The
most current
SCAG forecasts are reflected in
which are adopted by SCAG's Regional
Section 6.3. Growth - Inducing Impacts As discussed in Section
C ouncil and that reflect local plans and
6.3. the proposed Proiect is consistent with local and regional
policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases
population. housing, and employment projections
o f imp lementatio and review.
The timing, financjng._and location of public
Consistent.
The proposed circulation system would accommodate
f acilities, utility systems, and transport i n
build-out of the Specific Plan area. Initial street construction
an
systems shall be used by SCAG to
future phased construction or reconstruction would be completed
implement the region's growth policies,
in advance of occupancy of new facility- phased construction.
Further. the Proiect would extend utilities/infrastructure
from
existing facilities that exist adjacent to the Proiect site"
All future
d evelopment proiects would be subiect to review by the
City and
respo nsible en e .
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -16 Comments and Responses
L
C.
L
Ll
U.
ul
(;
I...J
L.
L
u
u
01
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
SCAG RCPG Policies
Consistency Statement
Core Regional
Transportation Plan
Transportation investments shall be based I Consistent The proposed circulation system would accommodate
on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance build out of the Specific Plan area initial street construction acid
Indi or . future phased construction or reconstruction would be completed
in advance of occupancy of new facility- phased construction. The
proposed transportation improvements are considered consistent
w ith SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators.
4L1
4Q2
j 4
416
Transportation investments shall mitigate
Consistent As indicated in Section 5.3. Traffic and Circulation.
environmental impacts to an acceptable
where feasible recommended mitigation measures would reduce
Level.
Transportation Control Measures shall be a
riori .
Maintaining and operating the existing
transportation system will be a priority over
expanding capacity,
potential traffic and circulation impacts to less than significant
levels. It is noted that the feasibility of mitigation at the Seal Beach
Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection and the Seal Beach
Boulevard ovemrossing is uncertain as discussed in Section 5.3 of
the EIR.
Consistent. As indicated in Section 5.3. Traffic and Circulation.
transportation control measures have been identified as mitigation
to reduce the significance of im a .
Consistent The Project does not propose to expand the capacity
of the existing transportation system (i.e.. Westminster Avenue
with Seal Beach Boulevard) The Proiect does. however, propose
two roadways to facilitate access into the Proie area: Saturn
Way and Apollo Court Further. Apollo Drive may be extended to
connect Westminster Avenue with Seal Beach Boulevard.
Additionally, improvements to Adolfo Lopez Drive are proposed
adjacent to the Project site Refer to Section 5.3. Traffic and
Circulation for additional discussions.
GMC Policies
Related to the RCPG Goal to Improve the Regional Standard of Living
30 5
Encourage patterns of urban developmenj
Consistent Refer to consistency analysis for SCAG Policies 3.13
and land use which reduce costs on
nd 41 .
infrastructure construction and make better
use of existing acilitie .
3.09
Ll0
Support local iurisdictions' actions to
Consistent Refer to consistency analysis for SCAG Policies 313
minimize the cost of infrastructure and public
—and 4.16.
Consistent The proposed Boeing Specific Plan provides policies
and guidelines to expedite the permitting process.
service delivery and efforts JQ seek new
sources of funding for development and the
p rovision of servic .
Support local iursdictions' actions to
minimize red tape and expedite the
permitting process to maintain economic
vitality and co eness.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -77 Comments and Responses
C .0 -c
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -78 Comments and Responses a
SCAG RCPG Policies
_ Consistency Statement
GINC Policies
Related to the RCPG Goal to Improve the Regional Quality of Life
3.12
Encourage existing or oroposed local
Consistent. Project proposes development of business park
jurisdictions' programs aimed - at designing
— The
and hotelkom ierGial uses The Plan as pro posed tjrou
land uses which encourage the use of transit
enhance public access to the coast by providing hotellcommercial
and thus reduce the need for roadway
uses adjoining residential development that would minimize th
expansion, reduce the number of auto trips
use of coastal access roads and provide adequate parking
and vehicle miles traveled, and create
facilities to serve the development. Adequate on -site parking
opportunities for residents to walk and bike
would be required to meet projected demands. Public transit stops
Orange County Transportation Authority) are located along
Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard The Specific
Plan proposes to zone a portion of the site for commercial and
retail uses These uses would—be allowed in areas that are
directly across the street or near two existing residential
communities: Leisure World and Island Village Additionally
pedestrian sidewalks are proposed into the right -of -way for Apollo
Drive. Apollo Court and Saturn Way, Sidewalks are proposed to
best accommodate pedestrian needs adjacent to new
develop within the Specific Plan area.
3�1
Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that
Consistent. Development exists north east south and northwes
maximize the use of existng urbanized areas
of the Project site. Further, vacant lands existino west of the
accessible to transit through infill and
Proiect site are utilized as flood control facilities and designated
redevelopment.
for conservation purposes. Thus, the Proiect proposes the
development of business park and hotel/commercial uses in an
e xist ing urbanized area and on property currently zoned for ligh
industrial development since November, 1965. Public transit stops
(OCTA) are located along Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach
Boulevard, adaacent to the ro'e e.
E ncourage developments in and around
Consistent. Refer to consistency analysis for SCAG Policies 416
acli vily centers transportation corridors ,
an—L3-13.
underutilized infrastructure systems, and
areas needing recy cling and redevelopment.
3.18
Encourage planned development in locations
Consistent. As indicated in Section 5.0. Description of
least likely to cause environmental impact.
Environmental Setting. Impacts. and Mitigation Measm
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would
educe potential impacts to less than significant levels. In additio
to the mitigation measures proposed in this EIR, the proposed
Specific Plan contains policies to protect environmental resources
and minimize adverse environmental effects
3.20
Support the protection of vital resources such
Consistent, Refer to Section 10.0. Effects Found Not to be
as wetlands groundwater recharoe areas
ignificant, and to consistency analysis for SCAG Policy 3.18
woodlands producfion lands and land
containing unique and endangered plants
and animals.
3.21
Encourage the implementation of measures
Consistent. As indicated in Section 5.7. Cultural Resources the
.a imed at the preservation and protection
recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential
recorded and unrecorded cultural resources
impacts to cultural resources to less than significant levels.
a nd archaeological sites.
Discourage development, or encourage the
Consistent. The Proiect site does not contain areas of steep
u se of special design requirements in areas
slopes or high fire, flood, or seismic hazards As indicated in
with steep slopes high fire flood and
Section 5.8. Geoiogv and Soils and Section 5.9. Hydrology and
seismic hazards.
Drainage implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures would reduce potential impacts associated with flood
a nd seismic h azards to less than significant level .
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -78 Comments and Responses a
I
1
, r
U
I
r
L'
(
t
L
l�
L
o o,c s�Re=A
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
SCAG RCPG Policies
Consistency Statement ,
3.23 _
Encourage mitigation measures that reduce
Consistent As indicated in Section 5.5, Noise, Section H.
noise in certain locations, measures aimed at
Biological Resources and Section 5 8 Geology and Soils
preservation of biological and er_.olnniral
recommended mitigation_ measures would reduce potential
resources measures that would reduce
impacts associated with noise biological resources. and
exposure to seismic hazards minimize
geology/soils to less than significant levels, respectively. As
earthquake damage, and to develop
discussed in Section 5 Public Health and Safety.
emergency response and recovery plans.
implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than
significant impacts regarding emergency response and recovery
Ip ans•
GMC Policies
Related to the RCPG Goal to Provide Social.
Political, and Cultural Equity
Support local jurisdictions and other service
Consistent. The Specific Plan proposes hotel and commercial
_
providers in their efforts to develop
uses adjoining residential development. These uses would be
sustainable communities and provide
equally available to all members of the society.
equally to all members of society. accessible
and effective services such as: public
education, housing, health care. social
services recreational facilities. law
enforcement, and fire groLertion,
Air Quality
Chapter
Ill
Through the environmental document review Consistent This EIR addresses air quality, land use and
process, ensure that plans at all levels of transportation impacts of the proposed Specific Plan and provides
government (regional, air basin, county. mitigation measures where feasible to reduce significant
subregional and local) consider air quality, environmental impacts to a less than significant level.
land use transportation and economic
relationships to ensure consistency and
minimize conflicts.
Water Quality
Chapter
11.07
Encourage water reclamation throughout the Consistent. The Specific Plan as proposed includes use of. and
region where it is cost - effective, feasible. and enhancements to existing facilities that would improve storm
appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water quality on the site. The Specific Plan proposes to
water and wastewater discharges. Current implement a variety of structural and non - structural Best
administrative impediments to increased use Management Practices and to establish certain maintenance
of wastewater should be addressed procedures and other management practices to prevent and/or
reduce the pollution of downstream receiving facilities (i.e.. the
Los Alamitos Retarding Basin) A conceptual Water Quality
Management Plan for the Specific Plan area has been prepared to
address issues of water quality and the Specific Plan as proposed
incorporates existing and proposed site features into the water
alit plan refer to Appendix 15. .
9L5
Minimize potentially hazardous
Consistent Refer to the consistency analysis for SCAG Policy
developments in hillsides, can
3.22.
susceptible to flooding, earthquakes. wildfire
and other known hazards, and areas with
limited access for em r enc ui m nt.
906
Minimize public expenditure for infrastructure
Consistent Through General Plan goals, policies, and
and facilities to support urban type uses in
implementation programs: Specific Plans and zoning
areas where public health and safety could
requirements, the City provides for adequate infrastructure and
not be guaranteel
facilities as well as ensures the public's health and safety. Public
expenditures are determined by the City Council as a part of the
City's annual budget process for the Capital Improvement
Program.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
14 -79
Comments and Responses
clik.of s�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
SCAG RC PG Policies
Consistency Statement
9.08
Develoo well - managed viable ecosystems or
Consi tent The General Plan promotes the protection of viable
known habitats of rare threatened and
ecosystems and habitats through the preservation and
endangered species, Inclu wetlands.
enhancement of open space uses.
Page 6 -4 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
According to the California Department of Finance, the City of Seal Beach's population was
estimated at 25,098 persons' in 1990 and estimated at 24,157 persons in 2000.
Department of Finance data is a typical reference /resource for population /housing data. As
of January 2002, the City's population was an estimated 24,675 persons. According to
SCAG forecasts. the Ci 's population is pr iected to increase to approximatel 28 984
persons in 2020 The City's General Plan Land Use Element projects a population of
30,080 persons at General Plan buildout.
Housing
The number of households in the OCCOG in 2000 -- was 909.705. This
estimate is forecast to increase to approximately 1 1 million in 2020 The County of
Orange's housing supply totaled 875,105 housing units in 1990 and 969,484 housing units
in 2000.
Page 6 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
According to State Department of Finance estimates, between 1990 and 2000, the City of Seal
Beach's housing supply decreased from 14,407 housing units to 14,267 housing units .5 As of
January 2002, the City's housing supply was 14,325 units, representing an increase of 0.41
percent (58 housing units) over the 2000 estimate. The vacancy rate in the City as of January
2002 was 8.54 percent (1,224 vacant housing units). The City's vacancy rate was over double
the County's vacancy rate of 3.53. The number of persons per household in the City was 1.86
(January 2002), or nearly 40 percent less than the County's estimate of 3.04 persons per
household. According to SCAG the number of households --in City is forecast to increase to
a pproximately 13.764 in 2020
' City and County 1990 Population and Housing: State of California, Department of Finance, City /County
Population and Housing Estimates, 1991 -2000, with 1990 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, May 2000. J �
2 City and County 2000 and 2002 Population and Housing: State of California, Department of Finance,
City /County Population and Housing Estimates, 2002, Revised 2001, with 2000 Census Counts. Sacramento,
California, May 2002.
3 City of Seal Beach General Plan Land Use Element Summary Report, No Date, Page 1.
4 City and County 1990 Population and Housing: State of California, Department of Finance, City /County
Population and Housing Estimates, 1991 -2000, with 1990 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, May 2000.
5 City and County 2000 and 2002 Population and Housing: State of California, Department of Finance,
City /County Population and Housing Estimates, 2002, Revised 2001, with 2000 Census Counts. Sacramento,
California, May 2002.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -80 Comments and Responses
L
U
U
F
U
U
U
`( !
U
U 11
Ell
El
I
BOEINGSPECIFI PLAN PROJECT EIR
nt
OCCOG's em mo ment in 2000 was an estimated 1.5 million. Em in the subregion is
forecast to increase to ap 2.0 million in 2020. According to the 2000 Census, the
Countv's civilian labor force totaled approximately 1.4 million. An estimated five percent (71,059
persons) of the County's civilian labor force was unemployed at the time of the Census. The
majority (approximately 38 percent) of the County's labor force was employed in
management/professional / related occupations. The County's labor force primarily filled positions
in the manufacturing and educational /health /social services industries, representing
approximately 17 percent and 16 percent, respectively.
The 2000 Census reported a total civilian labor force of approximately 9,922 in the City of Seal
Beach. Approximately 3.5 percent (344 persons) of the City's civilian labor force was
unemployed at the time of the Census. This unemployment rate was slightly lower than the
County's five percent unemployment rate. Over one -half (approximately 53 percent) of the City's
labor force was employed in management/professional /related occupations. As with the County,
management/professional/ related occupations represented the largest group in the City. The
majority, an estimated 24.4 percent, of the City's labor force filled positions in the educational/
health /social services industry. According to SLAG the City's employment is forecast to increase
Lo a pproximately 13,500 in 2020.
Page 5.1 - 32 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
SCAG's REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE
5.1 -4 No miti measures are recommended. Based on the analy provided above, the
proposed Project would not result in significant impacts in this regard.
CUMULATIVE
5.1-4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above,
with the incorporation of the Project features, the proposed Project would not result in
significant land use impacts.
U FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -81 Comments and Responses
George G. Derry
7197 Island Village Drive
Long Beach, CA 90803
Tele .... (562) 493 -3654
February 4, 2003
Mr. Lee Whittenberg
Director of Development Services
Seal Beach City Hall
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
COI .M N'7° NO. 11.
OF
DEV ELC: =MS-:T SERVICES
RE: Environmental Impact Report and Mitigated Negative Declaration 00 -1 Parcel
Map 2000 -134 Pacific Gateway Business Center
Dear Mr. Whittenberg:
I am writing to you as a resident of the Community of Island Village which is adjacent to
the Boeing property that is the subject of the above referenced impact report and the
negative declaration. This letter sets down some of my concerns and those that are
being expressed by my neighbors in Island Village.
I am a CPA and understand the City of Seal Beach wanting to develop potential
revenue sources while contributing to the desirability of the community which in the end
will impact the value of properties in both the Seal Beach and East Long Beach areas.
I am concerned that the current plan will actually lower the values of surrounding
properties due to negative impacts outlined in the above referenced report.
I am concerned about many of the issues that arise from this project, and they are as
follows:
A. Once built the proposed development will forever alter traffic patterns to and
from Island Village and Seal Beach. Traffic speeds will be reduced, and it will
make it increasingly difficult to get in and out of the development area. Widening
of Westminster Blvd will put more pollution into Island Village Homes. Traffic is
noise, and congestion should be avoided if possible. It now takes twenty
minutes to go from Island Village to Long Beach Yacht Club on Friday nights
from the hours of 5 -6:00 P.M.. This is a distance of 1.2 miles thats an average
speed of 3.6 miles per hour. Workers from the industrial /business park will make
it impossible to get in or out of Island Village. The study ignores this problem
and glosses over the nature of the problem.
B. Affordable housing for workers is not available within the City of Seal Beach.
Leisure World is affordable housing but only for the aged. Therefore it appears 1 1C
14 -82
c
u
E l l
�J
U
I J
L
fl
G
G
l
L
I
n
1
C
U
you may conclude that both customers and workers at the new center will
commute via automobile into the area. The City has an obligation to provide
f fa ;ce onri r
;u kam if i
affordable housing for y young ,Qm ,l;�.. �..� o.. -_•= .. t is going to foster industrial
development. More affordable housing in an area where the least expensive
homes sell for $400,000 is simply not feasible. The highest and best use of the
land one must conclude is not industrial. Perhaps a study should be done which
would outline the highest and best uses that can be supported in Seal Beach.
C. An industrial /business development of this size will demand large amounts of
water, electricity and natural gas, yet no consideration has been given to
supplying the site with utilities. There is concern that more generating facilities
may be needed to support your development, and this can impact the price we
are paying or will have to pay in the future.
D. The open spaces represented by this development are immense. Everyone is
concerned about what the finished product will look like. We don't feel that the
small green belt proposed would be acceptable. Cerritos developed smaller
developments but saw to it that huge green belts and trees were planted to blend
these industrial /business parks into the residential housing. Please don't over
develop this area.
,,..
1. 1 k.
1 l.D
J. J E
E. Much of the area proposed for development is now a large basin that fills with
water during the rain. The plan does not address the runoff from huge parking ] ]�
lots. With the development so close to the beach, it is almost assured that these
waters will end up flowing out to the ocean and the beaches.
F. Chrome plating, electro- polishing, sandblasting, vapor de- greasing and light
manufacturing are potential polluters and businesses that are considered to be ] 1 G-
normal tenants for this type of development. The plan does not address any
regulation changes to prevent inviting such pollution into Seal Beach.
G. The proposed hotel in the development appears overly optimistic. The Ayers
hotel just opened and has plenty of vacancies. The Seaport Marina Hotel and
the Golden Sails would be less expensive than the proposed site and all would
have superior location to the proposed site. Most hotels in the market area have
a high vacancy rate. Permitting over - development of hotels is financially
irresponsible.
H. Long Beach is to be impacted by this development. Boeing also occupies Long
Beach properties from which it does not want to move. It would appear to be
wise to work with the City and the residents of Long Beach that will be impacted
by this development. Involving everyone early seems wise. Simply stated this
isn't happening now?
Page 2 of 3
14 -83
1.1.1
Rather than go on with more concerns l v:ould like to conclude by asking that you keep .�
Island Village Homeowners informed regarding the progress of this development, and
the reports that are being prepared for this development. Further I would like to see a ,
greater participation by Island Village and the City of Long Beach in this planning.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at the phone
number above.
Very tryly yours,
l j�re >a tz
George G. Derry 7
GGD:cg
cc: Pacific Coast Management: Angie McKinnon
Boeing Real Estate Corporation
Coastal Commission (South Coast District)
Mr. Frank Colonna (Long Beach 3' District)
Honorable Beverly O'Neill
Seal Beach City Council
Page 3 of 3
14 -84
V
U
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT E
Section 15131 of CEQA states that economic or social information may
[j be included in the EIR or presented in whatever form the agency desires.
Based upon the proposed uses, the existing Light Industrial designation
(1 for the site and the conclusions rendered in Section 5.0 of the Draft EIR,
the City has determined that there is not a clear nexus of physical
economic effects of the proposed project which can be concluded to
result in potentially significant environmental impacts to nearby land uses.
11B
B. The Traffic and Circulation section of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential
traffic impact that the Boeing Specific Plan project may have on access
and egress to the Island Village Community. The significance of the
U potential impacts of the project at this intersection was then evaluated
based on the LOS standards and traffic impact criteria established in the
r Boeing Specific Plan Project Draft EIR
The entrance into Island Village is a signalized intersection, affording
adequate safety controls for persons entering and exiting, if they follow
standard safe driving practices. Traffic speed enforcement is the
responsibility of the City of Long Beach Police Department between
Studebaker Road and the City boundary, which encompasses Island
Village. It is further noted that if there is no change in the signal phasing
at Island Village/Westminster, there is no impact to the current
entrance /exit movements. Any change in signal phasing is the
responsibility of the City of Long Beach. Any change in the throat length
of the turn pocket at Island Village/Westminster is not caused by turning
movements of vehicles from the Boeing Specific Plan project.
Results of the near -term (Year 2006) analysis presented in Table 5.3 -8 on
Page 5.3 -36 of the Draft EIR shows that the intersection of Island Village
Drive and Westminster Avenue currently operates at LOS A during the
AM and PM peak hours. Further review of Table 5.3 -8 indicates that
I r
U I FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -85 Comments and Responses
Response to Commentor No. 11
r George
Derry, Long Beach Resident
U
February 4, 2003
r
,'
I
U
11 A. The commentor is advised that the previous development application,
referenced as Pacific Gateway Business Center, is no longer under
consideration by the City of Seal Beach (refer to EIR Subsection 3.2,
Background and History).
With regard to revenue sources and economic considerations, based
upon Section 15131(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, economic or social
effects are not to be treated as significant effects on the environment. An
EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a
'
project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from a
project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic or social
changes. The intermediate economic or social changes need not be
analyzed in any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause
and effect. The focus of the analysis shall be on the physical change.
Section 15131 of CEQA states that economic or social information may
[j be included in the EIR or presented in whatever form the agency desires.
Based upon the proposed uses, the existing Light Industrial designation
(1 for the site and the conclusions rendered in Section 5.0 of the Draft EIR,
the City has determined that there is not a clear nexus of physical
economic effects of the proposed project which can be concluded to
result in potentially significant environmental impacts to nearby land uses.
11B
B. The Traffic and Circulation section of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential
traffic impact that the Boeing Specific Plan project may have on access
and egress to the Island Village Community. The significance of the
U potential impacts of the project at this intersection was then evaluated
based on the LOS standards and traffic impact criteria established in the
r Boeing Specific Plan Project Draft EIR
The entrance into Island Village is a signalized intersection, affording
adequate safety controls for persons entering and exiting, if they follow
standard safe driving practices. Traffic speed enforcement is the
responsibility of the City of Long Beach Police Department between
Studebaker Road and the City boundary, which encompasses Island
Village. It is further noted that if there is no change in the signal phasing
at Island Village/Westminster, there is no impact to the current
entrance /exit movements. Any change in signal phasing is the
responsibility of the City of Long Beach. Any change in the throat length
of the turn pocket at Island Village/Westminster is not caused by turning
movements of vehicles from the Boeing Specific Plan project.
Results of the near -term (Year 2006) analysis presented in Table 5.3 -8 on
Page 5.3 -36 of the Draft EIR shows that the intersection of Island Village
Drive and Westminster Avenue currently operates at LOS A during the
AM and PM peak hours. Further review of Table 5.3 -8 indicates that
I r
U I FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -85 Comments and Responses
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
with the addition of project traffic, the Island Village Drive/Westminster
Avenue intersection is projected to operate at LOS A during the AM peak
hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour traffic. Thus, it is concluded
that the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project will not have a significant
4,-fr.-;m fin} O� t�'11
Up1M, 1 ct ua 1 Div C location
The Draft EIR does indicate that the Boeing Specific Plan Project would
have significant traffic impacts at several key intersections, including the
Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd Street/Westminster Avenue and Studebaker
Road at Westminster Avenue. As shown in Table 5.3 -12 on Page 5.3 -47
of the Draft EIR, the Boeing Specific Plan Project has identified
improvements to offset the impacts of the proposed project at
intersections located in the City of Long Beach.. The Boeing Specific Plan
project has also identified its fair share towards these improvements,
which totals $175,822.50 for the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway
and 2 nd Street/Westminster Avenue and $175,093.25 for the intersection
of Studebaker Road and Westminster Avenue.
With regard to air quality, the EIR states that emissions associated with
construction are anticipated to exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds.
Feasible mitigation measures cannot reduce the construction emissions
to less than significant levels. At buildout, project operations would result
in significant and unavoidable impacts to regional air quality levels.
With regard to noise, the EIR does identify construction noise affects
which are exempt from adhering to City noise standards, in accordance
with the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code (Chapter 13D).
Implementation of the proposed project would result in increased noise
levels on the surrounding roadway network. The noise increase has been
concluded to be less than significant for Year 2006 buildout traffic
scenarios. For on -site noise due to typical operations of each use,
stationary source impacts are subject to the City of Seal Beach Municipal
Code requirements and recommended mitigation measures.
11 C. The General Plan for the City of Seal Beach includes a Housing Element
which addresses the needs and requirements for affordable housing
citywide. A portion of the subject site is recognized in the Housing
Element for consideration of residential development which may include
higher density housing that is affordable to lower income household. The
Alternatives section (7.0) of the EIR includes a residential development
component on a portion of the site.
As is stated on Page 6 -5 of the Draft EIR, the Boeing Specific Plan does
not propose the development of housing which would result in a direct
growth in the City's permanent population. However, the employment
created by the proposed uses has the potential to result in an indirect
growth in the City's population since the potential exists that "future
employees" (and their families) may choose to relocate to the City.
Estimating the number of these future employees who would choose to
relocate to the City would be highly speculative since many factors
influence personal housing location decisions (i.e., family income levels
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -86 Comments and Responses
E ll Ci of <; i
j BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
U and the cost and availability of suitable housing in the local area).
(` Further, additional housing opportunities exist for the Project's future
�j employees in the communities surrounding the City of Seal Beach.
Nonetheless, due to the uncertainty which exists with regard to the
l
number of new employees vi mwy c hoose to relocate to the City, a
�j more conservative analysis of impacts associated with the City's
permanent population is provided. For analysis purposes, if 25 percent
of the Project's new employees were to relocate to the City, the Project
E ll, could potentially create a demand for 350 housing units and result
in a population increase of approximately 651 persons.
r•,
f 1 The housing supply and vacancy rate in the City as of January 2002 was
U 14,325 housing units and 8.54 percent vacancy (1,224 vacant housing
units), respectively (refer to Response to Commentor No. 10A). Vacancy
i rates of 4.0 percent are typically considered ideal to provide an adequate
return for property owners and to provide for adequate "turnover' and
mobility within the market. Assuming that future Project employees would
occupy existing housing, Project implementation would decrease the
City's housing vacancy rate to approximately 6.10 percent (874 vacant
housing units). Therefore, the Project would not decrease the City's
vacancy rate such that the ideal vacancy rate of 4.0 percent would be
met. Further, a 6.10 percent resultant vacancy rate would be greater than
the countywide vacancy rate of 3.53 percent. In consideration of the
City's existing housing supply and vacancy rate, it would appear that the
housing demand created by the Project could be absorbed without
significantly impacting housing availability.
11 D. The Draft EIR includes a complete review of infrastructure systems
associated with the proposed project. Section 3.3, Project
Characteristics, describes the Water System Plan, Sewer System Plan,
Storm Drainage Plan, solid waste, electricity, natural gas, telephone,
cable television, police, fire and emergency services. Section 5.11,
Public Services and Utilities, provides a comprehensive impact and
mitigation review for water, wastewater and solid waste. No unavoidable
j significant impacts related to public services and utilities have been
identified following implementation of recommended mitigation measures
r ' and compliance with applicable City, County, service and utility provider
requirements, codes, ordinances and other requirements.
11 E. While views across the Project site would be modified, analysis has
U concluded that future development would not significantly alter the visual
character of the Project site nor would it be considered a degradation to
the visual character of the site or the surroundings.
U Adequate buffers would exist at the Project site's interface with existing
residential uses (i.e., Leisure World to the north and the Island Village
(1 community to the west). More specifically, physical features existing in
(� the Project area would serve as buffers separating the Project site from
adjacent residential areas. Existing buffers to the north include
Westminster Avenue, the drainage channel, and the block wall bordering
Leisure World residences. Existing buffers to the west include the flood
U , FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -87 Comments and Responses
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
control channel (LARB) and the block wall bordering to the Island Village
residences. Features proposed by the Project would further separate the
Project site from adjacent residential areas including an 18 -foot
landscaping buffer proposed along Westminster Avenue and a perimeter
sc ri l re .,, ' • ., area eh e� 20 d 1 0 fe along th
uui�G iiic «n�ion,�mla�
�l�e11 811a,�, wl.,,. (b e.:.. 3 n_ Q_ ee , @
western property line. Further, it should be noted that the existing
residences do not face the Project site, but rather are oriented in the
opposite direction.
Design guidelines have been established in the Specific Plan that would
minimize potential visual impacts resulting from Project development.
The design guidelines in the Specific Plan define the general criteria for
implementing coordinated design, organizational unity and overall visual
identity for the new areas to be developed. Included are parameters for
integrated site planning, architecture, landscaping and exterior lighting, as
well as procedures and requirements for design submittal and review.
One objective of the landscape design guidelines is to promote a unified
environment within the Project area. The landscape design guidelines
include parameters pertaining to on -site landscaping (compatibility, use
as screen for parking /service areas, enhance building environment),
project entry, parking areas (use to visually reduce pavement and
maximize distribution), building perimeter (enhance building architecture),
and signs (compatibility with adjacent buildings /surroundings and
limitations on quantity and size).
The following excerpts from the Draft Specific Plan (Appendix 15.10)
further expands upon the provisions for Landscape Design Guidelines:
The primary objective of the Landscape Design Guidelines is to
promote a pleasing, responsive, and unified environment within
the project area. All landscaping is designed to:
® Promote a pleasant, distinctive, environment.
o Augment internal cohesion and continuity.
® Enhance the structured design concept of the project area.
o Promote water conservation.
Thus, the landscaping design concept is focused toward.
o Providing a clean, contemporary visual appearance.
® Coordinating the landscaping treatment along arterial and
surface streets within the circulation system.
0 Coordinating streetscapes to unify its general appearance.
o Coordinating on -site landscaping design continuity among
individual development sites.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -88 Comments and Responses
('
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
On -site landscaping is to be coordinated in a manner that
enhances overall continuity of development in the Specific Plan,
while providing for the individual identity and needs of each project
within. On -site landscaping shall be consistent and compatible
aL, sl...a s - +L... L•irle lonrlcr�ninn gatbarkC. In arlditinn_ on-
j VVILII Ll la IVI LI IV JU'U'UL - SIVV IulluvvuN.. ..,
U site landscaping shall enhance the building environment, screen
parking and service areas, and provide protection from exposure
to the sun and wind. The landscape architect, when preparing
concepts and designs, should consider the following:
'
Functional Considerations
o Solar orientation of exterior areas.
♦
Views.
concepts.
e
Separation of functional uses and creation of exterior
heart of the development (building entry, central courtyard,
spaces such as courtyards for employees.
etc.).
♦
Reinforcement of the vehicular and pedestrian circulation
♦ Use of plants and design elements for color in the
system with plantings.
(j
♦
Climatic mitigation of pedestrian spaces and corridors.
o
Shelters from traffic noise and hazards.
encompass the retarding basin property.
♦
Plant selection to maximize long -term ease of maintenance
5.9, Hydrology and Drainage, of the Draft EIR includes a
and optimize water conservation.
�j
♦
Plant material selections that are appropriate to the
J
of the proposed project would affect on -site and off -site drainage
planting spaces available and the proximity to the
i
e
constructed elements such as buildings, paving and walls.
Compatibility with size and type of existing planting on -site
or adjacent to the site.
♦
Integration with building design.
`
♦
Accommodation of future expansion.
U
♦
Use of native plant material to the extent practicable.
v
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -89
Comments and Responses
Aesthetic Considerations
e Design compatibility with the perimeter landscape
concepts.
♦ Creation of a central landscape focus in relation to the
heart of the development (building entry, central courtyard,
etc.).
o Special lighting in public open spaces.
♦ Use of plants and design elements for color in the
landscape.
11 F. It is unclear as to the commentor's reference, but it is believed to be the
Los Alamitos Retarding basin. It is noted that the project area does not
encompass the retarding basin property.
G Section
5.9, Hydrology and Drainage, of the Draft EIR includes a
comprehensive review of hydrology, drainage and water quality affects
(,
resulting from the proposed project. The EIR concludes that development
J
of the proposed project would affect on -site and off -site drainage
systems. Implementation of the design for site drainage is consistent with
('
U
the Specific Plan Guidelines and recommended mitigation measure,
v
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -89
Comments and Responses
C,
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
providing additional storm drain facilities in Planning Area 4, would reduce
impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposed project would increase runoff from the site by
approximately Gately 9.8 cfs for the 100 -year expected confidence storm (i.e.,
the 25 year storm charts) per Orange County's Flood Control's Appendix
1. This would require 1.84 acre -feet of retention. A graded area for the
water retention facilities is 2.1 acres and has a total capacity of
approximately 2.8 acre -feet. By designing drainage retention into the
system, the additional runoff into the LARB would be mitigated and would
provide improved storm water quality over existing conditions by directing
the future development drainage through a combination of storm water
pollution control devices and retention basins. Retention capacity would
be provided in conjunction with proposed water quality basins as shown
on Exhibit 5.9 -4, Storm Drain and Water Quality Concept, of the Draft and
Final EIR, reducing impacts to a less than significant level.
11 G. As is stated on Page 3 -8 of the Draft EIR, the following policies are
proposed in the Boeing Specific Plan to apply to all developments and
land uses within the Boeing Specific Plan area:
6 Unless otherwise specified, all development within the Boeing
Specific Plan area shall comply with the Code of the City of Seal
Beach. Terms used in the Specific Plan shall have the same
meaning as defined in the Code of the City of Seal Beach unless
otherwise defined in the Specific Plan.
® Any standards, uses, details or issues not specifically covered by
the Boeing Specific Plan shall be subject to the regulations of the
Code of the City of Seal Beach. Wherever there is inconsistency
between the development standards of the Code of the City of
Seal Beach and the development standards of the Boeing Specific
Plan, those in the Specific Plan shall control, pursuant to Section
28 -1702 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach.
0 Development standards, regulations and procedures in the Boeing
Specific Plan that reference the Code of the City of Seal Beach
shall be those in effect on the date the application for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 16375 has been determined to be complete
pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code.
o Whenever a use has not been specifically listed as being a
permitted use in a particular Planning Area of the Specific Plan, it
shall be the duty of the Director of Development Services to
determine if the use is consistent with the intent of the Specific
Plan and compatible with other permitted uses. The applicant
and /or the Director of Development Services may request that the
Planning Commission make the final determination.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -90 Comments and Responses
El C o.c��e�
I
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
♦ Permitted land uses also include accessory buildings and uses
that are customarily incidental to, and located on the same site
with, the main building.
e The Director of Development Services ma; determine that other
conditional uses not specifically identified are conditionally
permitted uses. The applicant and /or the Director of Development
ri Services may request that the Planning Commission make the
U final determination.
L."
G
U, a
L
L
U
L l
1
♦ All construction within the boundaries of the Boeing Specific Plan
shall comply with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code and
the various mechanical, electrical and plumbing codes adopted or
locally modified by the City of Seal Beach, as established by
Section 5 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach.
♦ If any regulation, condition, program or portion thereof of the
Specific Plan is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by
any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and the invalidity of
such provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
provisions of the Specific Plan.
♦ Requests for expansion and /or new construction of Boeing Space
and Communications buildings and facilities within Planning Area
1 for Boeing - related uses shall be regulated by the Precise Plan
Review process.
♦ Planning Area 4 is planned for commercial lodging and retail land
uses that provide commercial and visitor - serving services. For
these uses, Planning Area 4 is regulated by design guidelines,
development regulations and requirements identified for Planning
Area 4. If, after 18 months from the adoption of the Boeing
Specific Plan, such lodging and commercial land uses are
determined infeasible, this Planning Area may be developed with
business park land uses.
o Temporary buildings required for Boeing facility uses shall be
permitted subject to review and approval by the Department of
Development Services under the Precise Plan Review process.
♦ All structures, facilities, and uses in existence within the Specific
Plan area at the time of adoption of the Specific Plan shall be
deemed to be in conformance with the development regulations,
land use plan, public facilities and service plans, design guidelines
and other applicable provisions of the Specific Plan.
e The overall intensity for the Specific Plan area is proposed to be
established with a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The FAR for
each Planning Area is identified in Table 5 -2, Development
Standards, of the proposed Boeing Specific Plan.
FINAL o APRIL 2003
14 -91
Comments and Responses
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
o FAR is defined as the ratio between the amount of gross floor
area permitted to be constructed on a legal building lot and the
size of the lot. In computing gross floor area of a building, the
gross area confined within the exterior walls of the building shall
be cons- as the floor :rea of each floor of the building. This
includes space devoted to hallways, stairwells, elevator shafts,
lobbies, light courts and basement storage. Gross floor area does
not include covered parking floor space with necessary interior
driveways and ramps thereto, space within a roof structure or
penthouse for the housing of equipment or machinery incidental to
the operation of the building, and space for loading and storage of
helicopters.
o Large -lot subdivision, for the purpose of financing or conveyance,
may be approved provided the Subdivision Map related thereto
includes a declaration that the lots created are not building sites.
Installation or bonding of infrastructure improvements shall not be
made a condition of approval of a large -lot subdivision unless for
financing or conveyance purposes infrastructure improvements
are necessary to provide required street frontage access.
o Permits and approvals required from other agencies may
necessitate revisions, adjustments and /or amendments to the
Boeing Specific Plan. The City of Seal Beach shall not
unreasonably withhold approval of any revision, adjustment or
amendment that is mandated by conditions of approval imposed
by any other governmental agency.
All Planning Areas are permitted to be developed with business park land
uses. However, Planning Area 4 provides additional flexibility for
commercial uses, including hotel, retail, restaurant, and other commercial
land uses. The permitted and conditionally permitted land uses are in
Table 5 -1 of the Boeing Specific Plan, Boeing Specific Plan Permitted
Land Uses, of the Boeing Specific Plan. Table 5 -2 of the Boeing Specific
Plan, identifies the proposed development standards for each Planning
Area. Table 5 -1 has been incorporated into the Response to Commentors
section on the page that follows.
All future uses would also be subject to all standard permit requirements
and conditions imposed by the Orange County Fire Authority, Orange
County Health Care Agency, California Department of Toxic Substances
Control, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and any other
appropriate permitting or regulatory agencies relative to pollution safety
issues.
11 H. Comment is noted.
111. The Island Village Homeowner's Association was included in the
mailing /distribution of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) in March 2002 and
Public Review Draft EIR in December 2002. The mailing was sent to
4515 E. Anaheim Street, Long Beach, California 90804.
FINAL o APRIL 2003 14 -92 Comments and Responses
U t
L
U I
U
J
G'
U
5
f�
L I
r�
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Table 5 -1
BSC Specific Plan Permitted Land Uses
Land Use
Planning Area
1
2
3
4
Business Park
Boeing Space & Communications, including all existing buildings, facilities and operations, and
associated governmental facilities
✓
✓
✓
✓
Manufacturing
✓
✓
✓
✓
Warehousing and Distribution
✓
✓
✓
✓
Light Industrial
✓
✓
✓
✓
Research and Development
✓
✓
✓
✓
Point of Sale Industrial /Manufacturing
✓
✓
✓
✓
Self Storage Facilities (indoor)
✓
Laboratories
✓
✓
✓
✓
Communication Facilities
✓
✓
✓
✓
Parking Structures
✓
✓
✓
Office
✓
Commercial
Banks and other Financial Institutions
✓
Prescription Pharmacies
✓
Restaurants
✓
Hotels and Motels (with or without conference facilities)
✓
General Retail and Commercial Services
✓
Uses Subject To A Conditional Use Permit
Planning
Area
1
2
3
4
Land Use
Heliports, Maintenance and Service Facilities
✓
✓
Automobile service center
✓
Ice skating, ice hockey, gymnasium, and other similar facilities for sports related activities
✓
✓
Conference facilities
✓
✓
✓
Restaurant
✓
✓
✓
On -sale and off -sale liquor establishments
✓
✓
✓
✓
Restaurants offering drive -in service, outdoor dining and /or entertainment
✓
Commercial /retail services with drive -in service
✓
Offices
✓
✓
✓
Parking structure
✓
Retail uses associated with warehouse /showroom
✓
✓
✓
NOTES: (1) Self- storage is a permitted land use only within Planning Area 3 on lot 6 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16375.
(2) Automotive service center is a conditionally permitted land use only within Planning Area 3 on lot 6 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16375.
(3) Business park land uses are permitted within Planning Area 4 eighteen (18) months after adoption of this Specific Plan.
1
U FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -93 Comments and Responses
COMMENT N®.
Mr. Lee Whittenberg F 3 1(I(►.?
Director of Development Services DE OF
Seal Beach City Hall I DEVELOP "ENT SERV
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, Ca 90740
February 5, 2003
Dear Mr. Lee Whittenberg;
12 0
0
0
Ell
11
As a resident of Island Village, I wish to express my concerns regarding
the proposed business center next to Boeing. The development of this land, as
U
proposed, will adversely affect the residents of Island Village. Please consider
the following valid concerns:
(�
U
1. Lower property values.
2. Traffic will make it difficult to get in and out of Island Village.
(�
3. Increased traffic means speed reduced.
�J
4. More noise and pollution.
12A
5. What will an overdeveloped area with small green belts do to the general
s�}
appearance of the Land?
U
6. We were not included during the scoping period.
Please carefully consider these concerns and do what is right for the
community of Island Village.
u
Very truly yours,
Frances K. Howard
7025 Mariner Way
r ,
U
Long Beach, 90803
0
0
1
14 -94
n
`u
u
u
u
u
0
of � -0,Ir s�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 12
Frances Howard, Long Beach Resident
February 5, 2003
12A. A response pertaining to property value affects is provided in Response
to Commentor No. 11 A.
Refer to Response to Commentor No. 11 B regarding access and traffic
impacts regarding Island Village.
Refer to Response to Commentor No. 11 B regarding traffic speed
reductions.
Refer to Response to Commentor No. 11 B regarding air and noise
affects.
Refer to Response to Commentor No. 11 E regarding the buildout visual
appearance of the subject site.
Refer to Response to Commentor No. 111 regarding notification.
FINAL o APRIL 2003
14 -95
Comments and Responses
IN
sexrro
C® ♦ N " I 1-3
o � N ts
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Member
approximately 107 acres located in the City. The site is located near the Southwest
N
chCu
February 6, 2003
Cities
F E B 003
Anaheim
L�--
phone:
(714) 962 -2411
Mac Cummins OF
City of Seal Beach R110ES
U
Buena Park
Department of Development Services
malting address:
PO. Box 8127
211 Eighth Street
Fountain Valley. CA
Seal Beach, CA 90740
92728 -B127
consistent with the District's current planning projections. The District recognizes the
street address:
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Boeing Specific Plan
! l
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley. CA
Project
U
92708 -7018
This letter is in response to the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the City of Seal Beach (City). The Boeing Specific Plan Project consists of
Member
approximately 107 acres located in the City. The site is located near the Southwest
Agencies
corner of Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard and is bounded by these
streets from the North and South. The Project will develop three Business Parks and
Cities
one Hotel /Commercial area. One of the business parks is the Boeing Space and
Anaheim
Communications Campus and is already in place.
Brea
U
Buena Park
The Project site is in the jurisdiction of the Orange County Sanitation District (District)
Cypress
Fountain Valley
and is currently receiving sewage flow from the developed portion of the site.
Fullerton
Previous planning has shown light industrial usage for this area, which appears to be
Garden Grove
Huntington Beach
consistent with the District's current planning projections. The District recognizes the
Irvine
intent to change this zoning to Specific Planning Regulation (SPR).
La Habra
La Palma
Los Alamitos
Newport Beach
In reviewing the DEIR, it appears that no modifications will be made to any of the
13A
District's sewage collection systems. The District understands that this site's sewage
Orange
Placentia
flow will continue to discharge into the City of Seal Beach sewage collection systems
Santa Ana
before it reaches the District's system. The calculated flow increase will not-have an
Sea Beach anon
adverse effect on the District's sewage collection system capacity. Any street
Tustin
improvements that could potentially impact our facilities should be coordinated with
Villa Park
Yorba Linda
the District. All existing facilities should be protected in place.
;
�
aunty of Orange
A Source Control Permit will be necessary prior to connection of any new industrial
sewers. Contact Mahin Talebi at (714) 593 -7410 regarding permitting.
anitary Districts
Costa Mesa
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the development. If you have any
Midway City
questions regarding this project, please contact Adam Nazaroff or Jim Herberg at
(714 93 -7854 or 7310, respectively.
Water Districts
Irvine Ranch
%
1
u
David A. Ludwin, P.E.
Director of Engineering
r
U
DAL:AN:jo
G: \wp.dta\eng \EIRS\2002 \City of Seal Beach, Boeing Redevelopment.doc
14 -96
".b1airtairiro Wor!d-Class •' - - =a Vastewater and Water Resource Management"
U
cli� s��
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 13
j David Ludwin, Orange County Sanitation District
U February 6, 2003
G 13A. Comment is noted. The commentor has confirmed that the analysis
contained in the Draft EIR is accurate with regard to the sewage
collection system.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
r
U
G FINAL. APRIL 2003 14 -97 Comments and Responses
State of California - The Resources Agency
COMMEN'T' NO. 1A
GRAY DAVIS. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
http: //www.dfg.ca.gov
4949 Vewddge Avenue _r
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 467 -4201
February 10, 2003
CITY Q= SEAL BEACH
FEB 1 9 2003
Mac Cummins
City of Seal Beach
211 8' Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
DEPART?; ENT OF
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Boeing Specific Plan Project
(SCH# 2002031015)
Dear Mr. Cummins:
The Department offish and Game (Department) has reviewed the above - referenced Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The Department is identified as a Trustee Agency
pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15386 and is responsible for
the conservation, protection and management of the state's biological resources.
The proposed Boeing Specific Plan Project consists of approximately 107 acres located in
the City of Seal Beach, in the western portion of Orange County, California. The Project area is
situated between Westminster Avenue to the north and Seal Beach Boulevard to the southeast.
The Boeing Specific Plan Project provides for a planned mixed -use business park
development that would be compatible with existing Boeing facilities and operations at the site.
The Specific Plan establishes the general type, location, parameters and character of all
development within the site's boundaries. The Project also includes a General Plan Amendment
(Land Use and Circulation), a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, a Coastal Development Permit and
possibly a Development Agreement, Conditional Use Permits and other approvals.
The 107 -acre Boeing Specific Plan area is presently designated Light Industrial on the
General Plan Land Use Map and zoned Light Manufacturing (M -1). The proposed Project would
require a General Plan Amendment and zoning change from the M -1 designation to Specific Plan
Regulation (SPR). The adoption of the Boeing Specific Plan would supersede the existing zoning
and establish a new set of development regulations and design guidelines for the 107 -acre site.
The Project also proposes an Amendment to the Circulation Element adding the proposed Apollo
14 -98
L
G
U1
u
U
G
Mac Cummins
February 10, 2003
Page 2
Drive alignment and deleting the outdated map.
The proposed Project involves maintaining approximately 1,150,000 square feet of
existing building area (within Planning Areas 1 and 2). However, some or all of the existing
buildings in Planning Area 2 (approximately 345,000 square feet) may be maintained and/or re-
used. New light industrial buildings planned for Planning Area 2 would require relocation and/or
demolition of existing buildings and facilities. The project would include development of 345,000
square feet of additional building area within the existing Boeing facilities, 55,000 square feet
designated for hotel uses and 32,500 square feet designated for commercial uses including retail,
restaurant and similar commercial uses and 973,000 square feet for Business Park uses. The
proposed buildings/expansions would result in a total of 2,210,500 square feet of floor area,
representing a net increase of 1,060,500 square feet over the existing floor area of 1,150,000
square feet. The new floor area would be developed with up to thirteen new light industrial
buildings, a hotel and up to three commercial buildings. Additionally, the proposed Project would
develop new ingress /egress to the newly developed portions of the Boeing site via Apollo Drive,
Apollo Court and Saturn Way. Apollo Drive would extend into the Business Park and may
ultimately connect Seal Beach Boulevard to Westminster Avenue, if certain Boeing buildings are
demolished. Two roadways from Apollo Drive (Saturn Way and Apollo Court) would be cul -de-
sacs providing access to light industrial buildings.
As described in the DEIR, the project site supports emergent marsh and riparian herb
Cj habitat as well as two sensitive plant species: southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. Australis
— CNPS List 1B) and woolly seablite (Suada taxifolia — CNPS List 4).
[j The Department offers the following comments and recommendations:
Ef Agreement, acknowledged in the DEIR, the project will require a Lake or Streambed Alteration
pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, with the applicant prior
to the applicant's commencement of any activity that will substantially divert or obstruct the
natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated
L j riparian resources) of a river, stream or lake, or use material from a streambed. The Department's
issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement for a project that is subject to CEQA will
require CEQA compliance actions by the Department as a responsible agency. The Department
as a responsible agency under CEQA may consider the local jurisdiction's (lead agency) Negative
Declaration or Environmental Impact Report for the project. To minimize additional requirements
r 1 by the Department pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the document should
U fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream or riparian resources and provide adequate
avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the agreement
Cj 2 A Streambed Alteration Agreement form may be obtained by writing to: Department of
Fish and Game, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123, by calling (858) 636 -3160, or by
accessing the Department's web site at xvw . dfa. ca. gov/ 1600 .
MA i
14 -99
Mac Cummins
February 10, 2003
Page 3
Mitigation Measures
The DEIR proposes mitigation for the loss of approximately 385 individuals of southern
tarplant observed on the project site in 2001. On -site mitigation would consist of translocation of
plants from the Boeing site to the terraces adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B. Offsite,
translocated plants would be moved to the adjacent Hellman Ranch site, which supports a much
larger population of southern tarplant, approximately 3,307 individuals recorded in 1996. The
Final EIR (FEIR) should include a discussion regarding the potential benefits of augmenting the
preserved Hellman Ranch population with propagules from Boeing site rather than focusing
mitigation efforts on the project site. Proposed acreage to be augmented and baseline biological
information regarding the proposed offsite receiver locations should also be included in the FEIR.
A mitigation plan should be prepared for the sensitive plant resources to be replaced; this
plan may be combined with the wetlands restoration plan mentioned on Page 5.6 -21 of the DEIR.
To ensure that significant impacts have been avoided or mitigated, the mitigation plan(s) for
wetlands and sensitive plant resources should be included as part of the FEIR. The mitigation
plan(s) should include, at a minimum: (a) the location(s) of the mitigation site; (b) methods of
propagule collection, the plant species to be used, container sizes, on- center spacing, and seeding
rates; (c) a schematic depicting the mitigation area; (d) planting schedule; (e) a description of the
irrigation plan (if necessary); (f) measures to control exotic vegetation on site; (g) specific success
criteria (acreage, total plant counts, percent cover, etc.); (h) a detailed monitoring program; (i)
contingency measures should the success criteria not be met; and 0) identification of the party
responsible for meeting the success criteria and providing for conservation of the mitigation site in
perpetuity. The mitigation site(s) should be maintained and monitored for no less than five years;
in some cases the mitigation monitoring/maintenance period may be shorter if five -year success
criteria are achieved in advance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Questions regarding this letter and further
coordination on these issues should be directed to Brad Henderson at ( 10) 214 -9950.
Sincerely,
Donald R. Chadwick
Habitat Conservation Supervisor
cc: Department of Fish and Game
File
Brad Henderson
14 -100
U
V
Mac Cummins
(' February 10, 2003
U Page 4
(1
U
Laura Crum
San Diego
U
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jonathan Snyder
Carlsbad
California Coastal Commission
(1
Carl Schwing
U
Long Beach
State Clearinghouse
j Sacramento
1J
U
G
J
0
11
L , 14 -101
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 14
Donald Chadwick, California Department of Fish and Game
February 10, 2003
14A. Comment is noted. Section 3.6, Agreements, Permits and Approvals, of
the Draft and Final EIR cites the California Department of Fish and Game
and the requirement for a 1603 Permit. The proposed Wetland
Restoration Plan has been incorporated into Appendix 15.5 of the Final
EIR.
14B. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 5P.
14C. Mitigation measures concerning sensitive plant resources are
incorporated into the "Wetland Restoration Plan ", which has been
incorporated into the Final EIR. This plan would be subject to review and
approval by all appropriate resource agencies prior to issuance of grading
permits by the City of Seal Beach
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -102 Comments and Responses
1
L
L
i
u
I
lJ
Li Mr. Mac Cummins
City of Seal Beach
G Department of Development Services
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
L
G
C®MMEN]' N®. 1-5
LARRY n1. LEAMAN
Ct O� r/ j�] INTERIM DIRECTOR
0 9 n Co unty / e'ty ®f ®rangy Q 300 N. FLOWER ST.
Planning & Development Services Department SANTA ANA. CALI
LlFOB�~ MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 4048
SANTA ANA. CA 92702 -4048
February 10, 2003
SUBJECT: DEIR for the Boeing Specific Plan Project
Dear Mr. Cummins:
NCL 02 -147
r y = �L r•-
C1 C '
c
D�p F
pEVE
The above referenced item is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Seal
Beach. The proposed Specific Plan provides for four planning areas within the 104.5 -acre
property located at 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard. The project includes light industrial
manufacturing and research and development uses for the western portion of the property, and
development of a hotel/retail area at the eastern portion of the property.
The County of Orange has reviewed the DEIR and offers the following comments:
U
('. FLOOD
U
G
U, i
The hydrology and retention basin studies for the subject project do not conform with the
Orange County Hydrology Manual (OCHM) and the Addendum No. I to the OCHM.
Hydrology, hydraulic and retention basin studies should be based on Expected Value
(EV) discharges for 2 -, 10 -, 25- and 100 -year storm frequencies for both existing and
developed conditions. Sections F and J of the OCHM provide guidelines and criteria for
retention basin analysis.
15A
2. The Los Alamitos Retarding Basin (LARB) in its existing condition is incapable of
handling 100 -year runoff from its tributary watershed. To ensure that the existing peak
flows to LARB are not exceeded, 2- through 100 -year EV analyses need to be conducted 15B
and then appropriately mitigated in conjunction with the County's Flood Program
4
14 -103
I
it
section. Consideration should be given to the slow draining nature of the Los Alamitos
watershed and the prolonged periods when high water surface elevations will be 5B
encountered in the LARB. Additional stoninwater should not be added into the basin
when the basin capacity is needed to handle existing flows to the basin. I 0
Since the proposed retention basin is to function as a water quality basin well, the storage
capacity for water quality should be considered as dead storage in analyzing the flood
control requirements. Care in design should be taken to ensure that the flood control ]_ 5C
aspects of the basin should not be diminished due to the proposed combined use as flood a
control and water quality basin.
4. Page 5.9 -19 of the DEIR states that "By designing drainage retention into the system, the D
additional runoff into the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin would be mitigated ..." While
post project discharges into the LARB would be maintained to pre - project discharges, the
runoff volume stored in the retention basin would eventually drain into LARB. The
Orange County Flood Control District ( OCFCD) is currently programming ultimate 1 - 51) D
improvements for the Los Alamitos Pump Station (CO 1 PS 1). However, construction of
ultimate improvements to C01PS1 could take several years. If the proposed development
occurs before ultimate improvements to C01PS1 are in place, the additional runoff a
volume that would be pumped out of the LARB into San Gabriel River via C01PS1
would need to be mitigated.
5. Future submittals should include hydrology maps for both existing p and developed
conditions, computer outputs, calculations, and other study related information (Fm, Y-
151
bar, Tc, etc.) necessary to enable a complete review. a
The design of the proposed drainage facilities for the project site must be accomplished
concurrently with regulatory permits (and/or conservation easement requirements). The
design of the retention basin and other flood control features need to consider restrictions 51� �JJ
to maintenance activities being imposed by the regulatory permits. Unless permits have
been secured allowing maintenance to be accomplished, the design needs to assume that O
no maintenance will occur to the retention/ water quality basin.
7. Post development storm water runoff will generally contain pollutants that promote
vegetative growth. Invasive vegetation, accumulation of debris and/or sediments would
diminish the retention basin flood control capacity. Since the proposed basin will not be
accepted as an OCFCD facility, the City of Seal Beach should require the project
proponent to guarantee via agreement that the project proponent will perform all the work 15G
that is needed for the long term operation and maintenance of the basin. Minimum
maintenance requirements (i.e. type of maintenance and frequency), maintenance costs (�
and future - funding sources should also be identified and an Operation & Maintenance U
(O &M) manual prepared. The City should ensure that there are adequate financial
provisions for the operation and maintenance of the basin to maintain functionality of the
basin.
Review of the analysis and design of the proposed storm drain system should be City
responsibility. ,_ 5H.
14 -104
L
E ll,
9.
Water quality issues should be reviewed and approved by the City in consultation with
51
the County's Watershed and Coastal Resources Division.
(II
U
10.
If the project is to be implemented in phases, provisions for mitigation of interim impacts
Il 5J
should be recommended.
U
11.
Work within OCFCD right -of -way will require encroachment permits from the County's
Public Property Permits Section. For information regarding permit application, please
15K
r }
U
contact Doug Witherspoon at (714) 834 -2366.
BIKEWAYS
12.
As noted in our NOP comments, the Transportation section should address alternative
modes of transportation, including bicycling. We understand the City is proposing a
Class I (paved off -road) bikeway along Westminster Avenue, and the County supports
the concept. The EIR should address the implementation of this bikeway. Also, the
western edge of the project is located less than half a mile from the San Gabriel
River /Coyote Creek Bikeway, a major regional Class I bikeway for both Los Angeles and
Orange Counties. Northern and western Orange County has very few east -west Class I
J
bikeway routes, and the Westminster Avenue corridor provides the opportunity to
implement an off -road bikeway between (at least) Bolsa Chica Road and the San Gabriel
r l
River Bikeway. The subject project presents a unique opportunity to encourage cycle
u
commuting by implementing a Class I bikeway through the project site.
I
13.
In addition, the EIR should address safe and convenient access to, and within, the project
Il 5M
Uu
site for bicyclists and pedestrians.
14.
Class I bikeways, because they are off -road and suitable for bicyclists and pedestrians
with a wide range of ages and abilities, serve to encourage bicycling and walking as
5N
J
alternative modes of transportation. Bikeways can be mitigation measures to help reduce
I J
air pollution, traffic congestion, parking congestion, and noise.
CULTURAL/HISTORICAL
U
15.
The DEIR mitigation proposes archaeological testing for Sites B -2, B -3, B-4/H. and
C
5®
Locus 4 of B -6. However, the mitigation does not address the disposition of excavated
(1
and tested materials.
U
16.
The project proponent should prepare any excavated finds to the point of identification.
Il 5P
U
17.
We suggest that the City of Seal Beach follow the Board of Supervisors intent by
donating any artifacts or fossils found during this project to a suitable repository within
5Q
U
Oran ge County.
E 14 105
18. The lead agency should be prepared to pay potential curation fees to the institution or
warehouse facility upon donation of any collection to assist toward the ongoing 151
maintenance and curation of the materials.
WASTE MANAGEMENT
19. Waste Diversion
The project is located in the City of Seal Beach. The City of Seal Beach is responsible
for meeting the Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) mandate of 50% disposal reduction, and for
preparing AB 939 solid waste planning documents. These documents include the Source 15S
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), the Household Hazardous Waste Element
(HHWE), and the Non- Disposal Facility Element (NDFE).
When structures such as buildings, surface parking and sidewalks are demolished as part
of the initial site preparation phase for a project, demolition wastes are generated. The
proposed project will result in the generation of demolition wastes. Demolition -
generated wastes consist of heavy, inert materials such as concrete, asphalt, rock and
soils, wood, drywall, metals and brick. These materials create significant problems when
disposed of in landfills;.since demolition wastes do not decompose, they take up valuable
landfill capacity. Additionally, since demolition wastes are heavy when compared with
paper and plastic, it is more difficult for jurisdictions to reduce the tonnage of disposed
waste. For this reason, demolition waste debris has been specifically targeted by the
State of California for diversion from the waste stream. Projects that will generate
demolition waste should emphasize deconstruction and diversion planning, rather than
demolition. Deconstruction is the planned, organized dismantling of existing buildings
and structures on a project site, which allows maximum use of the deconstructed
materials for recycling and limits disposal at solid waste landfills.
During the construction of new projects, construction wastes are generated. The
proposed project will result in the generation of construction wastes. Construction -
generated wastes consist primarily of inert materials that would otherwise take up
valuable landfill space. Reducing construction wastes at construction sites conserves
landfill space, reduces the environmental impact of producing new materials, and can
reduce overall building project expenses through avoided purchase /disposal costs. Wood,
drywall, cardboard, metals, brick, plastics and shingles can be reused in other
construction projects or recycled. The City's recycling coordinator can provide the
names and locations of recycling facilities in the project area that will accept construction
wastes.
We recommend that this project address a waste reduction plan for the construction
wastes generated from this project. This plan should be coordinated with the City's
recycling coordinator to help ensure that AB 939 requirements are properly addressed.
15T
15U
t
14-106
tJ
U
G
U
L
V
u
[i
C
20. Contaminated Soils and Asbestos
Demolition- generated waste Er — Om the proposed project may contain contaminated soils or
asbestos. The project applicant should be aware that the County's solid waste landfills
are not permitted to accept contaminated soils or asbestos. During the construction phase
of the proposed project, if contaminated soils or asbestos wastes are discovered, these
materials must be transported to facilities that are permitted to accept them.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the DEIR. If you have any questions, please contact
Charlotte Harryman at (714) 834 -2522.
Sincerely,
Timothy Neely, Marta er
Environmental Planning Services Division
cjh
5 14 -1U/
15W
O of'� geaA
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 15
Timothy Neely, County of Orange, Planning and Development Services Department
February 10, 2003
15A. The Conceptual Hydrology Report dated October 9, 2002 was provided to
evaluate potential flood control mitigation requirements due to the
development proposed for the Boeing Space and Communication
Campus per the Specific Plan. This Report verified on a conceptual basis
that areas of detention will be required to mitigate the proposed
development and allow for water quality as determined in the Water
Quality Study prepared by Fuscoe Engineering. The water quality and
retention requirements were determined separately and the basin areas
for the Project allow for the cumulative amounts. A detailed final
Hydrology Study would be generated during the project design phase and
will size the proposed storm drain system, verify the retention /water
quality basin sizing requirements and locate various appurtenances.
Pursuant to meetings in 2002 with Mr. Robert Young and Mr. Matthew
Blinstrub with the Orange County Flood Control Division/Water Quality
Management Section, Boeing is aware of the County's issues and
requirements regarding discharge to the County's Los Alamitos Retarding
Basin. The final Hydrology Study would be prepared during the
preparation of construction plans and submitted to the County for its
approval of the connections and discharge to the LARB.
The criteria used in the Conceptual Hydrology was based on the County's
analysis criteria and drainage maps of their existing drainage areas,
which included the LARB and proposed facilities upgrades. The final
Hydrology Study would be required to be prepared in accordance with the
County's design criteria. Thus, Mitigation Measure 5.9 -2b has been
included in the Final EIR as follows:
HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
5.9 -2a Standing water and drainage problems occurring at the frontage of Planning
Area 4 on Seal Beach Boulevard shall be corrected as part of the proposed
Project development for Planning Area 4. A detailed cross - section survey of
Seal Beach Boulevard extending about 1,000 feet north and south of the
existing double box culvert crossing shall be conducted. A storm drain system
shall be designed and connected to the double box culvert crossing. The
design shall evaluate the need for additional crossings of Seal Beach
Boulevard. Refer to the Master Plan of Drainage Section 6, Recommended
Improvements, for more information and detailed figures.
5.9 - A Finalized Hyd rology and Retention Basin Study shall be submitted for review
and ap roval by the County of Orange in conformance with the Orange County_
Hvdrolog Manual (OCHM) and the Addendum No. 1 to the OCHM
Hydrolog hydraulic and retention basin studies shall be based on Expected
Value (EV) discharges for 2 -. 10- 25- and 10Q--Year storm frequencies for
existing and developed conditions. Ap- proval by the County of Orange of this
Rlan shall be received b the Ci Engineer p rior to
issuance of a rading_
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -108 Comments and Responses
L
�H
L!
o -Of
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
15B. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 15A.
15C. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 15A.
A5D. Per discussionG vVith vCFCD, the developed site's fi nal Hydrologv Studv
would not take into account any future upgrades to the County's existing
pumping system.
r I
U
15E. Comment is noted.
15F. Comment is noted.
15G. Comment is noted. The water quality /retention basins would require on-
going maintenance by the proposed development and would require that
the necessary permitting and maintenance structure is established. Refer
also to Response to Commentor No. 15A.
15H. The proposed storm drain system is subject to review and ultimate
approval by the City of Seal Beach.
151. Comment is noted.
15J. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 15H.
G
u
G
u
U
1
I
15K. Comment is noted.
15L. As referenced in the City of Seal Beach General Plan and on Page 5.1 -25
of the Draft EIR, two designated bike routes have been identified in the
Project vicinity: the Seal Beach Boulevard Route and the Westminster
Avenue Route. These routes are designated bike lanes. It is important to
note that Westminster Avenue, east of Seal Beach Boulevard, is not
striped as a bike lane but rather as an edge line. It is not designated an
on -road striped bike lane. It is further noted that a Class 1 off -road
bikeway is neither proposed by the Project or anticipated by the City of
Seal Beach. There are no plans to install a Class 1 bikeway along
Westminster Avenue or from Westminster Avenue to Gum Grove Park.
The use of these bicycle lanes may be temporarily interrupted during
construction of improvements along Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach
Boulevard (i.e., Apollo Drive entries). Interruption in use of these lanes
would be considered a temporary inconvenience. As this interruption/
inconvenience would cease upon Project completion, this impact would
be considered less than significant.
15M. The project applicant shall be required to design public streets to be in
conformance with the County's Highway Design Manual and access for
bicyclists and pedestrians shall be provided. In the event that Apollo
Drive is opened for through use from Seal Beach Boulevard to the west,
Class II bike lanes shall be required.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
14 -109
Comments and Responses
co ows�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
As stated on Page 10 -6 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not
conflict with any adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. At
the time of project - specific development application, the City would
impose standard conditions regarding transportation facilities, which may
Include bus turnout bicycle racks an d electric vehicle charging stations.
Access and safety controls for pedestrians and bicyclists is a standard
City of Seal Beach Precise Plan review consideration.
15N. Comment is noted.
150. Disposition of artifacts would be determined by the project archeologist
and the most likely descendant, if human remains are found. Cultural
materials recovered from the cultural resources monitoring and mitigation
program for the development shall be curated either at an appropriate
facility in Orange County or, in consultation with the City of Seal Beach, at
the San Diego Archaeological Center. Refer also to Response to
Commentor No. 29A.
15P. The mitigation requirements for "Test Phase" and "Research Design
Document" as well as on -site monitoring during grading satisfies the
documentation and identification concerns noted. Refer to Mitigation
Measures 5.7 -1 a through 5.7 -3 in Section 5.7, Cultural Resources, of the
Draft and Final EIR. Refer also to Response to Commentor No. 29A.
15Q. Comment is noted.
15R. Comment is noted.
15S. It is noted that the issue of solid waste impacts are addressed in Section
5.11, Public Services and Utilities, of the Draft EIR. The section
acknowledges the City of Seal Beach's Source Reduction and Recycling
Element which was adopted in February, 1992. The City is in compliance
with the provisions of Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939).
15T. Mitigation Measure 5.11 -3b of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
5.11 -3b The project plicant/individual oroject applications develeps�shalI adhere to all
source reduction programs for the disposal of demolition and construction
materials and solid wasted required by the City of Seal Beach. Prior to
issuan;e of building pe rmits, a source reduction program shall be prepared and
submitted to the Director of Development Services for demolition of an existing
structure over 5.000 square feet in area and for each future structure constructed
on the subject properties to achieve a minimum 60 percent reduction in waste
disposal rates, including green waste.
15U. Comment is noted. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 15T.
15V. Comment is noted. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 15T and the
revision to Mitigation Measure 5.11 -3b.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -110 Comments and Responses
I
F1
Li
F
L.s
F
U
i
G
G
L
F(
U
r�
I..J
f I - I
L1
Li
BO EINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
15W. Comment is noted. All demolition activities are required to provide
necessary permit approvals from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District regarding asbestos removal and from the Orange
County Health Care Agency and /or the State Department of Toxic
Subs a anc l+ontrol relative to contaminated soil
a7u U lQlll.�e� VVI lu VI rriluu ✓v av VVi �aa�. � � u � .
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -111
Comments and Responses
COMMENT NO. 16 J
Feb. 10,2003
To. Mac Cummins
From. Bill Hurley
Subject. Comments on the Bo ng Draft B_.Z.R
The following are my comments on the adequacy, clarity, accuraccy
and complet ess of the Bo DraftE.I.R.
ff
1. A basic inadequacy of the E.I.R. is the failure to take into
account the special nature of the "SENSITIVE RECEPTORS" on the
north side of Westminster Ave. They are not like the general
population for whom the Standards quoted in the E.I.R.are
appropriate. They average 78 years of age and many are not in
good health.
2. Another basic flaw in the E.I.R.is the assumption that if an
$mAd' lasts only 7 or 8 months, it is not significant,regardless
of the size of it.No explanation nor reference to C.E.Q.A. IS
PROVIDED TO BACK THIS UP. Again, the special nature of the sensi-
tive receptors" across Westminster Ave. should prompt the City,
The applicant proponent and consultant to go beyond C.E.Q9or stan-
dardsfor the general population to protect Leisure World resident.
#3. p.2 -6 Sec. 5 -4 -1 Mitigation Measures 5.4- 1a,5th Diamond Aft
Sy,view of the special nature of the "Sensitive receptors" in
Leisure World, the a.q.m.d - mandated threshold used here (35 m.p.h.4�Al '
1,v1rvr 7_6���
� �X;� mitigation. It should be replaced. One form of adequate ),,7r -1"
* t . W ?.' .. D gt" y won � c.t� T SySTt : — /! P/id.. � cq c c. ff.v i.v 5� i ccT�?u L . W.� -9.✓A
GL v4.•i� y.✓ i-' r - r oe .PEye Ya C7oN - "wpc,y rf•t D.s7' J
#4. p.2 -8 Sec.5.5 -1
16A
oxelm
The impact statement, the mitigation measures, and the "Significa
after mitigation" are all incorrect, as w Aw., shown by comments
that follow^. #10,14,15 & 17.
#5,p.2 -12 Sec. 5.7 -2 mitigation. In this statement you need to
specify who will be looking to find paleq,tological resources 16
you need sompody other than the workers."'
#6,p.p. 5.5 -4 and 5.5 -5
on p.5.5 -4, on line 7, a reference is made to bother it indoor/
outdoor noise exposure! . , 8.. T T/J3Lc S. s = Z �e� /s as, /� 6F '90/ "000 ND�SE EhPdSGRe OJe,¢S
u
14 -112 15164 E)
C
r.
L
F
l.�
F!
#7, P. 5
U
The field measurements
should have included some
in Leisure World
to provide factual data
to support or modify the
modeled data. 1 6G-
I
�J
#8.p.5.5-10
An explanation is needed
following Table 5.5 -8 to
integrate thar
�(
information with table
5.5 -7. You need to include
the existing 1 - 611
1J
impact, or lack of it,
on L.W. residents.
#9,p.5.5 -12 Impact Statement 5.5 -1
The amount of construction noi6e is not limited by the Municipal
r Code; you can make all the noise you want, as long as it occurs 1-6
between 7 a.m, and 8 p.m.
#10,p,5,5-13
L Table 5.5 -10 should have been followed by your own table showing
the dB's as you double the distance from source, e.g. Scrapers:
82 q 100; 76 at 200 70* at 400 This would show L.W. residents 1
experiencing between 82 dB and 71; dB ( 1 55' [p.5. 5 -1 0 + 1 5' set b£&k-
[P,5. 5 -1 51 + 20'to front window),
i
#11, 5.5 -13
In table 5.5 -10, I believe you need to remove the semi -colon c
between "50 feet "r'�hen6e ". 16K
F
Li
i #12,p.5.5 -13 4���. 7,
�
. The schedule for import of soil provides the only basis in the
E.I.R. for estimating how long the site preparation will take 16L
it will take at least 7 months.
#13,p.5.5 -13 Bottom line
► �- J; you need to explain how you get only 92 combined dBA from 88 +87 +88, I 1 6
L #14,p.5.5 -14 Table 5.5 -11
-
Apparently L.W. residents would a. a about 80 dBA, according
L to this. �_6 c � T
L _ 14 -113 ( M d )
/lfy
#15 p.5.5 - 14
There is a glaring omission following Table 5.5 -11. This is the
logical place for a discussion of the COMBINED noise of traffic C®
and construction including well -based estimates for the peak V
traffic hours.
#16 p.5.5 -15
There is a false statement on line 6. Ten L.W. buildings have
6apartments each which face the perimeter wall along Westminster �_�P
Ave.
#17, p.5.5 -15 Line 7
Even a "slight" increase of 1 or more dBA would be significant
impact, according to Table 5.5 -10 (p.5.5 -12) since, to quote line 9 .) ��
"ambient levels in the areavcurrently above 65 dBA."
a LV-
#18,p.5.5 -15 Lines 10 -11.
"....not past the first eow of residential units." This statement
implies that it's OK for 60 L.W- residents to experience excessiv e L
noise ` for 7 months or more. Regardless of Cc'Q q cT s•ou _j g�
NOT 6
b2 O^ i to Ro e I A/G .vv W; 7;11 y7yF (2 7
#19,p.5.5-15 Third W 4L
second line:
The conclusion that construction impacts would be less than 6S
ms ;gnificant b ecause they are "short term" is not supported any-
where in the E.I.R.
eighth line .
The items listed as attenuation need detailed study on
the ground and u,- traw T sm ,rated
together with well- founded estimates of combined noise levels 16T
from peak -hour traffic and site preparation, to provide a realist /C
estimate of impact and appropriate, adequate mitigation measures.
Line 13,
The statement that "local receptors will not experience ambient
construction noise levels that are in excels of existing levels"
appears to contradict p.5.5 -14, last PAPy L.4 -5. Also nowhere in 1 .61J
the E.I.R. is the term "ambient construction noise levels " define
the ordinary reader needs it.
#20,
of � 1 AICC415151E.Vef S .
Because of all contradictions, confusing termi-
nology, and completely unsupported conclusions, Section 5.5,and ��
especially p.p.5.5 -12 through 5.5-15,"' "short Term Construction
Noise Impacts ", needs to be completely revised . AfterSufficient
14 -114
F
C
ri
FI
f appropriate consultations, it could be rewritten in a clear,
' lessewillishowothatsthesCfollowing provision of evidence. � ,
y` has made a good faith effort V
at adequacy, completifess, and full disclosure. Nothing less will
i provide decis;ionmak'ers with information which enables them to -
make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental
consequences.
L-' #21 p. 5.7 -12 Re. 5.7 -1P.
Why limit monitoring to excavations below five feet? Are you sure
nothing will be turned up above five feet? It s unreasonable to '1 �11N tEI
workers to recognize anything archaeological. J
11 r -i
Y
L
li
r•
(f
La
U
U
7 '
L. --
�. _ _ 14 -115
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 16
Bill Hurley, Seal Beach Resident/EQCB Board Member
February 10, 2003
16A. Comment is noted. The sensitive receptors north of Westminster Avenue
have been carefully considered, and, along with residents of Island
Village, are primary considerations in this environmental analysis.
Special care was taken to provide a detailed analysis of impacts
associated with the construction of the Boeing Specific Plan upon the
residents of Leisure World and Island Village.
16B. Refer to City of Seal Beach Municipal Code provision which relates to
noise construction exemptions. As stated in the Municipal Code and
Page 5.5 -6 of the Draft EIR, noise sources associated with construction,
repair, remodeling or grading of any real property are exempt from noise
level provisions, provided said activities take place between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
on weekends, an do not take place at any time on Sunday or local, State
or Federal holidays.
As stated on Page 5.5 -15 of the Draft EIR, construction impacts are short -
term and would cease upon completion of the grading /construction
phase. As such, construction impacts are concluded to be less than
significant. Implementation of the recommended mitigation (i.e., muffling/
placement of construction equipment and stockpiling /staging of
construction vehicles) and compliance with Code requirements as
outlined above, would serve to minimize the length of time residents are
exposed to significant noise levels. Additionally, it should be noted that
the estimated construction noise levels do not account for any noise
attenuation due to existing walls, berms, intervening structures or
topography. These factors may account for an acoustical attenuation level
of up to 3 dBA. The primary sources of acoustical disturbance will be
random incidents, which would last less than one minute, such as
dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of
machinery lifts. However, based upon the analysis, the local receptors
will not experience ambient construction noise levels that are in excess of
existing levels. With adherence to the Municipal Code, and due to the
relatively short period of construction, noise and vibration impacts are
concluded to be less than significant. Based upon the nominal increase
in construction noise levels, additional mitigation measures beyond the
City Code is not required. Also refer to Response to Commentor No. 6K
through 6Y.
16C. Refer to Response to Commentor Nos. 6A. and 6E
16D. Comment is noted. The commentor does not provide reasoning for the
assertion that the Impact Statement 5.5 -1 and corresponding mitigation
measure are "incorrect ".
16E. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 6G.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -116 Comments and Responses
r
li
1�
r
r
�
�r
1�1
Ell"
U
L
U
r�
U
r -
U
ll
'U
rl
L
U.
C• �T ��C�E'CcC�"'ti
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
16F. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 6K.
The values given in Table 5.5 -2, California Land Use Compatibility Noise
Guidelines, are for outdoor noise levels. Should the value be "normally
acceptable" for an outdoor use, then it :At 1 id fall tinder the_. S category
for an indoor use. The indoor noise exposure levels are tied to the
outdoor noise exposure levels per the guidelines given by the California
Department of Health Office of Noise Control.
16G. Refer to Response to Commentor Nos. 6R and 6T.
16H. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 6U.
161. As stated in on Page 5.5-6 of the Draft EIR, Chapter 13D, Noise Control,
of the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code pertains to the regulation of
excessive noise. Section 13D -5, Exterior Noise Standards, of the
Municipal Code establish noise levels that may not be exceeded based
upon the nature of the receiving land use and the time of day that the
noise occurs. Per Section 13D -5(a), "Noise Standards" are as follows in
Table 5.5 -3 of the Draft and Final EIR, City of Seal Beach Noise
Standards.
Table 5.5 -3
City of Seal Beach Noise Standards
Noise Zone
Noise Level
Time Period
1
55 dBA
50 dBA
7:00 a.m. -10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.
2
65 dBA
At any time
3
70 dBA
At any time
Source: City of Seal Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 13D, Noise Control.
The zones referenced in Table 5.5 -3 identify various sensitive receptors
based upon the type of land uses:
o Noise Zone 1 - All Residential Properties.
o Noise Zone 2 - All Commercial Properties.
Noise Zone 3 - All Industrial, Manufacturing or Oil Properties.
Exterior noise shall be measured on the exterior of any residential
property and no noise level shall exceed the noise levels as indicated in
Table 5.5-4 of the Draft and Final EIR, City of Seal Beach Noise Levels
and Duration, for the periods specified.
Table 5.5-4
City of Seal Beach Noise Levels and Duration
Noise Level Exceeded
Maximum Allowed Duration'Period
Noise Standard for a cumulative period
30 minutes in any one hour
5 dB (A) above Noise Standard
15 minutes in any one hour
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -117
Comments and Responses
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
10 dB (A) above Noise Standard
5 minutes in any one hour
15 dB (A) above Noise Standard
1 minute in any one hour
20 dB (A) above Noise Standard
Not Permitted
Source: City of Seal Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 131), Noise Control.
The following sources are exempt from the noise level provisions stated
above:
® Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to
or in connection with emergency machinery, vehicle or work;
o Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or
grading of any real property, provided said activities take place
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays,
between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and do not take
place at any time on Sunday or local, State or Federal holidays;
a Noise sources associated with the maintenance of any real
property, provided said activities take place between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 8:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on Sunday or local, State or Federal holidays;
o Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted
by State or federal law.
16J. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 6W.
16K. Page 5.5 -13 of the Draft EIR, Table 5.5 -10, has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
Table 5.5 -10
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Type of Equipment
Maximum Level, dB (50 feetj4hwwo
Scrapers
88
Bulldozers
87
Heavy Trucks
88
Backhoe
85
Pneumatic Tools
85
Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," prepared by Cyril Harris, 1979.
16L. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 60.
16M. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 6P.
16N. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 6Q.
160. Refer to Response to Commentor Nos. 6T and 6X.
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -118 Comments and Responses
i
I� II
U
! r
b
b�
r�
L
L FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -119 Comments and Responses
�1
f
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
16P.
As stated on Page 5.5 -15, the EIR identifies the Leisure World structure
orientation and placement in relation to the perimeter wall. The comment
has been noted.
r
i
1 fly.
I U%A
f . + oo ...,.,moo t� Commentor tnr IVn 6
Please refer .o , espo -ce r. . .
16R.
Please refer to Response to Commentor No. 6Y.
16S.
Please refer to Response to Commentor No. 6Y.
16T.
Please refer to Response to Commentor Nos. 6Q and 6Y.
"ambient
16U.
Refer to Response to Commentor No. 6Y. Typically,
p Y
construction noise levels" would be the perceived sound pressure level
(dBA) averaged over a one -hour period during normal construction
working hours.
16V.
Comment is noted. Refer also to Response to Commentor No. 161.
16W.
Refer to Response to Commentor No. 6R.
r•
i
I� II
U
! r
b
b�
r�
L
L FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -119 Comments and Responses
FEB -11 03 15: FRCM:OC=A FIRE FRE'J. 7147715832 TC:562 4 31 QE7 FPGE:2;
COMMENT NO. 1-7
ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
P.O. Rnz 86, Orange. CA 92856 -0086 . 145 South Water St., Orange, CA 92866
Chip Prather. Fire Chief
(714) 744 -0400
J
J
U
a
February 10, 2003
City Of Seal Belch
Attn: Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
211 Eighth St
Seal Beach, CA 90740
U
SUBJECT: BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
Dear Mr. Cummins:
ti=J
We never received the subject document. We obtained the copy on the web site, without photos.
Given the nature of the project, the impacts to the OCFA are insignificant, or covered in the
standard inspection process identified in section 5 -10. We are unable to comment on specific 17A r
circulation, emergency access or water supply without more specific details. While no additional 1
public safety resources are needed as a result of this change, all standard conditions and u
guidelines will be applied to the project during the normal review process.
�� Thank you for providing us with this information. Please contact me at 714 - 744 -0484 if you
have any questions.
U
_
Sincerely,
Gene F. e,nell
Battalion Chiet; Strategic Services f �
hJ
MIVGB
Serving the Cities tat Ahsa Viejo - Boma Park . Cyl+ress e Da s Point . Irvine . Laguna Htlt- . IA%una Niguel - IJguna Woods . lake Forest. la Palrnu .
u3s Alamitos - Mission V cto. P:accmia . Rancho Santa Murganta - San Clemente . San Juan Capt.trano . Seal (leach . Stanton - Tustin . ViLLe PRik .
wcRtmmsto . Yorba Linda . and L nmeorpurutcd Arcas or Orange county
RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS AND SMOKE DETECTORS SAVE LIVES
14 -120
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 17
Gene Begnell, Orange County Fire Authority
February 10, 2003
,1 17A. Comment is noted. The Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) was
included in the distribution of the Public Review Draft EIR on December
27, 2002. The document was sent to the OCFA offices located at 180
South Water Street, Orange, California 92666.
Page 38 of the project Initial Study (Appendix 15.1) refers to fire
protection and emergency services being provided by the OCFA. The
analysis states that OCFA will review all construction plans to ensure
adequate emergency access and water for fire protection is provided for
the proposed project. Overall impacts upon fire protection services have
�.� been concluded to be a less than significant impact.
�I
G
C
I
C
r�
�
r '
G
r �
i
E
I
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -121 Comments and Responses
rte. 10 -2003 15:4 7 O.Z"i A P S; D 7 14 560 57-54 P. 02 %03'
Ffl COMM NT NO. 1-
OCTA
.orW�as February 10, 2003
Ten KyeHn
Creamy r l:m!istaft m Mr. Mac, Cummins
use -Overm City of Seal Beach t�J
. C. aovn Department of Development Services
°ireaar 211 Eighth Street (-�
�re pbes Seal Beach, CA 90740 �(
a
Subject: Boeing Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dfrar!cr
srr. !�y r.!r :'raaen
Dear Mr. Cummins:
ChR: NnrCy
�** The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) appreciates the
AUrn rA ua,,, opportunity to comment on the Boeing Specific Plan Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report. OCTA has reviewed the referenced document
A>m's Sdta and has the following comments: ,� 1
-14W Ll
C&"ds w Sr""
D The DEIR states (page 5.3 -37) that the widening of the Seal Beach Boulevard
nMichae l ,311 K hm !
overcrossing at 1-405 is planned to occur at a time beyond the 2006 horizon
7,:•Fr0• year established in the Traffic Study. This is based on the City's desire not to
earmark funding for the bridge widening until such time as the widening of SR-
AaFrvreL�rezw 22/1405 is completed to accommodate the 1 -40511 -605 direct High Occupancy
sevPe,r; Vehicle (HOV) connectors. As a result, the DEIR concludes that the impacts at
Anamaja ar tmr the northbound and southbound ramps at Seal Beach Boulevard and 1-405 are
;h =as w. w,krn significant and unavoidable, ] ��
A;.e. arrxar
1 'WOwi
Gnosmrr s Discussions with the City of Seal Beach have indicated that the desire by the
Et- 0U rr•DC: city to postpone widening the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing was based
on the assumption the HOV direct connectors would be constructed at. or
cy;E =EaEQ;Tr.E immediately following, the time SR -22 was widened, which is scheduled for
A -nrn T PA!Ip
completion in late 2006. This would have resulted in the interim bridge
!
ch*r Ere.:U;..e os." widening (sliver widening) being a "throw - project that would have been
demolished soon after completion. However, Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) plans show the HOV direct connectors programmed for the
year 2020. As a result. the planned 1 -40511 -605 HOV direct connectors should
not be considered a reason for not proceeding with the bridge widening.
It is our understanding that the City intends to proceed with widening the
approaches to the bridge. However, this was not mentioned in the DEIR and U
was addressed as an altemative, so it is unknown if these improvements alone
would mitigate the impacts attributed to the project, j
'0r2J -)9C Coirdy i rar.a.oc cello ! AU, ity U
7 Go rL`. Adein S;rft! , P.O. BcJ, : a z6 , : 0 -rqt , Ca;iiorrsa 9—oas: -1sPA f f +t) 567 -OCTA tmgj
14 -122
1�
LJ
G
U
G
U
G
U
U
Ell
LI
G
L
1
FE 10 -2003 15:46 OCTA P & U
714 560 5 P. E -3/03.
Additionally, if Boeing plans on re- aligning some of their entrances or extending
Apollo Drive to connect Seal Beach Blvd and • Westminster Ave, OCTA
recommends that either a turnout or bus pad be incorporated into the project 1 813
OCTA requests for a larger scale site plan to be provided from the applicant in
order to assess the need for additional bus amenities to be included in the
scope of this project.
Please call me at (714) 560 -5712 if you have any further questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
a—
Glen Campbell
Senior Transportation Analyst
c: Dave Elbaum, OCTA
Doug Dancs, Seal Beach Public Works
Orange County Transpohatran Au:hor.1
550 SaaN . Uahi Street / P O. Box W84 Oange / CaUlomia 92853. / (714) 560 -0- (6282)
14 -123 TOTAL F.03
Olkof <� ReaA
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 18
Glen Campbell, Orange County Transportation Authority
February 10, 2003
18A. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 5F.
1813. Comment is noted. The project applicant shall be required to deliver a
larger scale site plan to OCTA and work with OCTA to determine
proposed locations for bus pads and /or turnouts for the project.
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -124 Comments and Responses
1,
r,
U
c
COMMENT N®. 1 -9
L St®nteC: reek
® COMPANY
February 10, 2003
VIA MESSENGER
City of Seal Beach
Department of Development Services
Attn: Mac Cummins
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
Re: Comments on the Boeing, Specific Plan Project Environmental Impact
Report SCH No. 2002031015
Dear Mr. Cummins:
On behalf of Boeing Realty Corporation ( "Boeing'), we are pleased to provide comments
on the Boeing' Specific Plan Project (the "Boeing Project ") Environmental Impact Report (the
"EIR" ). As the project applicant, Boeing looks forward to working with you to ensure that the
E1R adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the Boeing Project and identifies
appropriate measures to mitigate those impacts.
Section 2.0: Executive Summary
Traffic and Circulation
p. 2 -5: The list of mitigation measures for Trip Generation, Distribution, and
Assignment does not include the mitigation for Seal Beach Blvd. /Adolfo Lopez
described on page 5.3 -46. The addition of a three -phased traffic signal at this location
should be included as a mitigation measure.
l.J . pp. 2 -5 and 2 -6: Mitigation Measure 5.3 -2, which requires the applicant to be
� ? responsible for all sidewalk and landscaping improvements /replacements necessary as
j a result of right -of -way acquisition required in order to implement improvements,
does not relate to the impact described, which is that development of the Boeing
' Project "could result in a hazard condition due to an alternative Access Design." This
mitigation measure does not relate to the Alternative Access Evaluation and should be
F1 deleted in its entirety.
Prior submittals by Boeing referred to the Boeing Space & Communications Group, which is now
(1 known as Integrated Defense Systems.
( I Orange County San Diego
LLLJJJ 30322 Esperanza Avenue, Suite 200 2535 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 2A5
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 San Diego, CA 92101
L -E. !9491 709 -8080 TEL (619) 231 -1555
Fria (949) 709 -8081 FAX (619) 230 -0040 14 -125 www .stonecreekcompany.com
n
Air Quality
p. 2.7: Mitigation Measure 5.4 -2, which requires contribution of funds to the City of
Seal Beach Transportation Program and Facilities Development and Application Fees
program, appears to be unrelated to the 5.4-2 Long -Term Operational Impact, which
describes an overall increase in the local and regional pollutant load due to direct
impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas
consumption. This mitigation measure bears no relation to the stated impact and
should be deleted.
p. 2 -7: Mitigation Measure 5.4 -1d, which requires that construction equipment and
supply staging areas be located at least 400 feet from the nearest residence, is not
feasible for development of Planning Area 3 due to the proximity of the proposed
construction and the location of existing residences. To be consistent with Mitigation
Measure 5.5 -1 on page 2 -8, this mitigation measure should be revised to require that
construction equipment and supply staging areas be located 400 feet "or as far as
practical" from the nearest residence.
Noise
C p. 2 -9: Mitigation Measure 5.5 -3a requires that subsequent noise assessments be
prepared prior to "Final Development Plan approval." Although not entirely clear,
the term "final development plan approval" appears to refer to precise plan approval.
Any subsequent noise assessments should be conducted as close to buildout as
possible to minimize speculation. As such, this mitigation measure should be revised
to require the preparation of subsequent noise assessments prior to "building permit
issuance."
Biological Resources
p. 2 -9: Mitigation Measures 5.6 -1a and 5.6 -1b are Project Features and should be
deleted from the list of mitigation measures. In addition, Mitigation Measure 5.6 -1a
requires the translocation of southern tarplants to the Hellman Ranch site. Because
on -site mitigation is feasible, and there are no assurances that the owners of Hellman
Ranch will accept off -site translocation of southern tarplants, this mitigation measure
should be revised to reflect a translocation program that only features an on -site
component.
Hydrology and Drainage
p. 2 -18: Mitigation Measure 5.9 -2 requires that standing water and drainage
problems occurring at the frontage of Planning Area 4 on Seal Beach Boulevard be , 9G
corrected as part of development of Planning Area 4. The standing water and
drainage problems identified in the EIR already occur at the frontage of Planning
LA \1002675.5
0
u
U
0
14 -126 0
b
L
AEMMMW
IMMEW
Area 4 and, as such, are not impacts that would arise as a result of the Boeing Project.
Boeing proposes, however, to mitigate all on -site flows from Planning Area 4 to Seal
Beach Boulevard. This mitigation measure should be revised to require that Doe iiig �- �cT
mitigate on -site flows resulting from development of Planning Area 4.
Public Health and Safety
• PP . 2 -20 and 2 -21: Mitigation Measures 5.10 -2a and 5.10 -2b require that, prior to
permit issuance, soil sampling of the "undeveloped portions of the Project site
(Planning Areas 2 and 3) be conducted to determine the presence or absence of
banned agricultural pesticides," and that appropriate steps be taken if concentrations
of agricultural chemicals are detected above regulatory cleanup levels during
demolition or construction. Because all of Planning Area 2 has been developed, these
mitigation measures should be limited to apply only to the undeveloped portions of
J Planning Area 3.
� Public Services and Utilities
r ' • p. 2 -22: Mitigation Measures 5.11 -1a and 5.11 -2a require that plans for the proposed
water system and plans for the proposed wastewater collection system be approved
- ; prior to the recordation of the final map. To ensure that such plans are as compatible
L as possible with the structures ultimately proposed for the site, these mitigation
measures should be revised to require approval of water system and wastewater
collection system plans prior to the issuance of building permits.
° P g . 2 -22: Mitigation Measure 5.11 -1b refers to best management practices ("B s")
and conservation practices identified in the City's adopted Urban Water Management
Plan 2002, Water Supply Assessment "and the California Urban Water Conservation
Council." The EIR should be revised to more specifically refer to the BMPs and
conservation practices identified "in the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding, as
�J amended, which is monitored by the California Urban Water Conservation Council"
rather than just "the California Urban Water Conservation Council."
�j • p. 2 -23: Mitigation Measure 5.11 -3b states that the "project developer shall adhere to
all source reduction programs for the disposal of construction materials and solid
waste required by the City of Seal Beach." This mitigation measure should be
U revised to reflect that each project shall prepare a "source reduction program" prior to
r building permit issuance.
?I
l.,a
U
r
U LA0002675.5
19K
14 -121
Section 3.0: Project Description
Project Characteristics (Section 3.3)
• p. 3 -11: The following language should be added to the end of the second paragraph:
"As part of the development of this Planning Area, Adolfo Lopez Drive will be 19L
widened and extended."
® p. 3 -13: "Precise Plan Approval" for Planning Areas 2 and 3 should be added to the
list of discretionary approvals to be granted by the City at the end of the summary 9
regarding "The California Coastal Act."
Project Obiectives (Section 3.4)
® p. 3 -22: In order to correspond with the language of Mitigation Measure 5.6 -3, the
last objective under "Planning and Environmental Design" should be revised to read:
"Provide for wetland restoration and water quality treatment of urban runoff for new
development by creating wetland habitat on the terraces along each side of Drainage
Ditches A and B, as well as within the water quality treatment basins at the site."
Agreements, Permits and Approvals (Section 3.6)
® p. 2 -23: Precise Plan Approval for Planning Areas 2 and 3 should be added to the list 1-
of City approvals. j
Section 5. 1: Land Use and Relevant PlanninP U
• p. 5.1-4: The General Plan Consistency Analysis for Land Use Policy 8.1 concludes
that the Boeing Project is consistent with this policy's concept of an "industrial park."
As indicated on p. 5.1 -10, Boeing proposes a General Plan amendment to change the
reference and description of "industrial park" to "business park ", which would
expressly permit point of sale industrial/manufacturing uses. The project consistency
analysis should be amended to refer to the proposed amendment, which will ensure
project consistency with this Land Use Policy.
Section 5.3: Traffic and Circulation
• p. 5.3 -1: The most recent version of the Traffic Report is dated December 2002, not
October 2002, as indicated in the first paragraph.
• p. 5.3 -2 (Table 5.3 -1): The unsignalized delay criteria in Column (4) of this table is
incorrect and should read as follows:
A: :5 5.0
B: 10.0 —15.0
C: 15.1 — 25.0
LAU 002675.5
I
u
J
U
MOTE
r �
4
14 -128
r'
D: 25.1 - 35.0
. E: 35.1- 50.0 T1- 9R
F: > 50.0
L and
• p. 5.3 -12: AM peak ICU/LOS for Intersection 10 should read 0.888/D not 0.888/DF,
AM peak ICU/LOS for Intersection 11 should read 0.706/C, not 0.706/D.
11 9s
• p. 5.3 -13 (Table 5.3 -4): The LOS for Seal Beach Boulevard, between I -405 NB
U Ramps
and I -405 SB Ramps (Overcrossing), is incorrectly listed as LOS "D ", and
1 9T
should be changed to LOS "E."
• p. 5.3 -34: AM peak ICU/LOS for Intersection 11 should read 0.794/C, not 0.749/C.
(1 917
• p. 5.3 -36 (Table 5.3 -8): The reference to Footnote 2 is missing and should be inserted
1 19V
at Intersection 14, Column (5).
• p. 5.3 -39 (Table 5.3 -9): Under the heading "Year 2005 ", Intersection 1, Column (4),
the AM and PM LOS levels should be "D" and "E ", respectively. In addition, also
1 9W
under the heading "Year 2005 ", Intersection 11, Column (4) should read "C" and "E"
for AM and PM LOS, respectively.
f
• pp. 5.3 -41, 5.3 -42, and 5.3 -55 (Tables 5.3 -10, 5.3 -11 and 5.3 -16): Footnotes 1 and/or
is
9X
2 are missing from the tables and should be inserted. Also, Roadway Segment H a
Major Arterial, not a Primary Arterial.
• p. 5.3 -50 (Table 5.3 -14): AM LOS under for Intersection 11 in Columns (1), (2), and
1 ��
(3) of this table should read "C ", "C" and "D ", respectively.
• pp. 5.3 -56, 5.3 -57: The list of mitigation measures for Trip Generation, Distribution,
and Assignment does not include the mitigation for Seal Beach Blvd. /Adolfo Lopez,
1 9Z
( f '
which is described on page 5.3 -46. The addition of a three -phased traffic signal at
i J
this location should be included as a mitigation measure.
• p. 5.3 -57: Mitigation Measure 5.3 -2, which requires the applicant to be responsible
L for all sidewalk and landscaping improvements /replacements necessary as a result of
right -of -way acquisition required in order to implement improvements, does not ] 9a.a.
relate to the impact described, which is that development of the Boeing Project "could
result in a hazard condition due to an alternative Access Design." This mitigation
measure 5.3 -2 does not relate to the Alternative Access Evaluation and should be
deleted in its entirety.
• The Coastal Commission has also requested that the EIR "evaluate construction
j related impacts on coastal access and provide mitigation measures to minimize 19bb
LJ construction impacts on the public's ability to use Seal Beach Boulevard." The EIR
, r 5
LA \100267.5
L ", 14 -129
should be revised to evaluate the potential impacts. Should an impact be identified,
Boeing would agree to the Coastal Commission's suggested mitigation measure, ] 9bb
which would be to restrict any construction activity that rewires lane closures on Seal
Beach Boulevard during the summer months, during non -peak hours.
Section 5.4: Air Quality
• p. 5.4 -20: Mitigation Measure 5.4 -2, which requires contribution of funds to the City
of Seal Beach Transportation Program and Facilities Development and Application
Fees program, appears to be unrelated to the 5.4 -2 Long -Term Operational Impact,
which describes an overall increase in the local and regional pollutant load due to
direct impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from electricity and
natural gas consumption. This mitigation measure bears no relation to the stated
impact and should be deleted.
• p. 5.4 -20: Mitigation Measure 5.4 -1d, which requires that construction equipment
and supply staging areas be located at least 400 feet from the nearest residence, is not
feasible for development of Planning Area 3 due to the proximity of the proposed
construction and the location of existing residences. To be consistent with Mitigation
Measure 5.5 -1 on page 2 -8, this mitigation measure should be revised to require that
construction equipment and supply staging areas be located 400 feet "or as far as
practical" from the nearest residence.
Section 5.7. Noise
• p. 5.5 -4: Mitigation Measure 5.5 -3a requires that subsequent noise assessments be
prepared prior to "Final Development Plan approval." Although not entirely clear,
the term "final development plan approval" appears to refer to precise plan approval.
Any subsequent noise assessments should be conducted as close to buildout as
possible to minimize speculation. As such, this mitigation measure should be revised
to require the preparation of subsequent noise assessments prior to "building permit
issuance."
Section 5.6: Biolowical Resources
p. 5.6 -25: Mitigation Measures 5.6 -1a and 5.6 -1b are Project Features and should be
deleted from the list of mitigation measures. In addition, Mitigation Measure 5.6 -1 a
requires the translocation of southern tarplants to the Hellman Ranch site. Because
on -site mitigation is feasible, and there are no assurances that the owners of Hellman
Ranch will accept off -site translocation of southern tarplants, this mitigation measure
should be revised to reflect a translocation program that only features an on -site
component.
LA \1002675.5
&I
6
14 -130
U
L
A
IF
U
E l'
GI
AI
G
U
Section 5.9: Hydrolo-ey and Drainage
D. 5.6 -30: Mitigation Measure 5.9 -2 requires that standing water and drainage
problems occurring at the frontage of Planning Area 4 on Seal Beach Boulevard be
corrected as part of development of Planning Area 4. The standing water and
drainage problems identified in the EIR already occur at the frontage of Planning
Area 4 and, as such, are not impacts that would arise as a result of the Boeing Project.
Boeing proposes, however, to mitigate all on -site flows to Seal Beach Boulevard.
This mitigation measure should be revised to require that Boeing mitigate on -site
flows resulting from development of Planning Area 4.
Section 5.10: Public Health and Safetv
p. 5.10 -27: Mitigation Measures 5.10 -2a and 5.10 -2b require that, prior to permit
issuance, soil sampling of the "undeveloped portions of the Project site (Planning
Areas 2 and 3) be conducted to determine the presence or absence of banned
agricultural pesticides," and that appropriate steps be taken if concentrations of
agricultural chemicals are detected above regulatory cleanup levels during demolition
or construction. Because all of Planning Area 2 has been developed, these mitigation
measures should be limited to apply only to the undeveloped portions of Planning
Area 3.
Section 5.11: Public Services and Utilities
pp. 5.11 -12, 5.11 -13 (Exhibit 5.11 -1): A revised draft Tentative Tract Map for the
Boeing Project was submitted to the City on February 6, 2003. As shown in the
revised draft map, lot numbers for the project have changed since the printing of the
EIR. Although Planning Area 3 still comprises lots 1 -7, Planning Area 2 now
includes lots 8 -13, Planning Area 1 now includes lots 14 -16, and Planning Area 4
now includes lots 17 -20. The references to lot numbers on page 5.11 -12 and in
Exhibit 5.11 -1, as well as any other references in the draft EIR, should be updated to
reflect the new lot configuration.
19ii
i
• p. 5- 11 -15: The EIR refers to a "private" lift station and sewer lines. Any references
to private facilities should be deleted. At this time, a Community Facilities District ] 9 ji
( "CFD ") is anticipated, but the nature and scope of the facilities to be included in a
CFD is yet to be determined.
9 p. 5.11 -15: The EIR refers to the "payment of the fair -share costs for replacement of
the Adolfo Lopez Pump Station" in addition to the replacement of the Boeing Pump
Station. Neither the existing uses nor the proposed project contribute to the Adolfo
l- 9kk
L I Lopez Pump Station. As such, the reference to the Adolfo Lopez Pump Station
should be deleted.
U L.4\1002675.5
L 14 -131
p. 5.11 -16: Mitigation Measures 5.11 -1 a and 5.11 -2a require that plans for the
proposed water system and plans for the proposed wastewater collection system be
approved prior to the recordation of the final map. To ensure that such plans are as
compatible as possible with the structures ultimately proposed for the site, these
mitigation measures should be revised to require approval of water system and
wastewater collection system plans prior to the issuance of building permits.
1 911 �]
1 � r
p. 5.11 -16: Mitigation Measure 5.11 -1 b refers to best management practices
(`BMPs ") and conservation practices identified in the City's adopted Urban Water
Management Plan 2002, Water Supply Assessment "and the California Urban Water
Conservation Council." The EIR should be revised to more. specifically refer to the
BMPs and conservation practices identified "in the 1991 Memorandum of
Understanding, as amended, which is monitored by the California Urban Water
Conservation Council" rather than just "the California Urban Water Conservation
Council."
p. 5.11 -17: Mitigation Measure 5.11 -3b states that the "project developer shall
adhere to all source reduction programs for the disposal of construction materials and
solid waste required by the City of Seal Beach." This mitigation measure should be
revised to reflect that each project shall prepare a "source reduction program" prior to
building permit issuance.
Section 7.0: Alternatives
p. 7.8 ( "Residential Component" Alternative): According to the Housing Element,
the "higher density housing' to be considered for the site is supposed to be
"affordable to lower income households." In addition, because the project is located
within the Coastal Zone, California Government Code §65590(d) (the "Mello Act ")
requires that any new housing project on this site include affordable housing either
on -site, or within three miles of the Coastal Zone. The requirement to provide
affordable housing (or pay an in -lieu fee) would impact the economic, environmental,
social, and technical feasibility of a project on this site and should be considered in
the context of any hearings or other analysis of the Residential Component
Alternative. In addition, locating housing on this site gives rise to concerns about
land use compatibility with adjacent industrial uses. Finally, the Residential
Component Alternative may also result in "spot zoning."
19mm
v
u
1900
0
• p. 7 -11: The EIR points out that the Residential Component Alternative does not
include a wetland restoration program. As such, it should be considered 1- 9pp Lf
environmentally inferior from a biological resources perspective.
Finally, we understand that the City has proposed changes to the mitigation measures
contained in the Cultural Resources section and that those changes are intended to mirror the 1 ���
8
LA11002675.5
14 -132
U
r
u
L
LI
L
U
G
requirements imposed on the Hellman Ranch project. Unlike the Hellman Ranch Project site, the
Boeing Project site is relatively flat with no significant topographical features, mostly developed
and largely consists of redeposited fill. As such, it is less likely that intact, undisturbed burial
sites will be found at the Boeing Project site. Boeing agrees that if more than one undisturbed
burial site is discovered at the Boeing Project site, a mitigation plan should be prepared and
implemented. However, a detailed mitigation plan is not warranted if remnants of human
remains or if disturbed burial sites are discovered. In addition, while Boeing agrees that
undisturbed sites should be subject to a detailed mitigation plan, the specific features of such a
plan for the Boeing site should be specific to the site and developed in consultation with the
Native American Heritage Commission, the Most Likely Descendant ( "MLD "), the City, the
Coastal Commission, and Boeing, once the MID has been identified. For these reasons, the
Cultural Resources section should be revised to require preparation of a mitigation plan only in
the event that more than one undisturbed burial site is discovered. In addition, the specific
components of the mitigation plan should be decided upon with the parties listed above, once the
MLD has been identified.
We thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Boeing Project EIR. Should you
have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
LI cc
r^
U
Respe tfully submi d,
Clayton M. Corwin
Alan DeFrancis, Boeing Realty Corporation
E LA \1002675.5
14 -133
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR {�
Y
Response to Commentor No. 19
Clayton Corwin, StoneCreek Company /Boeing Realty Corporation 1
February 10, 2003 U
19A. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 1A which refers to Mitigation
Measure 5.3 -1 C.
19B. The City of Seal Beach asserts that the referenced mitigation measure
pertaining to sidewalk and landscaping improvements /replacement, due
to right -of -way acquisition, is applicable and appropriate for the subject
project. The commentor questions the appropriateness of this measure
under the alternative access evaluation. As a result, Page 5.3 -51 of the
Draft EIR has been revised. The impact statement following the
subheading "Alternative Access Evaluation," has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EVALUATION
5.3 -2 Development of the proposed Project with the extension of Apollo Drive would
Gould-resu/t in similar impacts when c m ared to the proposed proj a l a�ar�l
Page 5.3 -57, Mitigation Measure 5.3 -2 of the Draft EIR, has been moved
to the Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment subsection and has
been moved to Mitigation Measure 5.3-1d. The revised mitigation
measure statement for 5.3 -2 and revised Mitigation Measure 5.3 -1d are
as follows in the Final EIR:
ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EVALUATION
5.3 -2 Mitigation Measums 5.3-1a through 5.3 -1d apps/ to th_e Alternative Access
Scenario. No additional mitigation measures are recommended. he- pFejesl
improvemeRtskeplaWnSRtS RSG866aFy as a result of right of way arquisitioR
requ O R order to implement
.3 -1d The Rro 'ec1 t applicant shall be responsible for all sidewalk and landscapin
improvements /replacements necessary as a result of dg acquisition
dedications required in order to implement improvements
19C. Upon further review, Mitigation Measure 5.4 -2 reiterates Transportation
Impact Fee requirements set forth by the City of Seal Beach and provides
no clear nexus to long -term emission impacts which have been concluded
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -134 Comments and Responses
3 { rte
L 11 ,
r.
1
U
0
L"
L
Ll�'
l r
W
u
U
U
l r
U
BOEING�SECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
to be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 5.4 -2 has been
revised in the Final EIR as follows:
A n Mg
m me asure s a re recommended RasPCi gn the analysis provided
combined mobile and area source emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds
for ROG. NOx and CO and PM cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less than
significant level.
permits for eaGh phase of development.
19D. Page 5.4 -20 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 5.4 -1d, has been
revised in the Final EIR as follows:
5.4 -1d Tha contracAnr AhRII astab D overall site --------grading ad public infrastructure
construction phases, construction equipment and supply staging areas shall be
locate at least 400 feet from the nearest residence. Durin structure /buildin
construction, equipment and sup -may s areas shall be located at least 400
feet or as far as practical from the nearest residence. GGrApl W US
mwm
19E. Mitigation Measure 5.5 -3a of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
5.5 -3a Prior to Building Permit issuance._
subsequent noise
assessments shall be prepared, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services, which demonstrates the site placement of stationary
noise sources would not exceed criteria established in the City of Seal Beach
Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall verify that loading dock facilities, rooftop
equipment, trash compactors and other stationary noise sources are adequately
shielded and /or located at an adequate distance from residential areas in order to
comply with the City's noise standards.
19F. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 5P. The City of Seal Beach
disagrees with the comment referring to the Translocation Program
serving as a Project feature and not a mitigation measure. The Biological
Resources Technical Report (Appendix 15.5) refers to the action as
mitigation and is in response to mitigating significant affects resulting from
the proposed project. Most importantly, by identifying as mitigation, this
provides the City of Seal Beach with the monitoring mechanism through
California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (Mitigation Monitoring
Program) to assure the measure is properly implemented.
19G. Although the referenced standing water problem along Seal Beach
Boulevard is referred to as an existing drainage issue, the proposed
Specific Plan includes the entire Boeing property which includes ingress
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -135 Comments and Responses
clik w S�Wpe=A
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
and egress locations along Seal Beach Boulevard. The existing flat
longitudinal grades combined with flow- disturbance caused by wide
driveways onto the site would continue with project implementation. Poor
drainage, curbs, gutters, driveways and cross-gutters along the entire
frontage of the Boeing property s hall be replar_.Pd to correct the drainage
problems. It is acknowledged that on -site flows would be fully mitigated.
19H. Due to possible unknown impacts resulting from agricultural and
maintenance weed control spraying that historically may have occurred in
the vacant land areas of Planning Area 2, Mitigation Measure 5.10 -2a will
not be revised in the Final EIR.
191. Mitigation Measure 5.11 -1a of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
5.11 -1a In order to ensure adequate service to the project site proposed subdivision and
the individual building tructures. plans for the proposed g= water a
wastewater systems shall be approved by the City Engineer of the City of Seal
Beach prior to the recordation of the final tract map. A condition on the tentative
Map shall state that all public infrastructure improvement plans, including sewer
water, streets. traffic signals. and grading shall be approved by the City Engineer
prior to recordation of the tract map. This is in conformance with the subdivision
map act and approval authority_ of the City -Engineer. the re-nordation of the final
tract reap.
19J. The City of Seal Beach believes that the provisions and reference to the
California Urban Water Conservation Council, with regard to Best
Management Practices (BMPs), as stated in Mitigation Measure 5.11 -1b,
has been adequately referenced in the Draft EIR. No further revisions are
deemed necessary.
19K. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 15T.
19L. Page 3 -11, Paragraph 2 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
Planning Area 3 would include a new road system including ingress /egress from Seal Beach
Boulevard and Westminster Avenue via Apollo Drive, providing access to the new industrial
park and existing facilities. As part of the development of Planning Area 3, Adolfo Lopez
Drive would be widened and extended.
19M. Page 3 -13, Paragraph 1, of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final U
EIR as follows:
Because the City's draft LUP and Local Coastal Program (LCP) remain uncertified,
development within the Boeing Specific Plan would require Coastal Development Permit
(CDP) approval from the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The CCC is required to
make findings that development of this site is in compliance with the goals and policies of the
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -136 Comments and Responses
u
l.J
r
G
L
U
L, i
0
L
U
L
U
F "
U
Fi
G
0
U 1
0 W<; _C__PearA
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLA PROJECT EIR
California Coastal Act of 1976 ( "Coastal Act "). The CDP entitlement process with the CCC
would be initiated after the City of Seal Beach discretionary approvals have been granted
(i.e., General Plan Amendment, Zone Change Precise Plan Approval and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map).
19N. Page 3 -22, Bullet 6 under the heading "Planning and Environmental
Design" has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
♦ Provide for wetland restoration and water quality treatment of urban runoff for new
development by creating wetland habitat on the terraces along each side of Drainage
Ditches A and B as well as within the water quali treatment basins at the site.
190. The commentor refers to Page 2 -23 but it is believed that the reference is
intended to be Page 3 -23. On Page 3 -23, Subsection 3.6, Agreements,
Permits and Approvals, has been revised as follows in the Final EIR
under the heading "City of Seal Beach ":
City of Seal Beach
♦ Certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
♦ General Plan Amendments — Land Use, Circulation
♦ Specific Plan approval
♦ Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Final Map(s) approvals
♦ Development Agreement (if utilized)
♦ Any other approvals deemed necessary during the entitlement process
♦ Precise Plan A
19P. Page 5.1-4, 3` box below the Land Use Element subheading for Project
Consistency, has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
Consistent: As indicated in Table 5 -1 of the Specific Plan, Boeing Specific Plan Permitted Land Uses, various
light industrial uses would be permitted in the Specific Plan area. Thus, should the City of Seal Beach aoorove the
proposed General Plan Amendment_ Specific Plan's Development Standards and permitted
uses, the proposed Project would satisfy the General Plan's desianation and ultimate intended use of the subject
site. (i.e., Iffightindustrial use in the form of an " m AdMUstr i al paFk").
19Q. Page 5.3 -1, Paragraph 1 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
This Section is based upon the project Traffic Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law &
Greenspan (LL &G), dated OGtebeF 13, 2002, which is included as Appendix 15.2,
Traffic Study, of this document. The evaluation considers impacts to local roadways,
intersections, regional facilities and ingress /egress locations on -site. Mitigation measures are
recommended to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -137
Comments and Responses
cil�of s�ea��e=A
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
19R. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 413.
19S. Page 5.3 -12, under the heading "Key Intersection" of the Draft EIR,
Intersection 10 has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
19T. Page 5.3 -13, Table 5.3-4 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
Table 5.3-4
Existing Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Key Intersection
ICU /LOS
ICU /LOS
1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd St/Westminster Avenue
0.931/E
1.000 /E
2. Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue
0.937/E
0.818/D
9. Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue
0.9261E
0.907 /E
10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Southbound Ramps
0.888/DI=
0.972/E
11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Northbound Ramps
0.706/0 M
0.989/E
12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road
0.950 /E
0.769/C
Note: Bold ICU /LOS values indicate unacceptable service
levels.
23,066
19T. Page 5.3 -13, Table 5.3-4 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
Table 5.3-4
Existing Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -138 Comments and Responses
No. of
MPAH
Existing
Year 2002
Existin
Traffic
Daily
V/C
Roadway Segment
Existing
Arterial
Capacity
Lanes
Classification
at LOS E'
Volume.
Ratio.
LOS .
A
Westminster Avenue,
4D
Primary
37,500
23,066
0.615
B
e%o Studebaker Road
Arterial
B
Westminster Avenue,
4D
Primary
37,500
23,204
0.619
B
Between Apollo Drive /Road B
Arterial
C
Westminster Avenue,
w/o Bolsa Chica Road
4D
Primary
Arterial
37,500
24,137
0.644
B
D
Seal Beach Boulevard,
No Pacific Coast Highway
6D
Major
Arterial
56,300
20,666
0.367
A
E
Adolfo Lopez Drive,
w/o Seal Beach Boulevard
2U
Local
Collector
12,500
1,389
0.111
A
F
Seal Beach Boulevard,
6D
Major
56,300
26,975
0.479
A
Between Apollo Drive /Road C
Arterial
G
Seal Beach Boulevard,
Between St Andrews /Golden Rain
6D
Major
Arterial
56,300
33,790
0.600
A
Seal Beach Boulevard, between 1 -405
H.
NB Ramps and 1 -405 SB Ramps
5D
Major
46,875
42,411
0.905
9 E
Overcrossin
Arterial
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -138 Comments and Responses
Li
L
bi
L
C
m
i
r
L
L'
U
L11
E
li
L
1 F
U
C D� �j�JC�E'CCG�
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
19U. Page 5.3 -34, under the heading "Key Intersection" of the Draft EIR, the
AM Peak hour ICU /LOS for Intersection 11 has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
Pacific Coast Highway, north of Main
4D
Primary
37,500
44,684
1.192
F
Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd St/Westminster Ave
Street/Bolsa Avenue
1.0911F
Arterial
Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue
1.0111F
0.887/D
9.
J.
Pacific Coast Highway, north of Seal
4D
Primary
37,500
45,422
1.211
F
Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 Northbound Ramps
Beach Boulevard
1.1401F
Arterial
Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road
1.029117
0.836/D
K.
Pacific Coast i Highway, south o f Sea!
4D
Primary
�i,500
41,920
F
Beach Boulevard
Arterial
D = Divided, U = Undivided
19U. Page 5.3 -34, under the heading "Key Intersection" of the Draft EIR, the
AM Peak hour ICU /LOS for Intersection 11 has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
Note: Bold ICU /LOS values indicate unacceptable service levels and project impact is considered significant.
19V. Page 5.3 -36, Table 5.3-8 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
U FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -139 Comments and Responses
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Key Intersection
ICU /LOS
ICU /LOS
1.
Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd St/Westminster Ave
1.0111F
1.0911F
2.
Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue
1.0111F
0.887/D
9.
Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue
1.015/F
1.012/F
10.
Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 Southbound Ramps
0.9841E
1.1001F
11.
Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 Northbound Ramps
9449 0.794I
1.1401F
12.
Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road
1.029117
0.836/D
Note: Bold ICU /LOS values indicate unacceptable service levels and project impact is considered significant.
19V. Page 5.3 -36, Table 5.3-8 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
U FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -139 Comments and Responses
BOEING SISECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR r
Table 5.3 -8
Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -140 Comments and Responses LJ
1
()
(2)
(4) .
(5)
2002 Existing �
Year 2006 �
'fear 2006 PiusYear
00
Year 2006
2006
Time
Traffic
Background
Project Traffic
P
With
Key Intersections
period
Conditions •
Traffic,
Conditions
Significant
Improvements
Conditions
Impacts
ICU
LOS
ICU .,,
LOS
ICU
LOS
ICU*
:LOS
ICU
LOS
1. Pacific Coast Highway at g o d
AM
0.931
E
1.011
F
1.067
F
0.056
Y
0.910
E
Street/Westminster Avenue
PM
1.000
E
1.091
F
1.099
F
0.008
N
0.989
E
2. Studebaker Road at
AM
0.937
E
1.011
E
1.046
F
0.035
Y
0.990
E
Westminster Avenue
PM
1 0.818
D
0.887
D
0.961
E
0.074
Y
0.874
D
3. Studebaker Road at SR -22 EB
AM
0.415
A
0.442
A
0.480
A
0.038
N
-
Ramps
PM
0.695
B
0.747
C
0.757
C
0.010
N
-
-
4. Studebaker Road at SR -22 WB
AM
0.484
A
0.517
A
0.560
A
0.043
N
-
Ramps
PM
0.830
D
0.892
D
0.904
D
0.012
N
-
-
5. Pacific Coast Highway at Main
AM
0.624
B
0.682
B
0.713
C
0.031
N
-
-
Street/Bolsa Avenue
PM
0.724
C
0.796
C
0.799
C
0.003
N
-
-
6. Pacific Coast Highway at Seal
AM
0.771
C
0.845
D
0.851
D
0.006
N
-
-
Beach Boulevard
PM
0.769
C
0.836
D
0.873
D
0.037
N
-
-
7. Seal Beach Boulevard at Bolsa
AM
0.340
A
0.371
A
0.425
A
0.054
N
-
-
Avenue /Anchor Way
PM
0.394
A
0.438
A
0.484
A
0.046
N
-
-
8. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.26 s/v
A
0.334
A
0.371
A
0.037
N
-
-
Adolfo Lopez Drive
PM
0.58 s/v
A
0.357
A
0.424
A
0.067
N
-
-
9. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.926
E
1.015
F
1.112
F
0.097
Y
0.866
D
Westminster Avenue
PM
0.907
E
1.012
F
1.226
F
0.214
Y
0.837
D
10. Seal Beach Boulevard at I-
AM
0.888
D
0.984
E
1.049
F
0.065
Y
0,742
C
405 Southbound Rams
PM
0.972
E
1.100
F
1.190
F
0.090
Y
0.810
D
11. Seal Beach Boulevard at I-
AM
0.706
C
0.794
C
0.929
E
0.135
Y
0.811
D
405 Northbound Rams
PM
0.989
E
1.140
F
1.160
F
0.020
Y
0.960
E
12. Bolsa Chica Road at
AM
0.950
E
1.029
F
1.117
F
0.088
Y
1.005
F
Westminster Avenue
PM
0.769
C
0.836
D
0.935
E
0.099
Y
0.819
D
13. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.281
A
0.308
A
0.418
A
0.110
N
0.405
A'
Road A (Apollo Drive
PM
0.310
A
0.364
A
0.607
A
0.243
N
0.497
A
14. Road A (Apollo Drive) at
AM
0.442
A
0.479
A
0.705
B
0.226
N
0.700
B?
Westminster Avenue
PM
0.469
A
0.512
A
0.691
B
0.179
N
0.691
B
15. Island Village Drive at
AM
0.512
A
0.550
A
0.565
A
0.015
N
-
-
Westminster Avenue
PM
0.528
A
0.573
A
0.646
B
0.073
N
-
-
16. Road B at Westminster
AM
0.457
A
0.495
A
0.598
A
0.103
N
-
-
Avenue
PM
0.509
A
0.555
A
0.730
C
0.175
N
-
-
17. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.276
A
0.302
A
0.459
A
0.157
N
-
-
Road C
PM
0.311
A
0.349
A
0.516
A
0.167
N
-
-
18. Springdale Street at
AM
0.492
A
0.530
A
0.576
A
0.046
N
-
-
Westminster Avenue
PM
0.710
C
0.771
C
0.817
D
0.046
N
-
-
19. Rancho Road /Hamon Place
AM
0.296
A
0.319
A
0.390
A
0.071
N
-
-
atWestminsterAvenue
PM
0.432
A
0,470
A
0.564
A
0.094
N
-
-
20.1 -405 Southbound On Ramp
AM
0.56 s/v
A
0.60 S/V
A
0.56 S/V
A
-
N
-
at Westminster Avenue
PM
0.95 s/v
A
1.24 SN
A
2.00 SN
A
-
N
-
-
21. Pacific Coast Highway at
AM
0.817
D
0.881
D
0.888
D
0.007
N
-
-
Lo nes Drive
PM
0.818
D
0.881
D
0.887
D
0.006
N
-
-
* Inc = Incremental ICU
Notes: Bold HCM/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Seal Beach, City of Westminster and City of Long Beach LOS
standards.
1 To minimize the required green time for the eastbound left4um phase, a second eastbound left -turn lane will be installed. As a result, the green
time for through traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard may be maintained and /or maximized.
2 To minimize the required green time for the northbound left -tum phase, a second northbound left -tum lane will be installed. As a result, the
green time for through traffic on Westminster Avenue may be maintained and /or maximized.
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -140 Comments and Responses LJ
1�
I
,
1
i
i
U
I
U
i
U
F;
U
U
U
U
U
c Of
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
19W. Page 5.3 -39, Table 5.3 -9 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
Table 5.3 -9
Traifiir iiTiFia�a SE ^S %IV. Anal,sla
19X. Please note that the projected service level for the Seal Beach Boulevard
overcrossing (Link H) represents the anticipated service level with the
proposed ultimate widening of the bridge to provide six through lanes
(total), a divided median, sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Page 5.3 -41,
Table 5.3 -10 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -141
Comments and Responses
Total •'• -.
: =:'Total Background. _
` ' p�oject'Impactl r
Future Conditions
Level of Boein 'Specific Plan' k::°
9 P
? "; �?
°•" Back round <, .
:: ".�I. 9 =.
Traffic .;;; °`
Wltmprovements' '
Occupanoy Key Intersections
: Timet°^
Traffic .
With Project
;Significance
ieiiod
"`
,:'
:.ICU•
LOS
,.' ICU'
LOS ;.;
ICU Inc.
YIN
ICU
LOS
'«....
„
Year 2004 ( Phase 1)
1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2nd
AM
0.977
E
0.998
E
0.021
Y
0.860
D
St/Westminster Ave
PM
1.055
F
1.059
F
0.004
N
0.953
E
2. Studebaker Road at Westminster
AM
0.977
E
0.989
E
0.012
N
-
Avenue
PM
0.859
D
0.895
D
0.036
N
-
-
9. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.980
E
1.015
F
0.035
Y
0.803
C
Westminster Avenue
PM
0.977
E
1.097
F
0.120
Y
0.759
C
10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1405
AM
0.950
E
0.983
E
0.033
Y
0.690
B
Southbound Rams
PM
1.064
F
1.110
F
0.046
Y
0.754
C
11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405
AM
0.769
C
0.844
D
0.075
N
0.731
C
Northbound Rams
PM
1.103
F
1.114
F
0.011
Y
0.923
E
12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa
AM
0.992
E
1.037
F
0.045
Y
0.940
E
Chica Road
PM
0.807
1 D
0.861
D
0.054
N
0.762
C
Year 2005 ( Phase 1 & 2 )
1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2nd
AM
0.994
E
1.026
F
0.032
Y
0.881
p
St/Westminster Ave
PM
1.073
F
1.080
F
0.007
N
0.973
E
2. Studebaker Road at Westminster
AM
0.994
E
1.014
F
0.020
Y
0.960
E
Avenue
PM
0.873
D
0.919
E
0.046
Y
0.849
D
9. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.997
E
1.057
F
0.060
Y
0.828
D
Westminster Avenue
PM
0.995
E
1.136
F
0.141
Y
0.785
C
10. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.967
E
1.010
F
0.043
Y
0.709
C
1-405 Southbound Ramps
PM
1.083
F
1.142
F
0.059
Y
0.778
C
11. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.781
C
0.863
D
0.082
N
0.747
1 -405 Northbound Rams
PM
1.122
F
1.135
F
0.013
Y
0.941
E
12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa
AM
1.011
F
1.068
F
0.057
Y
0.966
E
Chica Road
PM
0.822
D
0.885
D
0.063
N
0.787
C
Notes: Bold ICUILOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards.
1 Improvements recommended are required to mitigate future non - project (ambient/cumulative) traffic and/or project traffic.
19X. Please note that the projected service level for the Seal Beach Boulevard
overcrossing (Link H) represents the anticipated service level with the
proposed ultimate widening of the bridge to provide six through lanes
(total), a divided median, sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Page 5.3 -41,
Table 5.3 -10 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -141
Comments and Responses
cll�-w s�"
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
J
Table 5.3 -10
Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary {�
U
Page 5.3 -42, Table 5.3 -11 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
J
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -142 Comments and Responses 0
" 2
"
- .
No. of
MPAH Arterial
Existing
Year 2002 Existing Traffic
Plea
, bat bat 2 2 t Traffic
Project Impact
Roadway Segment
Existing
Classification
Capacity
Lanes
of LOS E
Daily"
`
'VIC
LOS
Daily
VIC
LOS
VIC
Sign.,
Volume"
Ratio
Volume
Ratio
Increase
YIN
A. Westminster
Avenue, e/o
4D
Primary Arterial
37,500
23,066
0.615
B
26,271
0.701
B
0.086
N
Studebaker Road
B. Westminster
Avenue, between
4D
Primary Arterial
37,500
23,204
0.619
B
28,882
0.770
C
0.151
N
Apollo Drive /Road B
C. Westminster
Avenue, w/p Bolsa
4D
Primary Arterial
37,500
24,137
0.644
B
28,830
0.769
C
0.125
N
Chica Road
D. Seal Beach
Boulevard, n/o Pacific
6D
Major Arterial
56,300
20,666
0.367
A
22,096
0.392
A
0.025
N
Coast Highway
E. Adolfo Lopez Drive,
w/o Seal Beach
2U
Local Collector
12,500
1,389
0.111
A
1,744
0.140
A
0.029
N
Boulevard
F. Seal Beach
Boulevard, between
6D
Major Arterial
56,300
26,975
0.479
A
31,241
0.555
A
0.076
N
Apollo Drive/Road C
G. Seal Beach
Boulevard, between
St. Andrews /Golden
6D
Major Arterial
56,300
33,790
0.600
A
38,923
0.691
B
0.091
N
Rain
H. Seal Beach
5D
Major Arterial
46,875
0.905
E
0.972
E
0.067
Y
Boulevard, between 1-
405 NB and SB
42,411
45,542
Ramps
7D [2]
P4mary -MgjZ
6563
9:646
B
993
B
8:947
N
Arterial
;
Q,7
C
a=
12
4�4;iZ
I. Pacific Coast
Highway, north of Main
4D
Primary Arterial
37,500
44,684
1.192
F
45,210
1.206
F
0.014
Y
Street/Bolsa Avenue
J. Pacific Coast
Highway, north of Seal
4D
Primary Arterial
37,500
45,422
1.211
F
45,422
1.211
F
0.000
N
Beach Boulevard
K. Pacific Coast
Highway, south of Seal
4D
Primary Arterial
37,500
41,920
1.118
F
43,350
1.156
F
0.038
Y
Beach Boulevard
Notes:
1 Projected Impact considered 'significant" if Columns (2) minus (1) is 0.01 or greater and 'LOS' (2) is "E" or "F ".
Represents anticipated LOS and Pro' Impact after implementation of and/or r improv
.ct planned Comm nd .d roadwav m nt
6D = 6 -lane divided arterial 4D = 4 -lane divided arterial 2U = 24ane undivided arterial
U
Page 5.3 -42, Table 5.3 -11 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
J
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -142 Comments and Responses 0
r�
r
Fi
U
U
r
1
U
U
,
e
I
L ill
U
U
u
U
1
BOEI NGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Table 5.3 -11
Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary
'
",
:1 ;(2) Yea�2000 Pars', . y ;
Y
'-
r;�.r'• " >'r,:
t �)
^# ' (4� .:.
-: R'^ *
No. of
j"
YPA11Arter181
Eiiisting ..
•, Year 2002 Ezledng.Traffli
a sl�
n
Bddrgroud Traffic; • �
ca
. y: ,..
�d
�:,,R gadvuiySegm�rt?
t�
E:Isting
Lariss
;
, x iapaciryN
�..,, :.
V1C ,
Orly. '1lIC
y ' m
Y
ashy. ,
Vic :
VIC -.
Sign.
-t. 'g
•
`
Vowme
tiatlo
LDS
` ^,
Volume '
°'Raflo
.;^ LOS
Volume
t2atlo
•t L05
Increase
YIN',
A. Westminster
Primary
Avenue,e /o
4D
Arterial
37,500
23,066
0.615
B
25,389
0.677
B
28,594
0.763
C
0 086
N
Studebaker Road
B. Westminster
Avenue,between
4D
Primary
37,500
23,204
0.619
B
25,538
0.681
B
31,216
0.832
D
0.151
N
Apollo Drive/Road B
Arterial
C. Westminster
Avenue,wlp Bolsa
4D
Primary
37,500
24,137
0.644
B
26,698
0.416
C
31,391
0.837
D
0.125
N
Chica Road
Arterial
D. Seal Beach
Boulevard, n/o Pacific
6D
Major Arterial
56,300
20,666
0.367
A
23,401
0.120
A
24,831
0.441
A
0.025
N
Coast Highw
E. Adolfo Lopez Drive,
w/o Seal Beach
21.1
Local Collector
12,500
1,389
0.111
A
1,500
0.543
A
1,855
0.148
A
0.028
N
Boulevard
F. Seal Beach
Boulevard, between
6D
Major Arterial
56,300
26,975
0.479
A
30,554
0.555
A
34,820
0.618
B
0.075
N
Apollo Drive/Road C
G. Seal Beach
Boulevard, between St
6D
Major Arterial
56,300
33,790
0.600
A
38.080
0.676
B
43,213
0.768
C
0.092
N
Andrews/Golden Rain
H. Seal Beach
5D
Major Arterial
46,875
0.905
E
1.032
F
1.099
F
0.067
Y
Rgmary Moot
N.,M
G."
a
G.4w
G
0;W
G
0:947
N
Boulevard, between I-
42,411
48,377
51,508
405 NB and SB Ramps
7D [2]
Arterial
564300
O I53
C
0959
Q
0.915
E
0.05E
I. Pacific Coast
Highway, north of Main
4D
Primary
37,500
44,684
1.192
F
49,317
1.315
F
49,843
1.329
F
0.014
Y
Street/Bolsa Avenue
Arterial
J. Pacific Coast
Highway, north of Seal
4D
Primary
37,500
45,422
1.211
F
50,079
1.335
F
50,079
1.335
F
0.000
N
Beach Boulevard
Arterial
K. Pacific Coast
Highway, south of Seal
4D
Primary
37,500
41,920
1.118
F
45,938
1.225
F
47,368
1.263
F
0.038
Y
Beach Boulevard
Arterial
Notes:
1 Projected Impact considered 'significant' if Columns (2) minus (1) is 0.01 or greater and 'LOS' (2) is 'E' or 'F*.
2 Represents anticipated I OS and Pmiect Impact after implementation of planned and /or racnmmended roadway improvement.
6D = 6 -lane divided arterial
4D = 44ane divided arterial
21.1 = 2 -lane undivided arterial
Please note that the projected service level for the Seal Beach Boulevard
overcrossing (Link H) represents the anticipated service level with the
proposed ultimate widening of the bridge to provide six through lanes
(total), a divided median, sidewalks and bicycle lanes.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -143
Comments and Responses
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
0
Page 5.3 -55, Table 5.3 -16 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
Table 5.3 -16
Year 2006 Roadway L inn Levels of Service Su^:.mart With Apollo Drive c=onnection (1
!1
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -144 Comments and Responses l—?
No. of
r `
ExIong
(1)
- Year 2002 Existing raffic
9
(2) Year 2006 Plus
Back ground Traffic
(3) Project impact
(4)
Project Impact
Roadway Segment
Existing
MPAH Arterial
Classificatiai
CaPaCly
`
Lanes
of LOS E
Daily. • •
Volume
.: -Vic ,
LOS
Daily
Vic
LOS
Daily
Vic
LOS
We
Sign.
Ratio
Yoldme
Ratio
Volume
Ratio
Increase
YIN'
A. Westminster
Primary
Avenue, e/o
4D
Arterial
37,500
23,066
0.615
B
25,389
0.677
B
28,594
0.763
C
0.086
N
Studebaker Road
B. Westminster
Avenue, between
Apollo Drive/Road
4D
Primary
Arterial
37,500
23,204
0.619
B
25,538
0.681
B
31,216
0.832
D
0.151
N
B
C. Westminster
Primary
Avenue, w/p
4D
Arterial
37,500
24,137
0.644
B
26,698
0.416
C
31,391
0.837
D
0.125
N
Boise Chica Road
D. Seal Beach
Boulevard, n/o
Pacific Coast
60
Major
Arterial
56,300
20,666
0.367
A
23,401
0.120
A
24,831
0.441
A
0.025
N
Highwa
E. Adolfo Lopez
Local
Drive, w/o Seal
21.1
Collector
12,500
1,389
0.111
A
1,500
0.543
A
1,855
0.148
A
0.028
N
Beach Boulevard
F. Seal Beach
Boulevard,
between Apollo
6D
Major
Arterial
56,300
26,975
0.479
A
30,554
0.555
A
34,820
0.618
B
0.075
N
Drive /Road C
G. Seal Beach
Boulevard,
between St.
6D
Major
Arterial
56,300
33,790
0.600
A
38.080
0.676
B
43,213
0.768
C
0.092
N
Andrews/Golden
Rain
H. Seal Beach
Boulevard,
5D
Major
Arterial
46,875
0.905
E
1.032
F
1.091
F
0.059
Y
between 1 -405 NB
and SB Ramps
42,411
48,377
51,161
7D [21
PAM"
> t
65 6
9
$
9 �3Z
S
0 Z7�
S
9 94�
Arterial
Q
0 -753
0.857
13
UM
0.00
N
I. Pacific Coast
Highway, north of
Seal Beach
4D
Primary
Arterial
37,500
44,684
1.192
F
49,317
1.315
F
49,841
1.329
F
0.014
Y
Boulevard
J. Pacific Coast
Highway, north of
Seal Beach
4D
Primary
Arterial
37.500
45,422
1.211
F
50,079
1.335
F
50,079
1.335
F
0.000
N
Boulevard
K. Pacific Coast
Highway, south of
Seal Beach
4D
Primary
Arterial
37,500
41,920
1.118
F
45,938
1.225
F
47,214
1.259
F
0.034
Y
Boulevard
Notes:
Projected Impact considered 'significant" if Column () min is () is 0-01 or greater and 'LOS' ( ) Is " or
Represents anticipated LOS and Proi ct Impact after impl m ntation of planned and /or recommended roadway impmy m nt
6D = 6 -lane divided arterial 4D = 4 -lane divided arte 2 U = 2-lane imdovided arterial
!1
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -144 Comments and Responses l—?
E ll,
E
u
0
u
u
o of s�
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
19Y. Page 5.3 -50, Table 5.3 -14 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
Table 5.3 -14
Year 2 ^uvo. Peak. Ra r Capacli~y Araly,l,
Summa WCMI n S M ethods of Analysis
19Z. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 1A which refers to Mitigation
Measure 5.3 -1 C.
19aa. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19B.
19bb. Any required lane closure along Seal Beach Boulevard due to
construction associated with the proposed project would be kept to a
minimum.
19cc. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19C.
19dd. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19D.
19ee. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19E.
19ff. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19F.
19gg. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19G.
FINAL o APRIL 2003
14 -145
Comments and Responses
(
(2)
(3)
(4)
(
'2002 Existing
Year 2006
Background
Year 2006
Plus Project .
Project "
Im actl
Year 2006 With
Key Intersections
Time
Period
Traffic Conditions
Traffic Conditions
Traffic Conditions
Si n'rficance
Improvements
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
YeslNo
Delay
LOS
(seclveh) ,
(seclveh)
(seclveh)
(seclveh)
1.
Pacific Coast Highway at
AM
48.8
D
57.6
E
67.3
E
Yes
47.5
D
2od StlWestminster Ave
PM
59.4
E
78.8
E
81.2
F
Yes
55.3
E
3.
Studebaker Road at
AM
6.9
A
7.0
A
7.1
A
No
-
-
SR -22 EB Ramps
PM
8.1
A
8.9
A
9.1
A
No
-
-
4.
Studebaker Road at
AM
11.7
B
11.8
B
12.6
B
No
-
-
SR -22 WB Ramps
PM
17.5
B
19.2
B
19.6
B
No
-
-
5.
Pacific Coast Highway at
AM
18.9
B
18.1
B
18.1
B
No
-
-
Main StreetlBolsa Avenue
PM
24.4
C
25.1
C
26.9
C
No
-
-
6.
Pacific Coast Highway at
AM
33.8
C
41.3
D
42.4
D
No
-
-
Seal Beach Boulevard
PM
39.5
D
47.5
D
52.1
D
No
-
-
10.
Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
59.2
E
83.2
F
102.4
F
Yes
33.1
C
1-405 Southbound Ramps
PM
61.6
E
93.6
F
122.4
F
Yes
37.5
D
11.
Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
23.2
G
27.4
Q
35.5
1)
Yes
26.3
C
1 -405 Northbound Ramps
PM
73.5
E
117.0
F
115.8
F
Yes
53.4
D
20.
1-405 Southbound On
AM
0.6
A
0.6
A
0.6
A
No
-
-
Ramp at Westminster Ave
PM
1.0
A
1.3
A
2.0
A
No
-
-
21.
Pacific Coast Highway at
AM
22.4
C
23.6
C
23.6
C
No
-
-
Loynes Drive
PM
35.3
D
39.7
D
38.8
D
No
-
-
Notes: Bold ICUILOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards.
19Z. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 1A which refers to Mitigation
Measure 5.3 -1 C.
19aa. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19B.
19bb. Any required lane closure along Seal Beach Boulevard due to
construction associated with the proposed project would be kept to a
minimum.
19cc. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19C.
19dd. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19D.
19ee. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19E.
19ff. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19F.
19gg. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19G.
FINAL o APRIL 2003
14 -145
Comments and Responses
Cl of s�
BOEING S14ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
1911h. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19H.
19ii. Exhibit 5.11 -1 of the Draft EIR and the applicable narrative discussion has
been updated in the Final EIR.
19jj. Page 5.11 -15, Paragraph 2 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
The Water and Sewer Master Plan indicates that an existing 6 -inch cast force main would
be replaced with a 12 -inch line which connects the City's Boeing Pump Station to the city
maintained 24 -inch gravity sewer line in Seal Beach Boulevard. The 24 -inch line provides
flows to the OCSD Seal Beach Pump Station at Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach
Boulevard. A proposed private gravity sewer line (Line "A ") serving Lots 1-4 and 8 -11
would extend east along Apollo Court to connect to the City of Seal Beach existing lift
station at the northeast corner of the property. A proposed private gravity and pressure
sewer line (Line "B ") serving Lots 5 -7, 12 and 13, would extend east along Saturn Way,
from a new lift station, to the existing sewer line in Seal Beach Boulevard. The private lift
station would be built for a peak flow of 122 gpm and average flow of 47 gpm as shown on
the proposed master plan developed by Tait & Associates. Proposed development within
Planning Area 4 would be serviced by the Boeing Pump Station (refer to Exhibit 5.11 -1,
Water and Sewer Master Plan).
During the submittal of improvement plans, the City Engineer will evaluate the need and
decide whether sewer, water and other infrastructure would be maintained by the Ci_ for
public health and safety It is envisioned that the City would onl yccept facilities that are
located within public right-of-w except for water distribution mains which are necessary
or o peration of a looped system for the City F
19kk. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 1 B.
1911. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 191.
19mm. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19J.
19nn. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19K.
1900. Although the provisions for affordable housing are correctly noted, for the
purposes of the EIR analysis and in accordance with Section 15126.6 of
the CEQA Guidelines, whether or not the housing component is identified
or considered "affordable housing ", has no bearing on the environmental
analysis and conclusion rendered. As noted on Page 7 -8 of the Draft
EIR, the Residential Component is based upon the City of Seal Beach
Housing Element which references the option of residential development
of the undeveloped portion of the project site. Also, the Land Use
analysis subsection for this alternative acknowledges that residential uses
immediately adjacent to manufacturing and light industrial uses would
present land use compatibility concerns.
s Even though this new lift station is shown on the Master Sewer and Water Plan, as being in the Saturn
Way public ROW, it may end up being on private property and further discussions with the City will determine if the U
Saturn Way lift station will be public or private.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -146 Comments and Responses
IN
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
19pp. Although the Biological Resources analysis for the residential component
alternatives acknowledges that a Wetland Restoration Program is not
included with this alternative, it is noted two of the three drainage ditches
would be maintained in their current condition. Therefore, the Residential
%.,o� i poi gent Alternative ha bee concluded to- be neither environmentally
superior nor inferior to the proposed project.
E I 19gq. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 29A.
U
U
L
U
L'
U
L
G
l;
U
I
L'
U
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
14 -147
Comments and Responses
COMMENT N®. 2
Joel and Michelle Thomas
46 Windjammer Court
Lo..g Beach,, CA. 908 03
Phone: 562 430 4749
Fax: 562 493 8850
February 11, 2003
Mac Cummins
Assistant Planner
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, Ca. 90740
Dear Mr. Cummins
I am writing in regard to the City of Seal Beach's Boeing Specific Plan and EIR. This
plan was done without any notification of or consultation with the residents of Island
Village. As a resident of Island Village I find your disregard to neighbors who will be
directly impacted egregious. Boeing themselves had the courtesy to notify us of their
plans for development and to factor in an appropriate buffer zone in consideration of our
immediately adjacent location. You have even used a photo shot of our homes on the
cover of your report yet feel no need to factor in the impacts on our neighborhood, some
of which I will address below.
The buffer zone which is proposed is far less than what Boeing had originally proposed.
They had in effect provided two landscaping barriers by having one belt of landscaping at
the southwest end of the property, then the parking lot and then additional landscaping
between the lot and buildings. This plan also provided much needed noise and light
pollution barriers. Additionally to address our noise concerns they had given us specific
assurance that there would be no loading docks or deliveries on the south side. Your
report affords us none of these assurances.
There are no stated assurances as to what type of facilities might be going in to this
property. If light industrial or manufacturing facilities go in what pollutants will be
released by these facilities? If parcels of land are sold it will be even more difficult to
communicate effectively with multiple entities to address these concerns. Any pollutants
released will adversely affect our health and quality of life, and this proximity to industry
will adversely affect the value of our homes.
Traffic is another major concern. The Seal Beach report suggests the striping of
Westminster to three lanes to deal with increased traffic brought on by this development.
This would eliminate the only safe shoulder we have to access the bike trail from our
homes. This would not eliminate the already serious problem of drivers coming down
Westminster disregarding the red light, which allows us our only exit out of Island
"I
14 -148
I
IJ
-
Village. I am personally aware of two incidents where neighbors have been struck
turning out of Island Village on a green light, totaling their cars. They were both told that
a few seconds difference and it easily could have taken their lives. These are two that
U
I'm aware of happening in the past three years but I'm sure there were others of which I
don't know. The rate of these incidences is only going to increase with hundreds of trips
r,
per day added to this intersection with additional cars from employees and customers to
LJ
this development.
{ 1
My neighbors and I respectfully request that you keep us informed on the progress of this
U
development by communicating with our Island Village Homeowners Association
through Pacific Coast Management
Attn: Angie McKinnon
4515 E. Anaheim St.
Long Beach, CA 90804
Phone: 562 597 -50007
Fax: 562 597 -2447
L
or by contacting us directly at the above address and phone number.
Sincerely,
i
Michelle Thomas
U
1
L
U
u
i
14 -149
C• ofs�earA
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 20
Michelle Thomas, Long Beach Resident
February 11, 2003
20A. Refer to Response to Commentor Nos. 111 and 12A.
20B. Comment is noted. Currently, individual end users have not been
identified. As part of the planning and design review process, the City will
evaluate potential sources of impact and implement feasible control
measures.
Light and glare impacts on adjacent residences are considered less than
significant based on the following factors:
o The Project area experiences lighting typical of urban areas with
development existing north, northwest, south, and east of the
Project site. The introduction of new light sources on the Project
site may not represent a noticeable increase in light/glare for
adjacent residences due to the existing urbanized environment
(i.e., Boeing facilities interior and exterior lighting, commercial
uses interior and exterior lighting, power plant lighting and street
lighting).
o Physical features existing in the Project area serve as buffers
separating the Project site from adjacent residential areas.
Buffers to the north include Westminster Avenue, the drainage
channel, and the block wall bordering Leisure World residences.
Buffers to the west include the flood control channel and the block
wall bordering to the Island Village residences.
o According to Table 5 -2 of the Specific Plan, Development
Standards, a minimum 35 -foot setback would be required along
Westminster Avenue and a minimum 10 -foot setback would be
required on the interior (west) side of Planning Area 3. The
required setbacks would serve as a buffer between the existing
residences and the proposed business park uses.
® Limiting the effects of lighting on the adjacent residences would be
an important aspect of the design of future development. Section
4.6 of the Specific Plan, Site Lighting Guidelines, has established
site lighting guidelines for parking areas, vehicular and pedestrian
circulation, building exterior, service areas, landscaping, security
and special effects. Guidelines established in the Specific Plan
that would minimize potential light spill -over impacts include the
following:
- All exterior on -site lighting should be shielded and confined
within site boundaries. No direct rays are permitted to
shine onto public streets or adjacent lots.
1►1
FINAL ® APRIL 2003
14 -150
Comments and Responses
U
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJ EIR
Lights mounted to the roof parapet are not permitted.
Wall- mounted light fixtures used to illuminate parking lots
are not permitted.
L'
L ', FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -151 Comments and Responses
Lighting shall create a sequence of Mary... illumination
u
levels leading up to the building entrance. This would
include the orchestration of light from parking light, to
pedestrian lighting, special feature lighting, and lighting
from within.
1
- All vehicular circulation, parking lot lighting, and pedestrian
walkway lighting should have zero cut -off fixtures (i.e., lens
U
is not visible from an angle).
Service area and security lighting should be visible only
within the limits of the service area. WalEmounted,
security -type, service area lighting fixtures may be used
only in screened service areas and only if direct lighting
and glare is kept within these areas. In all other areas,
wall- mounted service lighting should consist of cut -off type
(I
fixtures.
U
In consideration of the existing urban environment, the existing buffers,
and the setback requirements and lighting guidelines established in the
Specific Plan, Project implementation would not result in significant
light/glare impacts to the adjacent residences to the west (Island Village)
in which a buffer of 232 feet would be provided from the nearest
residential unit to Building 3 and a seven foot block wall surrounding the
U
U
community would limit any light and glare from the Project site. The
distance of up to 150 feet separating the project site from Leisure World
residences due to Westminster Boulevard and the drainage ditch
combined with the concrete block wall surrounding the community would
also limit any light and glare impacts to the residential units within Leisure
'
World.
20C. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 11 G and the permitted uses
Section of the Specific Plan (Appendix 15.10).
20D. Westminster Avenue is not being restriped to three lanes. The existing
U remain
bike lanes on Westminster Avenue will not be eliminated. They will
in place. Westminster Avenue will remain a four -lane divided
arterial. As shown in Table 5.3 -11 of the Draft EIR, Westminster Avenue,
from Studebaker Road to Bolsa Chica Road, is forecast to continue to
LJ
LJ
operate at a satisfactory service level (LOS D or better) on a daily basis.
20E. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 111.
L'
L ', FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -151 Comments and Responses
COMMENT NO. 2 0
FEB 1 1 Al"I"I
DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
March 12, 2000
City of Seal Beach
Department of Development Services
Attn: Mr. Mac Cummings
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report 02 -1
Boeing Specific Plan Project
SCH No. 2002031015
2201 Seal Beach Boulevard
Seal Beach, California
Dear City of Seal Beach:
As president of the Island Village Homeowners Association, I am writing this
letter on behalf of the association, and the residents of the community of Island
Village, concerning the development of the "Boeing" property which adjoins the
Island Village community.
We have received and reviewed a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
02 -1 of the Boeing Specific Plan Project and there are several issues of concern
with this proposed project.
Many of these concerns are in regard to traffic, noise, visibility of the site,
potential environmental pollution and the impact on the real estate values within
the community. Each of these is discussed below, along with suggestions for the
development.
Traffic Impact
According to the draft document, the anticipated development at build -out, is
expected to result in a significant increase in traffic during the peak (rush) hours
on Westminster Blvd. /Second Street, a major east/west artery into and out of
Long Beach /Seal Beach which is heavily traveled during typical rush hours.
21A
14 -152
U
L
L
L
L - 1.
L �)
u
U
Westminster Blvd. /Second Street passes by the Island Village community, which
is to the west of the Boeing property.
One issue is related to the traffic study, and its failure to adequately address the
impact that the increased traffic will have on - our residents. In the Draft, no
corrective action is proposed for the enormous increase in the traffic flow in front
of Island Village.
At the intersection of Second street and Island Village Drive, as shown by
numerous studies, the traffic through this area typically travels at speeds in
excess of the speed limit, as much as 55 -60 mph. When the traffic flow is heavy
(i.e. during peak hours) the distance between vehicles typically reduces to less
than safe levels. This condition represents a potentially dangerous situation for
traffic traveling westbound on Second Street and planning to turn left into our
community.
This intersection is the only operating entrance /exit to the community of Island
Village and lies directly between two of the intersections named above. Delays to
Island Village to community traffic caused by both the increased flow on Second
Street/Westminster Blvd. and as a result of autos and trucks making left turns
into and out of the new development should have been anticipated. There are no
comments or mitigations suggested in the report.
We believe that this matter must not only be considered, but mitigated. One
r j mitigation, for westbound Island Village residents would require the
L� reconstruction of the bridges east of Island Village, filling in the center sections to
allow for additional length for entry into the left turn lane. Both of these structures
are currently in disrepair. In fact, recently a car actually went into the retention
basin entrance and the damage was never repaired.
U
L
U
I u
L
It was stated, the increased load would impact the intersections of PCH /Second
Street, Studebaker Rd. /Second Street, Seal Beach Blvd./Westminster Blvd, and
other intersections on Seal Beach Blvd. No such impact was noted for the
intersection of Island Village Dr. /Second Street; which will be considerable.
We also feel that in order to minimize the impact of additional signals and the
resultant increase in air pollution of accelerating, or standing traffic, all 2 1-B
intersection trimmings need to be coordinated from PCH /Second to
Westminster /Seal Beach Blvd.
To maintain traffic flow on Second Street/Westminster Blvd., the current signal at
Island Village Dr. (during rush hours) has already been set (by the city of Long
Beach) to place the burden on the residents of this community. Exiting vehicles
must often wait for what seems an eternity to obtain a green traffic signal. The
increased load from this project and the Town Center project will undoubtedly
impact the community's entrance /exit. This issue also needs to be addressed.
UN
1 2
14 -153
The draft report notes that mitigation of the traffic at the noted intersections would
be necessary and. the proposed plans include the widening of sections of the
intersections at PCH/Westminster Blvd and Westminster Blvd. /Studebaker Rd.
There is no such discussion of mitigation at Island Village Dr./Westminster Blvd.
Furthermore, it is - our understanding that the mitigation proposal as it - pertains - to
the City of Long Beach has not been discussed with them and is potentially in
conflict with current plans for wetland restoration at or near those intersections.
There are no comments in the draft report to that issue.
The speed limit on Westminster from Studebaker Rd. in Long Beach to Road B in
Seal Beach is 50 mph. Despite many efforts in - the past to have the speed limft
reduced none have been successful, and traffic continues to pass by Island
Village at speeds in excess of 50 mph. Over the years there have been several
accidents in that zone and at the intersection of Island Village Dr. and
Westminster Blvd.- -some serious. We believe that an increase of 1000+ events is
not a nominal increase and that it represents a significant impact to our
community. This issue has not been addressed.
There will also be an additional traffic burden placed on Westminster Blvd. by the
development of the new Seal Beach Town Center on Seal Beach Blvd. and 21-F
Lampson which needs to be taken into account. Closing one of the current
entrances to Boeing on Westminster Blvd. would also serve to minimize the
traffic burden.
Noise Pollution
While the project anticipates the planned development to include primarily office
and R &D use, the current zoning also allows limited industrial and manufacturing
uses. There is no assurance provided to the community residents that the
proposed development will not, in the future, include industrial and manufacturing
uses that will create noise from the workplace or from traffic (trucks loading and
unloading, etc.) that would be both noticeable and detrimental to the community,
particularly those homes closest to the project. We recommend that a maximum
allowable decibel requirement be established for future occupants, -i.e. - provide for
noise limits in the development's CC &Rs. This can also be partially mitigated by
having additional parcels within direct view of Island Village be designated for
office use only, not manufacturing.
In addition, the draft report notes that the closest homes are no closer than 130
feet from the project area. While this may be correct, there are several homes
within the community that back up to Boeing, and their second stories are
unprotected from the noise. In addition, there are several homes within the
community that front Westminster Blvd. and their second stories are unprotected
from the traffic noise on Westminster Blvd. This was not fully addressed in the
draft report.
FOAM
14 -154
U
L
U
The draft report needs to require that any development construct a fifteen foot
(i wall, and to maintain a thirty foot twide 14ndscaped bl lffer on its west side. In
V addition, any structure should be forty feet from the landscaped buffer and
situated so as to have any delivery, loading docks, or noise producing
equipment, noise buffered and not facing west. In addition, all structures should
have a landscape buffer on the west side.
In that the bedrooms of several homes on'the eastern border of Island Village
face directly onto the proposed site, any development must have the buffer (wall
and landscape) addressed above. This is not included in the draft report. In
addition, the front of the project, along Westminster, should contain a landscape
buffer, with sidewalks, grass, and trees, as included in the Bixby Town Center
project on Seal Beach Blvd.
In addition, to help minimize noise pollution, the working hours on the site should
El be restricted to 6 am thru 9 pm Monday thru Saturday with no work on Sunday. 21-J
At no time should lunch trucks be allowed in the project.
Visibility of the Site
U
11
r .
U
L"
L
1
Ell
K
PrOWN
To eliminate light pollution, the project needs to have all light sources focused to
the East. No street or structure fighting should be pointed toward residential 21L
homes.
Environmental Pollution
While office occupants are unlikely to be a source of any environmental pollution,
that is not necessarily true of R &D facilities, or of other light industrial or
manufacturing facilities. This issue needs to be addressed with some limitations 21-M
placed on those who ultimately occupy the property.
Real Estate Impact
It is our understanding that a real estate impact study has not been conducted.
We believe that this must be done. There was concern expressed by some
residents that the proposed development will have a negative impact on the real
estate values within the community. We do not have any information on the
subject but believe that such a study is warranted since close proximity to
manufacturing of any type can result in diminished home value.
Additional Issues to Address
We request that each of the above issues and those noted below be addressed
in the final report.
Lj 14 -155
1. That, at least on the parcels closest to the Island Village community, the
project would have a non - intrusive development such as compatible housing. To
the North, Vvest and South of th pr oject is re sidCi�ti a l property. VV= strongly urg
the City of Seal Beach to consider this possibility even if a rezoning would be
necessary.
2. Development of a park in the parcels adjoining Island Village would be
appropriate as a buffer against all of the above stated issues to mitigate an
aesthetic issue that has not been addressed in the draft report. Substantially
increased landscaping and tree development in the berm adjacent to Island
Village should also be considered as a mechanism to mitigate the aesthetic
issue.
3. Construction of a sidewalk along the development and the remainder of the
Boeing property to meet with the existing sidewalk on the eastern most edge of
the Boeing property should be implemented.
4. We strongly urge that Boeing sell completed structures conforming to the
above requests as opposed to pads upon which the purchaser can erect
whatever type of facility suits them. As the plan is submitted there is no
assurances of the accuracy of any projections because there is no stated mix of
building footage. This project could conceivably be all office space with a vehicle
impact much greater than stated.
5. Design any night lights so that they do not impact the surrounding community.
6. We believe that there is a need to limit the types of manufacturing to those that
pose no potential dangers (present or future) to the community.
21P
Q
7. Do not allow regular traffic to use the main road through the development as a
shortcut from Westminster Blvd. to Seal Beach Blvd. (and the reverse). This can 2 1U
be addressed by either road offsets and or the appropriate use of stop signs and
signals.
8. No parking or deliveries at the rear of those structures closest to Island Village.
We look forward to receiving a copy of a revised and mitigated plan.
Sincerely,
Dave Bates
President,
Island Village Home Owner Association
14 -156 5
L
U
Fill
U
U
U
L
U
U
U
U
U
L
U
U
L
Mailing address:
Island Village Home Owner Association
c/o Pacific Coast Management
Attn: Angie McKinnonbb
4515 E. Anaheim Street
Long Beach, CA 90804
Management Phone: 562 597 -5007 Fax 562 597 -2447
cc: Boeing Real Estate Corp.
Coastal Commission (South Coast District)
Frank Colonna (3` District Councilman)
Honorable Beverly O'Neill
IVHOA Board of Directors
Seal Beach City Council
14 -157
h
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 21
Dave Bates, Island Village Home Owner Association
Received February 11, 2003
21 A. The Draft EIR does indicate that the Boeing Specific Plan Project would
have significant traffic impacts at several key intersections, including the
Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd Street/Westminster Avenue and Studebaker
Road at Westminster Avenue. As shown in Table 5.3 -12 on Page 5.3 -47
of the Draft EIR, the Boeing Specific Plan Project has identified
improvements to fully mitigate the impacts of the proposed project at
intersections located in the City of Long Beach. The Boeing Specific Plan
project has also identified its fair share towards these improvements,
which totals $175,822.50 for the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway
and 2 nd Street/Westminster Avenue and $175,093.25 for the intersection
of Studebaker Road and Westminster Avenue.
The Traffic and Circulation section of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential
traffic impact that the Boeing Specific Plan project may have on access
and egress to the Island Village Community. The significance of the
potential impacts of the project at this intersection was then evaluated
based on the LOS standards and traffic impact criteria established in the
Boeing Specific Plan Project Draft EIR
The entrance into Island Village is a signalized intersection, affording
adequate safety controls for persons entering and exiting, if they follow
standard safe driving practices. Traffic speed enforcement is the
responsibility of the City of Long Beach Police Department between
Studebaker and the City boundary, which encompasses Island Village. It
is further noted that if there is no change in the signal phasing at Island
Village /2 Street, there is no impact to the current exit/entrance
movements. Any change in signal phasing is the responsibility of the City
of Long Beach. Any change in the throat length of the turn pocket at
Island Village /2 Street is not caused by turning movements of vehicles
from the Boeing Specific Plan project.
Results of the near -term (Year 2006) analysis presented in Table 5.3 -8 on
Page 5.3 -36 of the Draft EIR shows that the intersection of Island Village
Drive and Westminster Avenue currently operates at LOS A during the
AM and PM peak hours. Further review of Table 5.3 -8 indicates that with
the addition of project traffic, the Island Village Drive/Westminster Avenue
intersection is projected to operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour
and LOS B during the PM peak hour traffic. Thus, it is concluded that the
proposed Boeing Specific Plan project would not have a significant traffic
impact at this location.
21 B. No additional traffic signals are to be installed along Westminster Avenue
between Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard as part of the
Boeing Specific Plan project. The existing traffic signals on Westminster
Avenue at Road A (Apollo Drive) and Road B would be maintained and
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -158 Comments and Responses
7 Traffic Impact Study for PCH @ Studebaker (Marina Shores Promenade) Marketplace, dated September
27, 1997, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers for the Selleck Development Group, Inc. and the City of
Long Beach.
FINAL o APRIL 2003 14 -159 Comments and Responses
CI
Df
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
used as the primary access points to all existing and proposed
j
�
development of the Boeing Specific Plan Project.
The traffic signals along Westminster Avenue at Road A and Road B are
•l 6644 •Q ���o�+�� _....�.+�n� +o� Ac cording to the city of Long Beach
curre� u y Urne b. c g
staff, the signals on Westminster Avenue from Island Village Drive to
Pacific Coast Highway are "time based" coordinated as well.
L
21 C. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 21 B. Island Village should contact
i f Lon Beach to address signal timing the City o g g g concerns at the
r 7
intersection of Island Village Drive and Westminster Avenue.
21 D. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 21A regarding project impacts at
the intersection of Island Village Drive and Westminster Avenue.
The mitigation measures identified both at the intersections of Pacific
Coast Highway /2 Street - Westminster Avenue and Studebaker/
Westminster Avenue are consistent with improvements previously
[ '
j
identified for development projects within the City of Long Beach.'
According to the City of Long Beach, preliminary engineering plans have
been prepared for Pacific Coast Highway /2 Street - Westminster Avenue
and the City is currently negotiating with adjacent property owners to
determine the feasibility of acquiring the right -of -way necessary to
implement these improvements.
t
21 E. According o the City of Lon Beach the posted seed limit on
9 Y 9 � P P
Westminster Avenue adjacent to the Island Village Community has been
determined to be accurate based on their current Engineering and Traffic
surveys.
Further, the posted speed limit on Westminster Avenue, from Road B to
the west City limits is 50 miles per hour based on recent Engineering and
Traffic surveys. Refer also to Response to Commentor No. 6A.
L ,
21 F. The Draft EIR, Section 5.3, Traffic and Circulation, considers the
cumulative impact of the trips generated by the Bixby Old Ranch Town
ff
Center /Rossmoor Center projects.
i�
No additional traffic signals are proposed along Westminster Avenue to
provide access to the Boeing Specific Plan Project. The existing traffic
G
signals on Westminster Avenue at Road A (Apollo Drive) and Road B
would be maintained and used as the primary access points from
Westminster Avenue to all existing and proposed development of the
Boeing Specific Plan Project. Currently, there are four existing
u
unsignalized "right -turn only" driveways on Westminster that have been
temporarily closed.
7 Traffic Impact Study for PCH @ Studebaker (Marina Shores Promenade) Marketplace, dated September
27, 1997, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers for the Selleck Development Group, Inc. and the City of
Long Beach.
FINAL o APRIL 2003 14 -159 Comments and Responses
C,16T,w s�
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
The existing signalized driveways and the proposed "right -turn only"
driveway on Westminster Avenue is necessary to ensure that adequate
access and egress to the project site and internal project circulation is
provided.
21 G. Comment is noted. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 11 G.
21 H. Comment is noted. Refer to Mitigation Measure 5.5 -3a and Response to
Commentor No. 19E. Currently, individual end users have not been
identified. As part of the building permit issuance process, the City will
evaluate potential sources of noise impact and implement feasible control
measures.
211. Comment is noted. It is further noted that the technical analysis has
concluded that with the recommended mitigation measures, impacts are
less than significant. Additional mitigation measures beyond those
outlined in the EIR are not required.
21 J. Project construction shall be in accordance with the City of Seal Beach
Municipal Code. Lunch trucks would be allowable, subject to issuance of
health permits. Refer also to Response to Commentor No. 16B.
21 K. Refer to Response to Commentor Nos. 11 E and 20B.
21 L. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 20B.
21 M. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 11 G.
21 N. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 11 A.
210. Refer to Response to Commentor Nos. 11 C and 19oo.
21 P. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 11 E.
21 Q. A sidewalk would be installed for the entire length of Westminster
Avenue, where none currently exists. Refer also to Mitigation Measure
5.3 -1 d.
21 R. Comment is noted. Development on -site shall be reviewed for
consistency and conformance with the Boeing Specific Plan. Proposed
amendments to the Specific Plan may be subject to further environmental
review by the City of Seal Beach.
21S. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 20B.
21 T. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 11 G.
21 U. Apollo Drive would ultimately be allowable to be utilized as a cut - through
to Seal Beach Boulevard if the Project attains the ultimate buildout
scenario. This would reduce traffic impacts at the Seal Beach Boulevard/
Westminster Avenue intersection.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -160 Comments and Responses
E
1
L
u
tI
La
L
�f
r
U
li
u
c
L
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
21 V. Comment is noted. Refer to Mitigation Measure No. 5.5 -3a which
addresses long -term stationary noise considerations which includes
loading dock facilities, rooftop equipment, trash compactors and other
considerutio ^s.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -161
Comments and Responses
FEB-12 -03 12:14 FROM:OCWD 714 -37B -3203
Direcrors
PHILIP L. ANTHONY
WES SANNISTER
KATHRYN L. BARR
DENIS R. SILODEAU
RICHARD CHAVEZ
PAUL COOK
JAN DEBAY
BRETT FRANKLIN
LAWRENCE P KRAEMER JR.
SHAWN NELSON
February 12, 2003
G\ pGE 7g�
D
� 2
9 0
7 • � i J
UN OF 1,4%
COMMENT NO. 22
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Orange County's Groundwater Authority
Ndr. Mac Cummins
Department of Development Services
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Subject: Co1nments on Draft EIR 02 -1 for Boeing Specific Plan Project
Dear Mr. Cummins:
rresrcenr
PHILIP L. ANTHONY
First Vice Pres dont
BRETrFRANKUN
Second Vice Presleent
VIRGINIA GREIMEN
General Manages
JANICE DURANT
District Socrerury
This letter provides comments from Orange County Water District (OCWD) regarding the subject
document. We understand that wo are submitting these comments two days after the end of the public
comment period and apologize for the late submittal. We would, however, request that these comments be
taken into consideration during tht• finalization of the EIR and planning for development of the Boeing
property.
Our primary comment is that OC%VD wishes to ensure that the proposed project will preserve the long-
term use of and access to the seawater intrusion barrier injection wells located on easements located within
the Boeing property. Copies of easements for well sites 35G, 35H1, and 35H2 are provided for reference.
These wells are critical components of the Alamitos Seawater Intrusion Barrier, which is a system of ��� 1
injection wells, water supply pipelines, and monitoring, wells that controls the intrusion of seawater �.J
intrusion into the Orange County groundwater basin and the Central Basin of Los Angeles County. These
barrier facilities protect the groundwater basin which supplies approximately 70 percent of the total water
demand to the city of Seal Beach and other municipalities in central and northern Orange County. The
barrier facilities are owned and operated by OCWD and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
I would be happy to provide further information as needed and can be contacted at (714) 378 -3260 (email:
rherndon @ocwd.conl
Sincerely,
Roy L. Herndon
Chief Hydrogeologist
Attachment
cc w/o attachment: Steve Conklin. OCWD
Adam Hutchinson, OCWD
Ed Gerlits, Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Works
0
ID:714 37B 3369 PAGE 2/25
PO. Box 8300. FoJntain Malley. CA 92726 -6300 • 10500 Ellis Avenue. Founialrr Valley. CA 92708 U
TBiepnone (7ia) 378.3200 Fax (7 3. 14 -162 Woo Page www.ocwd.com
: : - =323 :2: 55 7_437 =33a- 9E %: C'2
1
n
L
(�1
L
l r;
V
L
r'+
t
U
�I
L
i
�I
L
U
I
U
n
E i
FEB -12 -03 12:14 FROM :OCWD 714- 376 -3203
I 2N 8 1993�i
'A I
Recordina_Re by and when
Recorded Ha;' to:
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
lOsoO Ellis Avenue
Fountain valley, CA 92728 -6300
101:714 376 3369 PAGE 3/25
93- OZ6554
i Titles �
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS Add. I S
OF ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA PO ®t
PNI5 JAN 13 199 3 ;PS Lion NI 5
Ofhe►
Exempt from Fee -- Public Agency - Q• `7 To �-
R. F «s
(Government Code Section 6103) D. T.T. S
CORRECTED LL
EILSMENT GRANT DEED FOR WATER t _
INJECTION WELL AND ACCESS PURPOSES
)Ve 3 SCr
--- ______ ----
—
FOR VALUABLE CONS :D ATION, the receipt and adecruacv of which
is hereby acknowledge,
ROC.SWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a
ccrporation, ( "Grantor" herein),
hereby GRANTS P M CONVEYS to the ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a
political subdivision of the State of California ( "Grantee"
herein), and its s successors and assigns, perpetual easements and
rights -of -way to drill, install, construct, reccnstruct, repair,
remove and replace, inspect, maintain, operate, improve and
relocate a groundwater: injection wells, with incidental
appurtenances, connections and structures (the "Facilities" herein)
in, on and under the real property situated in the City of Seal
Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and more particularly
described in Exhibit " A " to this deed , which description by this
reference is incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though
set Forth at length herein. (hereinafter, the . "Easement Area ") ,
together with the right to use and dispose of any and all water
pumped or produced by Grantee fro= the Facilities in connection
with its construction, operation, maintenance, inspection or
repair. A plat depicting the Boundaries cf the Easement Area is
attached hereto a Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this
reference.
The rights being granted herein include the right to enter upon and
to pass and repass over and along the Easement Area, and to deposit
tools, implements and ci:her materials thereon by Grantee or its
successors and assigns, its officers, agents and employees, and by
persons or entities under contract with Grantee, its successors and
assigns, wherever and whenever necessary for the purpose of installing, constr:cti. ^.c;, reconstruction, renewing, inspecting,
maintaining, repairing, using and operating the Facilities,
together with the right to use the Easement area for access to
rights -of -way of Grantee or its successors and assigns situated on
adjacent lands.
C'
� 14 -163
P.03
FES -12 -03 12:15 FROM:OCWD 714 - 378 -3203 10:714 376 3369 PAGE 4/25
It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the
rights. granted under this Easement are subject to the following
terms and conditions:
1. Grantee shall use the Easement Area solely for the purpose
of installing, constructing, operating, inspecting, maintaining,
repairing, improving, reconstructing, removing and relocating a
groundwater injection well, and for related access rights in
connection therewith.
2. Grantee shall be responsible for all construction and
maintenance costs associated with the Facilities and Grantee's use
of the Easement Area; provided, however, that Grantee shall bear no
responsibility nor assume any cost for the maintenance, repair or
replacement of any of Grantor's trees, shrubbery, fences, walls,
paving or other plantings or structures situated within the
Easement Area unless otherwise agreed to in this deed.
3. Grantee shall, at its expense, repair and restore any
physical property damage done by Grantee, its agents, or
contractors, to the Easement Area and to adjacent areas in the
course of the construction, maintenance, or operation of said
injection wells.
4. In the exercise of its rights under this Easement, Grantee
shall comply with all applicable municipal, county, state and
federal laws, regulations, ordinances and rules in connection with
the operation of the Facilities and the Grantee's use of the
Easement Area, and shall at all times keep the Easement Area free
and clear of any lien or erc=brance which may affect the title
thereto. -
5. Grantee shall, and does hereby agree to indemnify and hold
Grantor, its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless
from and against any actions, claims, damages tc persons or
property, obligations or liabilities that may be asserted or
claimed by any person or entity as a result of any negligent act or
omission by Grantee, its successors and assigns, in connection with
any of the rights granted to Grantee under this Easement Deed,
except in those instances where such loss or damage or injury or
death is proximately caused in whole or in part by any act or
omission for which Grantor or its employees or agents are liable.
Any additional terms and conditions of this Easement Deed are set
forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto, and by this reference is
incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though set forth at
length herein.
This easement and the provisions contained herein shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of Grantor, Grantee, and
their respective hei_s, executors, administrators, personal
representatives, successors and assigns.
12 -20x3 __ 5-
2
14 -164
7i437?3_ oc/
. 04
L.
1 1
L
r•
FEB -12 -03 12:15 FROM:OCWD 714 -378 -3203
LIFORNIA ALL - PURPO ACKNO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ORAN
-OUNTY OF --
f'iStateot California
L County of Orange
On
11/25/92 before me, Barbara Barber, Notary Public,
SATE NAME. T7T1.E OF OFFICER • E.G..'JAnE DOE. NOTARY PUBLIC'
p ersonally appeared — Lana don W. Owen and Will R. M i 11 S jr.
r.7 NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S)
((personally known to me - OR - ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) wnose name(s) is /are
1 =; subscribed to the within instrument and ac-
I SEAL knowledged to me that he /she /they executed
tBARBARARARtBIER tho same in his/her /their authorized
-
Now VPubAic-CWdomis capacity(ies), and that by his/her /their
" Mmmilio- NOUN Y t942 signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
L , or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
�
D ,0 ,,'
OPTIONAL SECTION I>�
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
Thougn tdaus doss not reauve W* Notary to
rill in trio deta Detow. doing $o may Drove
,rn/alUilde to persmu re+ytng on Te oocurnent
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER(S) .
Pres ident, General Manage
T1T„E,(St
E] PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY -IN -FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
[I GUARDIANICONSERVATOR
OTHER:
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME OF PERSONtSI OR ENTIY(IES)
Oranae Countv Water Dis
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY
L 1 OPTIONAL SECTION
THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT Corrected Easement Gran T, Deed
THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT:
'nougn the data requested nere ,s not redutred by taw
tl could Drovent treudutent reattacnment of thm torm.
NUMBER OF PAGES 2 DA TI E OF DOCUMENT T 1 / c / q i
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE R ockwell Internat COrD
U
L
U11
AR RSZAWSKI _
9749'2 l Cayfornta
OuMr s OCT d• 1900
ss
9?
l It h Novenbe� ,n iris year t9_.
On this oay of
before me. Iris unoersignee, a Notary P UM IC In anc for Sala State, personally appeare(3
CHARLES S. WINN
—rtfr-
personally xn3wr to me
No. 519]
f
J
`r
1
J
f
J
for proven to me on the oasis of satlstaclory ewoence) to be the Dersons wno execute the
ES
wttnfn Instrument as OirecTc' , R eo-i r
- •eyt�ee!•rry -of the Corporation tnereln names. antl acKnowleoeee to me trial the corporation i
executer; It oursuant to its Dy -laws or a resolution of its Doaro of directors
I I
WITNESS my nand .M0 officia' W. -
A
v,r, 6 Snc — woiratrsro Notary Public In and I ^ vr —1/c shale
.CKNOWIEP;YEN' - 14-165
�t9l3 wol:OT'S rwC
rp out e
ID:714 378 3369 PAGE S /2S
FES -12 -03 12:16 FROM:OCWD 714 -376 -3203 ID:714 378 3369 PACE 6/25
This Easement Grant Deed corrects and supersedes the Easement
Grant Deed recorded on October 4, 1990, in the Official Records of
Orange County, California, as Instrument Number 90- 531735.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed on
November 25 1992
APPROVED AS TO FORM: GRANTEE
By S
ORANGE
General Counsel,
Orange County Water District
By: _
Pre<
By:
WATER DISTRICT
n
ager
GRANTOR
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Director, Real Estate
By:
Its:
3
14 -166
—�— C c�c ^ '. -. _G•1 '71 437_• -Zc
M n,`
L
FEB -12-03 12:16 FROM:OCWD 714 -378 -3203 ID:714
378 3369
PAGE 7/25
i
1 1
JJ
EXHIBIT 'A®
CORRECTED DE SCR I PTIO N
An Easement lying within the following described property:
A portion of the North half of Section 12, Township
5 South, Range 12 West,
in Lot C1
of the Ranch Los Alamitos, County of Orange, State
of California, as per
Maps 1 and 2
filed in Decree of Partition in-the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County,
California,
Case No. 13527, a certified copy of the Final
Decree of said case
having been
��
recorded February 2, 1891, in Book 14, Page 31 of
Deeds of said Orange
County, more
particularly described as follows:
ri Beginning at the center of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 12 ' «est, said center
quarter being an angle point: in the existing city boundary of the City of Seal Beach
as establisned by Ordinance No. 604; thence continuing N 0° 16' 40 W along said
s; existing boundary 510' to the Southeasterly line of Bay Boulevard as described in
deed recorded June 9, 1927, in Book 61, Page 18, Official Records of Orange County;
l� thence continuing along said existing boundary and Southeasterly line of said Bay
Boulevard N 30 38' 15" E 539.63' to the beginning of a tangent curve concave
Southeasterly, having a radius of 2700'; thence Northeasterly along said curve
through a centrai angle of 29° 39' 30" an arc length of 1375.87'; thence N 60 09'
45" 7 - tangent to the herein - before mentioned curve 780' more or less to a point on
;.ne Southeasterly line of said Bay Boulevard said point being 347' Southerly of,
F measured at right angles to the Northerly line of said Section 12; thence S 89° 43'
20" c, parallel with the Northerly line of said Section 12, 750' to a point on the
�'asteriy line of said Section 12, said point being also on the existing boundary of
�( the City of Seal Beach as described in Ordinance No. 579; thence N 0 16' 40" W along
said existino boundary 347' to an angle point in said existing boundary said point
also being the intersection with the North and East line of said Section 12 thence N
89° 43' 20" W alono Northerly line of said Section 12 and said existing city boundary
236.39' to a Point on a curve concave Southwesterly and having a radius of 340';
,:hence Westerly and Northwesterly alono_ said curve and said existing city boundary
= hrouan a central aneie cf =2° a0' 13" an arc distance o` 2:3.20'; thence N 89 43'
r ; 20" along said existing city boundary 2902.82' to the common boundary line of the
Lj Counties of Los nnaeies and Orange; thence leaving said existing city boundary S 2°
43 35" - alone said common boundary 140.19'; thence leaving said common, boundary
?9 43' 20" E .1G.15'; thence S 27 35' 51" E 46.72'; thence S 47° 48' 4;5" E 75';
Thence S 42 16 15 a 102.70 Thence S 2 48 35 ,. 311.27 hence -
252.77'; thence S O° 16' 50" W 1280' to the Southeast corner of parcel C1 -104 as
described in deed recorded in Book 4006, ?age 581, Records of Orange County; thence S
63 40' 15" _ 1397.23' to the intersection of the Southerly line of the Northwest
zuarter of said Section 12 with the Southeasterly line of said Say Boulevard; thence
S 39 43' 22" _ along_ the Southerly line of said Northwest Quarter 297.06' to the
Point_ of 5ec_innine.
1J•
E
1
L
E _
14 -167
FEB -12 -03 12:17 FROM:OCWD 714 - 376 -3203 ID:714 376 3369 PAGE 6/25
Being more specifically described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Section 12, Township 5 South,
'R—ange 1 2 2 West; thence E a st al ong F 1,n 1 , 1 0r 4-6 1 Sect i on 12
V.�\. Vii �i�iG of said
a distance of 1386.48 feet, said North lire being the centerline of
Westminster Avenue; thence South a distance of 50.00 feet to a
point on the Southerly Right of Way Line of Westminster Avenue,
said point point being the True Point of Beginning; thence East a
distance of 20.00 feet along said Southerly Right of Way Line;
thence South a distance of 20.00; thence West a distance of 20.00
feet; thence North a distance of 20.00 feet, to the True Point of
Beginning.
Subject to covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions,
rights of way and easements, if any, of record.
- _- 32 3 :L =
14 -168
cc:/
D. 30
U
FEE -12 -03 12:17 FROM:OCWD 714 -37B -3203 ID =714 376 3369
"EXHIBIT B "
CORRECTED PLA M AP
i - _
I`
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
1 / cTIIIAI
EJ
C7 1=
D A \ / O
,� 1�Y I MI�vv i
2 T 1 1386.48' 'n
SEC. LINE _
95.00'
I I 12 129L48' o
0
O TRUE P.O.S.
.J W3
67 00' --
PAGE
67.0 0
2„00 (TYP 20.00'
` 3e 20.00'
PROPOSE EASEMENT
9/25
1 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
40.00• 40.00• i PROPERTY
� UI
Z
._I
SECJ 2.T-5-S,R-1 2-W, ORANGE CO.,CALIF.
400
F-77D AREA OF TAKE= 3B49-SQ.FT. (WELL SITE EASEMENT)
J RAMCO CONSULTANTS
` LAAO RIGHTS
17280 Newhope Sl. #7
Fountain Volley, CA 92708
(714) 979 -6092
-AA" ar J.A.B. WE
.,.Pm � I ( sc �LE
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
PROPOSED WELL SITE
Mj&ECT pnpV T'r Tom"
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
SEAL BEACH, CA.
5 \I \ar"l
AP" "0-
'7:a';
q9 -01-54
14 -169
c3g%
P. 09
Q
W
w
a-
._I
SECJ 2.T-5-S,R-1 2-W, ORANGE CO.,CALIF.
400
F-77D AREA OF TAKE= 3B49-SQ.FT. (WELL SITE EASEMENT)
J RAMCO CONSULTANTS
` LAAO RIGHTS
17280 Newhope Sl. #7
Fountain Volley, CA 92708
(714) 979 -6092
-AA" ar J.A.B. WE
.,.Pm � I ( sc �LE
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
PROPOSED WELL SITE
Mj&ECT pnpV T'r Tom"
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
SEAL BEACH, CA.
5 \I \ar"l
AP" "0-
'7:a';
q9 -01-54
14 -169
c3g%
P. 09
FEB -12 -03 12 :17 FROM:OCWD 714 -378 -3203 1D:714 378 3369 PAGE 10/25
[Additional Terms and Conditions]
1. Grantor reserves the right to the continued use of said Easement
Area after completion of construction for any purpose whatsoever
including but not limited to the installation, maintenance and
repair of utility lines or pipelines of all kinds which shall not
unreasonably interfere with the use of said easement by Grantee for
the purpose hereinabove described. Grantor concurs said easement is
located entirely within the City of Seal Beach Building Setback
Zone, and as such Grantor is restricted from the construction of
any and all permanent structures upon the Easement Area. Grantor
shall not at any time construct any structu-res upon, over, or
across said easement without Grantee's prior written approval. Ir.
the event Grantor's use of the Easement Area shall at any time or
times necessitate the rearrangement, reconstruction, reinforcement,
modification or other changes of any of Grantee's facilities
located on the Easement Area, Grantee covenants and agrees that all
such work shall be performed by Grantee or by any means authorized
by it.
2. The aforesaid easements are also granted subject to all
easements, rights, leases, licenses and encumbrances of record or
of which Grantee has notice, affecting the above described real
prouerty, or any portion thereof.
14 -170
P ,n
U
r
FEE -12-03 12:17 FROM:OCWD 714 -376 -3203 ID:714 376 3369 PAGE 11/25
OV" VIK"L 0- � _ 4
(Government Code Section 27281)
U
�i
t
u
jF'
U f
r•
u
C
L
THIS IS TO CERTIFY" that the interest in real property conveyed by the
Corrected Easement Grant Deed for Water Injection Well and Access Purposes dated
November 25, 1992, from ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a
Corporation, to the ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, a political subdivision of
the State of California, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, pursuant
to authority conferred by Resolution No. 88 -8 -141 of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of
the ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT adopted August 3,. 1988, and the grantee
consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
DATED: November 25, 1992
Mary t Dist ' ecretary
14 -171
7_43 99r
FES -12 -03 12:18 FROM:OCWD 714 378 -3203
Recording Requested by and whe
Recorded Mail this Deed and Mail
Tax Statement-to:
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
10500 Ellis Avenue
P. 0. Box 8300
FounWn Valley, CA 92728 -8300
Exempt from Fee — Public Agency
(Govcmmcnt Codc Scction 6103)
ID:714 378 3369 PAGE 12/25
i the County of orange, California
Recorded n T'tn Granvil Clerk /Recorder
Ggil,1011111111111111111I NA F 11 g9 11; 11aM X2109/00
4 9.00129
004 000090030 00 0300 0. 00 0 0.00
245 07 0
0.00 0.06 245
Doc TyD
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY
EASENiEN'T DEED
Well Site 35H1
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged,
BOEING NORTH AMERICAN, INC. successor in interest to ROCKWELL �
INTERNATIONAL CORP. formerly NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC. a l �
Delaware corporation ( "Grantor" herein),
hereby GRANTS AND CONVEYS to the G�
ORANGE COUNn' WATER DISTRICT, apolitical subdivision of the State of
California ( "Grantee" herein), and its successors and assigns,
a non - exclusive perpetual easement and right -of -way and a temporary construction easement to
install, construct, reconstruct, redevelop, remove and replace, inspect, maintain, operate, improve
and relocate a subsurface water well and pipeline with incidental appurtenances, connections and
structures (the "Well Site" herein), in, on, along and under the real property situated in the City of
Seal Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and more particularly described in Exhibit "A"
to this deed, including ingress and egress to the Well Site from the nearest curb cut from
Westminster Blvd. directly to the Well Site, (hereinafter, the "Easement Area "). A plat depicting
the Easement Area is attached hereto as Exhibit "B."
The rights being granted herein include the right to enter upon and to pass and repass over
and along the Easement Area, and to deposit tools, implements and other materials thereon by
Grantee or its successors and assigns, its officers, agents and employees, and by persons or entities
under contract with Grantee, its successors and assigns, wherever and whenever necessary for the
purpose of laying, construction, reconstructing, redeveloping, renewing, inspecting, maintaining,
repairing, using and operating the Well Site. The temporary construction easement shall terminate
one year from the date this deed is executed.
RECOR 1JJ . LA2 y1
OC'v;D DOC -9
14 - 172
7! 4
.2
G
i
FES -12 -03 12:18 FROM:OCWD 714 -378 -3203
ID:714 37B 3369 PAGE 13/25
It is understood and agreed 1_' X the easements and right -of -way granted herein is subject to
the rights of Grantor, its successors and assigns to use the surface of the land within the boundaries
of the Easement Area in any and all ways not inconsistent with the non - exclusive rights granted
(i hereby, provided, however, that - tlo buildings or structures shall be constructed, installed or situated
within the Easement Area, and provided fiuther, that no earth be removed from the cover of the
Well Site.
Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold Grantor, its agents, representatives, directors, officers, or
employees harmless from and against any actions, claims, damages to persons or property,
` I obligations or liabilities that may be assented or claimed by any person or entity in connection with
LJ any of the rights granted to Grantee under this Easement Deed, including payment of reasonable
legal expenses.
F
This easement and the provisions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of Grantor, Grantee, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal
representatives, successors and assigns. �j 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed on 2 - 7 f
GRANTOR GRANTEE
I
BOEING NORTH AMERiCA.h, INC., ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
successor in interest to a political subdivision of the State of
r ROCKWELL. INTERNATIONAL CORP. California organized under Chapter 924 of the
1 formally Statutes of 1933, as amended
NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC.
\ a De are corporation
By: i Zi oo By.
President
i I
-PHI w CYBU T
UU VIUL rKnIUL
r:
By:
General Man ger
Its:
r ' APPROVED AS TO FORM:
L..I
f By: a a--�_1
General Counsel, Orange
County Water District
I EASEDEE•D IZ113199
L,J
7
14 -113
7'43 ?.:3
FES -12 -03 12:19 FROM:OCWD 714 -378 -3203 ID =714 37B 3369 PAGE 14/25
E\HI$I T 'A
ORANIGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
ALAMITOS; BARRIER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WELL SITE 35H1
THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCEL '- OF PARCEL MAP NO. 79 -1001, IN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH.
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 139.
PAGE 4 OF PARCEL MAPS. RECORDS- OF ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA. DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
PARCEL I (WELL SITE):
A STRIP OF LAND 50.00 FEET WIDE. THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, DISTANT THEREON
SOUTH 89 EAST 1063.20 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF: THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE. SOUTH 89 °43'20" EAST 40.00 FEET.
ENCOMPASSING A COMPUTED Al2.EA OF 2000 SQUARE FEET. MORE OR LESS.
PARCEL 2 (TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT):
A STRIP OF LAND 120.00 FEET WIDE. THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, DISTANT THEREON
SOUTH 89 0 •43'20" EAST 1023.20 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF: THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89 °43'20" EAST 120.00 FEET.
EXCEPTING THAT PORTION WITHIN PARCEL I AS DESCRIBED HEREIN.
ENCOMPASSING A COMPUTED Al2EA OF 12,400 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
ALL AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT'B' P.TTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
,.ND St,'qL �
r F. 3U Fi0 �
V
��• r ?3.01 * ,
e
No.'s
Or C' /'
r /Al
-_ = -!2 -2003 :3:33
14 -174
F. -4
7:437633E° ggi
u
FES -12 -03 12:19 FROM:OCWD 714 -378 -3203 ID:714 37B 3369 PAGE 15/25
EXHIBIT '
OR,WGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
ALAMITOS BARRIER IMPROVEMENT PROIIECT
lJ �� < <� • r �i
PARCEL 1
F. E ,. PARCEL Z
1 Jy
N0. 440
14 -175
P.15
W
WELL SITE J5H1
A ;
�
ml
L
�'1
Z
of
:�
cn
WESTMINSTER
BLVD.
-�
S89'43° 10' E
� 3109.5r
U
0
P. 0. B
o
I
P.
.
I
N w COR. PAR. 2
PARCEL
PARCEL 1
(`
f
S89'43'20'E
I06J.10'
1 ?0.00'
I
'x0.00''
_
1013.20'
40.'0,0'. L , :
40.017
: W
• .
bb
b .
\
: bo
p
°
40.00':
o
N89'43'20'w
`
zo
10
i
f)
2
J
N89'41 20'w
120.00'
v
iEGEND'
lJ �� < <� • r �i
PARCEL 1
F. E ,. PARCEL Z
1 Jy
N0. 440
14 -175
P.15
FEE -12 -03 12:19 FROM:OCWD 714 -376 -3203 1D:714 378 3369 PAGE 16/25
State of California
Cow ivy of Los Angdes
On January 21, 2000 before me, I)ely De Leon, Notary Public, personally appeared Philip W.
Cyburt personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and
that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person
acted, executed the instrument.
CMY OE LFC
c,,,,rnmdon ®1 iQlt7a i
L,06 nrQ" Car+N
U 31 2=
WITNESS my hand and official seal
Document: Easement Deed - Grange County Water District
14 -176
714379336' 9 0 -/ P. i6
' U
I
FES -12-03 12:20 FROM:OCWD 714- 378 -3203
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
ORANGE COUNTY )
10:714 378 3369 PAGE 17/25
On yo�e Q before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared rR L ) C4c LL-4- and W ;"i A m �2 . M /LZZ TL .
pers onally kno to me OR4 , nvl l{ M ,,, nn thn hack of caricfa rnry . irip"p rn be the p rsonjiqho namM
is�ubscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hdsl�eexecuted the same in his/her
authorized capacity es and that by his/her/ i iglature(Dri the instrument the persontDr the entity upon behalf
of which the perso4s executed the insmiment.
F;
u WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
[Seal]
U
1
f
L�
r;
Li
L
==- _3 :00
7143 ° -.
! ICE IK DURANT
Commission # I I M61
Notary Public - Cor*xrja
Orur►ge County -
W Comm. E=kes Oct 29.2t
14 -177
=%
P.:"2
FE6 -12 -03 12:20 FROM:OCWD 714 -378 -3203 10:714 37B 3369 PAGE 16/25
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
(Government Code Section 2728 1)
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by the Deed or Grant dated 4� -L-1— q-
from the 0E_i NGMp -* J . a corporation, to the ORANGE COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of California, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of
the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THL. ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, pursuant to the authority conferred
by resolution of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT adopted on
1 ri , 2000 and the Grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
Dated: FEAP u 2000
__ - -:2 -2003 12 :01
14 -178
71437933GC 09%
R.:9
FEE -12 -03 12:20 FROM:OCI.ID 714 -376 -3203
j Recording Requested by and whe
Recorded Mail this Deed and Ma
Tax Statement to:
U
r;
U
U
U
U
U
14 -179
RECORD NO. q-'
OCWD DOC ,9, 0 1 f- 13--c
= =_ -12 -2203 _3 :1 71437?_ 93x
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
10500 Ellis Avenue
P. 0. Box 8300
Fountain Valley, CA 92728 -8300
Exempt from Fec— Public Agency
(Government Code Section 6103)
SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY
EASEMENT DEED
Well Site 35112
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged,
BOEING NORTH AMERICAN, INC. successor in interest to ROCKWELL
INTERNATIONAL CORP. formerly NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC. a
Delaware corporation ( "Grantor" herein),
hereby GRANTS AND CONVEYS to the
ORANGE COUNT' WATER DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of
California ( "Grantee" herein), and its successors and assigns,
a non - exclusive perpetual easement and right -of -way and a temporary construction easement to
install, construct, reconstruct, redevelop, remove and replace, inspect, maintain, operate, improve
and relocate a subsurface water well and pipeline with incidental appurtenances, connections and
structures (the "Well Site" herein), in, on, along and under the real property situated in the City of
Seal Beach, County of Orange, State o_ f California, and more particularly described in E.xchibit "A"
to this deed, including ingress and egress to the Well Site from the nearest curb cut from
Westminster Blvd. directly to the Well Site, (hereinafter, the "Easement Area "). A plat depicting
the Easement Area is attached hereto as Exhibit "B."
The rights being granted herein include the right to enter upon and to pass and repass over
and along the Easement Area, and to deposit tools, implements and other materials thereon by
Grantee or its successors and assigns, its officers, agents and employees, and by persons or entities
under contract with Grantee, its successors and assigns, wherever and whenever necessary for the
purpose of laying, construction, reconstructing, redeveloping, renewing, inspecting, maintaining,
repairing, lasing and operating the Wcll Site. The klnporary construction easement sizall terminate
one year from the date this deed is executed.
ID:714 376 3369 PAGE 19/25
Racorded in the County of Orange, California
Gar L Granville, Clark /Recordor
IIII�I�IIUiilllllllllilllllllll No F ee
20000072988 fl A IAM 02/09/00
804 00089071 108 73
245 07 0 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00
0.00 0.00
Doc types: 245
c�
R. 19
FEE -12 -03 12:21 FROM:OCWD 714 -376 -3203 ID:714 376 3369 PACE 20/25
It is understood and agreed that the easements and right -of -way granted herein is subject to
the rights of Grantor, its successors and assigns to use the surface of the land within the boundaries
of the Easement Area in any and all ways not inconsistent with the non - exclusive rights granted
hereby, provided, however, that no huildings or structures shall be constructed, installed or situated
within the Easement Area; and provided further, that no earth be removed from the cover of the
Well Site.
Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold Grantor, its agents, representatives, directors, officers, or
employees harmless from and against any actions, claims, damages to persons or property,
obligations or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by any person or entity in connection with
any of the rights granted to Grantee under this Easement Deed, including payment of reasonable
legal expenses.
This easement and the provisions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of Grantor, Grantee, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal
representatives, successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed on Z Z -
a •
BOEING NORTH AMERICAN, INC.,
successor in interest to
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP.
formally
NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC.
a De are corporation
B i I o0
UP w tYBURT
t:
By:
Its:
WEDEM 11!13199
GRANTEE
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
a political subdivision of the State of
California organized under Chapter 934 of the
Statutes of 1933, as amended
i
� m w_� i
t. M-WIN pill, I ___
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: c �Z
General Counsel, Orange
County Water District
2
14 -180
71437533.
P.20
FEE -12 - 03 12:21 FROM:OCWO 714 -378 -3203 ID:714 376 3369 PAGE 21/25
L ; E \HIBIT '.-�'
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
ALAMITOS BARRIER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WELL SITE 35H2
THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 79 -1001. IN THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH.
COUNTY OF ORANGE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED NN BOOK 139,
PAGE 4 OF PARCEL MAPS. RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS
4 a FOLLOWS.
l - J PARCEL 1 ( WELL SITE):
A STRIP OF LAND 50.00 FEET WIDE, THE NORTHERLY :.NNE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LNNE OF SAID PARCEL 2, DISTANT THEREON
SOUTH 89 EAST 1495.46 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF: THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89 °43 "20" EAST 40.00 FEET.
;
ENCOMPASSING A COMPUTED AREA OF 2000 SQUARE FEET.. MORE OR LESS.
PARCEL 2 (TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT):
A STRIP OF LAND 120.00 FEET WIDE, THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WHICH 1S DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
1
BEGN1v'NING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2. DISTANT THEREON
(� SOUTH 89 0 43'30" EAST 1455.46 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF: THENCE
u CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE. SOUTH 89 °43'20" EAST 120.00 FEET.
EXCEPTING THAT PORTION WITHIN PARCEL 1 AS DESCRIBED HEREIN.
ENCOMPASSING A COMPUTED AREA OF 12,400 SQUARE FEET. MORE OR LESS.
l J ALL AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 'B' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
F
Exc.-S-3&
:
U
9 - 27 - 95'
a
L 13:-z 71437=73C 14 -181
•12 -03 12:21 FROM :OGWD 714- 376 -3203 ID:714 376 3369
EXHIBIT 'B'
N ORANGE COUNTY WATFR DISTRICT
AL4MITOS BARRIER IMPROVEMENT PRGtIECT
PAGE 22/25 �1
U
U
' w
w
Q i
i1'ELl S /%t .1.7111 5
5
Ln �
�I
O '
'
�I
�C I
WEST B
BL VD. o
o
I
— _
_ W
� -
- - ��- �
I 2677.6'f �
�
I �
�
� CLCK B O. _ P
P.O.B.
b
N.W.
OR. PAR. 2 2
2 P
PA RCEL 1
589'43'20' E
1495.
I
I
1455.46' 4
—
I 1
40.00': , : 4
40.00' W
W 40.00'' —
U
Zg Q
QUO.
\ $
$
\ o
o :
: • 40.00' • .. .
. . o
o
�-
\1 � N89'43' 20' W 120.00'
\ \
LEGEND:
� P
` U
PARCEL 1
�► ND S,. `
bp 5 -30 -01
1 �
J No. 4406
14 - 182
7143 99'/.
PARCEL 2
U
�J
P.22
r-
U
FEB -12 -03 12:22 FROM:OCWD 714 -376 -3203
i
Stale of California
r ! County of Los Angeles
U
L.J
1D:714 37EI 3359 PAGE 23/25
On January 21, 2000 before me, Dely De Leon, Notary Public, personally appeared Philip W.
r
Cyburt personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within
1 ' instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and
u that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person
acted, executed the instrument.
U
DELY DE LEON
commisoms 1107178
-: NotayRZAC— COMM'b _
La ^ Canty
My C.artm EMM Ju 91. MM
WITNESS my hand and official seal
L Document: Easement Deed - Orange County Water District
L
l.�
V
�, 14 -183
FES -12 -03 12:22 FROM:OCWD 714 -37B -3203
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss
ORANGE, COU rf
ID:714 378 3369 PAGE 24/25
On , 6 k)00 before me, the undersigned, a Notary public in and for said State,
personally appeared R i K (Z,2 and fii t jg A M
,,�-rsonally blown to me OR [) prm a to be the personMlMosc names )
1s ate ubscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged tome that he/she f1�e executed the same ' his/her /� I n
authorized capaci teal d that by hWhert the instrument the person( to tht entity upon behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
[Seal]
JANICE M. DUWIT
Commiulon # 1 199961
z Notary Public - Cofiftxnio
Orange County
My Comm. 5CMitt_' Oct 29.2=
14 -184
- -2 -2023 -3.23 71 437 s
°.24
.
r �
�J
i�
td
L
r
L�J
U
1
�r
FEB -12 -03 12:22 FROM:OCWD 714 - 378 -3203 1D:714 376 3369 FACE 25/25
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
(Government Code Section 2729 1)
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by the Decd or Grant dated
from the &ETA )(2 lbw a'1fka a corporation, to the ORANGE COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of California, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of
the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, pursuant to the authority conferred
by resolution of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT adopted on
��LBl M A 2000 and the Giantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
Dated:F uA 2000 BY
14 -185
P. G5
BOEINGS E CIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 22
Roy Hemdon, Orange County Water District
February 12, 2003
22A. All Project -site easements — including those for well sites 35G, 35H1, and
35H2 — have been noted on the draft Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Due
to the nature and location of these easements, the proposed Project
would not interfere with the OCWD's use of those easements.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -186 Comments and Responses
r c3 12 '03 05 :58PM SCAQMD SSC 909 390' 3334 P•1
U, South Coast COMME`N'T N®. 23
Ai,r Quality Management District
21865 E. Copley Drive, plamond Bar. CA 91765 -4182
X1 1 (909) 396 -2000 - www.agmd.gov
FAXED: February 12,20
February 12, 2003
Mr. Mac Cummins
r i
Associate Planner
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
r
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Mr: Mac Cummins,
Draft Environmental Impact Report
j Boeing Specific Plan Project — City of Seal Beach
(i The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the above - mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance
I
or the Lead Agency and should be incorporated in the Final Environmental Impact Report.
Please provide the AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The AQMD would be happy to work
with the Lead Agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please
contact James Koizumi, Air Quality Specialist — CEQA Section, at (909) 396 -3234 if you have
any questions regarding these comments.
r
Sincerely
U
Steve Smith, Ph.D.
Program Supervisor, CEQA Section
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
r
I
Attachment
SJ
Post -It' Fax Note 7871
Dag
3 Q p� D
( �
SS: JK
TO a C CUN+a1i ny
CaDeP1. ,L1 .�
Fr 2 fn.45 l�lumt
Co.
occ021231 -04
Phone k H' jA —Z"
Phone
Control Number
_
{
F-0 rl. i7 —C
Fsx N
U
4
U
^ .. .•.. a T 7e4
} :i e� :::,,• : +: 14 -181 x
FEB 12 '03 05 :58PM SCRQMD SSC 909 396 3324
Mac Cummins
-I-
February 7, 2003
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Boeing Saecific Plan Project — City of Seal Beach
P
Air Quality Monitoring Data On page 5.4-4, Table 5.4 -1, the 2001 PMIo maximum
concentration of 74 ppm does not match the concentration of 91 ppm presented on the
AQMD website (http: / /ozone.agmd.gov /smog/). Please present the averaging time (i.e.,
1 -hour, 8 -hour, 24 -hour, annual, etc.) associated with the maximum concentration
presented in the table. The values in the State Standard Exceeded column for the 1999
ozone, 2000 PMIo, and 2001 PMIo do not match those presented on the AQMD website.
The Federal Standard Exceed column value for the 2000 PM2.5 does not match those
presented on the CARB website. Please present the Federal 1 -hour standard for ozone,
and the annual standards for PMIo and PM2.5. Please present the 24 -hour State standard
for sulfur dioxide, and the annual standards for PM 1 0 and PM2.5-
2. Toxic Air Contaminants On page 5.4 -9, the impact and regulation of toxic air
contaminates (TACs) is discussed under the Regulatory Framework section; however,
there is no discussion of TACs generated by the project in the Impacts section. Since
only the summary URBEMIS 2001 output results were provided, it is not clear whether
there are a substantial number of heavy -duty truck trips generated during operation. If
the project generates a large number of diesel truck trips per day, a human health risk
assessment (HRA) for diesel exhaust from mobile sources should be performed.
Guidance on performing such an analysis can be found at the AQMD's CEQA website at
the following URL: http:// www. agmd. gov /cega/handbook/hral_guide.doc.
CO Hotspots On page 5.4 -17, the DEIR states that "intersections would be significantly
impacted by the Project generated traffic" and "that a CO hotspot could occur as a result
of the proposed project and would result in a significant impact." The AQMD
recommends performing a CO hotspots analysis when a project increases the volume to
capacity ratio (also called the intersection capacity utilization) by 0.02 (2 percent) for any
intersection with an LOS rating of D or worse. According to Table 5.3 -6 on page 5.3 -36,
several intersections will exceed this criterion. Implementing the road improvement
mitigation measures on pages 5.3 -56 and 5 -3.57 may help to reduce CO hotspot impacts.
For this reason, it is recommended that a CO hotspots analysis should be performed.
23C
4. CO Background Concentrations On page 5.7 -17, the third paragraph down establishes
the background CO concentration as the second highest over the last two years according ���
to Federal guidance. The AQMD recommends using the highest monitored CO
concentration as background when performing a CO hotspots analysis.
URBEMIS 2001 Only the URBEMIS 2001 for Windows 6.2.2 Summary Reports are
presented in the Appendix 15.3 Air Quality Data of the DEIR. Exact replication of the
emissions could not be performed using the information presented in the Appendix.
URBEMIS 2001 for Windows 6.2.2 Detailed Reports should be included. The Detailed
Reports option includes a sheet, named Changes to Defaults which lists user specified
parameters. The land use choices are presented in the Detailed Operational Report.
/ {� , 0
0"0 3E
u
14 -188 0
f-
U
0
G
r It
L.t
U
L
U
L
1
I.,
L
FEE 12 '03 05 :59PM SCROD SSC 909 395 3324
Mac Cummins
-2-
February 7, 2003
P.
Trip Rate Calculations The user defined trip rates are presented in the uses of the
Parenthetical URBEMIS2001 Assumptions for All Building Phases: Boeing Space
•r I ITD D.. • en+ Tlat 1 10M4/02 within Appendix 15.3 Air Quality Data 23],
Center 3 pcciiic rl l UAII I. Ij.....
of the DEIR. The trip rates affect the operation emissions. The trip rate assumptions, I
methodologies, and calculations should be included in Appendix 15.3 Air Quality Data.
7. Demolition: Building demolition emission assumptions and methodology are not clearly
presented in the Parenthetical URBEMIS2001 Assumptions • for All Building Phases:
Boeing Space Center Specific Plan EIR Project Date 10/24/02 within Appendix 15.3 Air
Quality Data of the DEIR. The total volume of the model building is presented as
30,161.25 cubic feet. URBEMIS 2001 for Windows 6.2.2 estimates demolition
emissions with the methodology presented in Table A9 -9H of the AQMD Air Quality
CEQA Handbook. Based upon methodology presented in Table A9 -9H, the total volume
of the model building presented in Appendix 153 Air Quality Data of the DEIR should
be 137,358.4 cubic feet (117.2 feet long x 117 feet wide x 10 feet high). The duration of
time for the building demolition is not presented by the project proponent. The building
volume calculation should be corrected and documented that it is consistent with the
emission factor used.
8. Operational Emissions The traffic report and the landscape emission estimations
presents opening day as 2006. The operational emissions year presented in the
UREMIS 2001 output file is 2007. Please change the operational year to 2006, rerun the
model, and provide the revised results in the Final EIR.
User provided trip rates, vehicle category speciation, and trip lengths were input in the
URBEMIS 2001 model. Please provide references and documentation for proposed
project parameters.
Haul Trucks: On page 5.4 -13, the first paragraph presents a detailed description of
grading haul truck operations during the construction phase of the proposed project. It
also states that emissions generated by the haul route operations are included in the
URBEMIS 2001 calculations. URBEMIS 2001 was not designed to estimate emissions
generated by on -road construction vehicles. The AQMD recommends using URBEMIS
2001 to estimate onsite construction, area source and operational emissions, and then
performing on -road construction emissions separately using either EMFAC 2002
( http:// www. arb. ca. gov/ msei /on- road/latest_version.htm) or the attached spreadsheet with
heavy diesel truck exhaust emission factors. Emissions may be estimated by multiplying
the delivery truck emission factor for the appropriate year as presented in the attached
Spreadsheet. the number of truck trips, and the haul round trip distance.
The total construction emissions would then be the sum of the URBEMIS 2001 emissions
and the haul /delivery truck emissions.
Please use the above methodology to estimate emission from haul trucks removing
demolition debris and delivering materials, as well as, from scraping operations.
14 -189
23G
23]x:
231
FEB 12 '03 05 :59PM SCAQMD SSC 909 396 3324 P•
Mac Cummins -3- February 7, 2003
9. Operational Ambient Temperatures The temperature range presented in Parenthetical
URBEMIS2001 Assumptions for All Building Phases: Boeing Space center Specific Plan
ErR Project Date 10/24/02 wit'ur, Appendix 15.3 Air Quality Data is presented as
between 40 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Eighty degrees Fahrenheit is not an option
presented by URBEMIS 2001 for Windows 6.2.2. Please correct values to the ambient
summer and winter temperatures used.
L
'J
v3 a P1 0
Compliance with AQMD Rules All applicable AQMD rules, including Rule 402 -
U
Nuisance, and Rule 403.. It appears that the conditions of Rule 403 are met by the • 23
mitigation measures on page 5,419. The project proponent may wish to add that visible
dust beyond the property line would be prevented.
14 -190
t..,i
LJ
L
F I
Li
U
FES 12 '03 06:00PM SCAQMD SSC 909 396 3324
P.5
Highest (Most Conservative) EMFAC 2002 (version 2.2)
Emission Factors for On -Road Vehicles
Projects in the SCAQMD (Scenario Years 2003 - 2025)
Derived from Wintertime Emissions Inventory (except Annual Average CO for passenger vehicles)
Passenger Vehicles ( <8500 pounds), Delivery Trucks ( >8500 pounds)
The following emission factors were compiled by running the California Air Resources Board's EMFAC2002
(version 2.2) Burden Model, taking the weighted average of vehicle types and simplifying into two categories
which can be used to calculate on -road mobile source emissions. Use the following equation:
Emissions (pounds per day) = N x TL x EF
where N = number of trips, TL = trip length (miles/day). and EF = emission factor (pounds per mile)
This methodology replaces the old EMFAC emission factors in Tables A- 9 -5 -J -1 through A -9 -5 -L in
Appendix A9 of the current SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. All the emission factors account for the emissions
from start, running and idling exhaust. In addition, the ROG emission factors take into account diurnal, hot
soak, running and resting emissions and PM10 emission factor takes into account the tire and brake wear.
Scenario Year: 2003 -- Model Years: 1965 to 2003
f U
Passenger Vehicles (pounds /mile)
Delivery Trucks (pounds /mile)
CO 0.01815
CO
0.025508
NOx 0.002014
NOx
0.031208
ROG 0.001935
ROG
0.003362
L
sox 0.00001
sox
0.000241
PM10 0.000112
PM10
0.001003
Scenario Year: 2004 -- Model Years: 1965 to 2004
Passenger Vehicles (pounds /mile)
Delivery Trucks (pounds/mlle)
Co 0.016559
CO
0.02309
NOx 0.0018
NOx
0.029607
ROG 0.001771
ROG
0.003148
sox 0.00001
Sox
0.000243
PM10 0.000113
PM10
0.000961
�t
`-'
Scenario Year: 2005 -- Model Years: 1965 to 2005
(
Passenger Vehicles (poundsimile)
Delivery Trucks (pounds /mile)
�j
CO 0.015165
CO
0.020984
NOx 0.001634
NOx
0.028142
ROG 0.001626
ROG
0.002955
Sox 0.00001
sox
0.000246
PM10 0.000113
PM10
0.000923
Scenario Year: 2006 - Model Years: 1965 to 2006
Passenger Vehicles (pounds/mile)
Delivery Trucks (pounds/mile)
CO 0.013925
CO
0.019135
NOx 0.001489
NOx
0.026756
ROG 0.001497
ROG
0.002779
sox 0.000009
Sox
0.000248
PM10 0.000114
PM10
0.000887
14 -191
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 23
Steve Smith, South Coast Air Quality Management District
February 12, 2003
23A. The value should be revised to 91 (taken on January 1, 2001), with 10
days exceeding the Sate Standard and no Federal exceedances. This
information is based upon the annual statistics from the California Air
Resources Board ADAM database:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2www/adamtop4.d2w/Branch
Table 5.4 -1 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
Table 5.4 -1
Local Air Quality Levels
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -192 Comments and Responses
California
Federal
� maximum 2,
Days (Samples)
Pollutant
Standard
Primary
Year
Concentration
StatelFederal
Standard
Std. Exceeded
1997
94 � 00
0/0
20 ppm
35 ppm
1998
8.1
010
for 1 hour
for 1 hour
1999
7.5
010
2000
94 Z2
010
Carbon Monoxide
2001
6.0
0/0
1997
6.6
0/0
9 ppm
g ppm
1998
6.5
0/0
for 8 hour
for 8 hour
1999
5.5
0/0
2000
5.7
0/0
2001
4.7
0/0
1997
04 am
1/0
0.09 ppm
0.12 ppm
1998
0:1.2 0,116
2/0
Ozone
for 1 hour
for 1 hour
1999
943 0131
2 3/1
2000
942 0.118
310
2001
40
40/0
1997
0.20
0/0
0.25 ppm
0.053 ppm
1998
0.16
0/0
Nitrogen Dioxide
for 1 hour
annual average
1999
0.15
0/0
2000
0.14
0/0
2001
0.12
0/0
1997
8�4 QaU
0/0
0.25 ppm
0.14 ppm for 24 hours or
1998
Ga. 0.4]4
0/0
Sulfur Dioxide
for 1 hour
80 µg /m (0.03 ppm)
1999
9:9511
0/0
annual average
2000
9:95 am
0/0
2001
9:95 QM
0/0
1997
87.0
10 /0
PM�o 34
50 µg /m
150 µg/m
1998
1999
69.0
79.0
6/0
13/0
for 24 hours
for 24 hours
2000
105.0
43 -
2001
749 aU
44
1997
N/M
N/A
4
65 µg /m
1998
N/M
N/A
PM2.5
N/A
for 24 hours
1999
66.9
NAM
2000
7"-au
N /A/3 4
2001
72.9
1 N /Alf
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -192 Comments and Responses
I .
tj
r�
I ,
�.J
U
r
U
L"
U
L
U
L
c
i
,
t
o of spa ,- PaW .
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
ppm = parts per million PM,o = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less N/M = not measured
µg /m = micrograms per cubic meter PM25 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
1. Data is based on measurements taken at the North Long Beach monitoring station located at 3648 North Long Beach Boulevard, Long Beach, California.
2. Maximum concentration is measured over the same period as the California Standard.
3. PM,o exceedances are based on state threshoias established prior to amendment adopted on June 20, 2002.
4. PM,o and PM2 s exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded, not days.
Source: Data obtained from the California Air Resources Board ADAM Data Summaries Website, www .arb.ca.gov /adamhvelcome.html.
23B. Diesel exhaust is a growing concern in the Basin area and throughout
California. The CARB in 1998 identified diesel engine particulate matter
as a TAC. The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of
different gaseous and particulate components, many of which are toxic.
Many of these toxic compounds adhere to the particles, and because
diesel particles are very small, they penetrate deeply into the lungs.
Diesel engine particulate matter has been identified as a human
carcinogen. Mobile sources (including trucks, buses, automobiles, trains,
ships and farm equipment) are by far the largest source of diesel
emissions. Studies show that diesel particulate matter concentrations ale
much higher near heavily traveled highways and intersections. The
cancer risk from exposure to diesel exhaust may be much higher than the
risk associated with any other toxic air pollutant routinely measured in the
region.
In order to limit impacts to sensitive receptors, prior to the listing of diesel
exhaust as a TAC, California had already adopted various regulations
that would reduce diesel emissions. These regulations include new
standards for diesel fuel, emission standards for new diesel trucks, buses,
autos, and utility equipment, and inspection and maintenance
requirements for health duty vehicles. Following the listing of diesel
engine particulate matter as a TAC, ARB is currently evaluating what
additional regulatory action is needed to reduce public exposure. ARB
does not plan on banning diesel fuel or engines. ARB may consider
additional requirements for diesel fuel and engines, however, as well as
other measures to reduce public exposure.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District(SACQMD) implements
TAC controls through Federal, State and local programs. Federally,
TACs are regulated by EPA under Title III of the CAA. As the State level,
the CARB has designated the Federal hazardous air pollutants as TACs,
under the authority of AB 1807. The Air Toxic Hot Spots Information and
Assessment Act (AB 2588) requires inventories and public notices for
facilities that emit TACs. Senate Bill 1731 amended AB 2588 to require
facilities with "significant risks" to prepare a risk reduction plan.
In 1998, following an exhaustive 10 -year scientific assessment process,
the State of California Air Resources Board (ARB) identified particulate
matter from diesel - fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant8
Subsequent to this determination, the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) initiated a comprehensive urban toxic air
9 Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant. ARB and OEHHA. April 22, 1998.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -193 Comments and Responses
C116T Ws�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
pollution study, called MATES -II (for Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study).
However, the Project is not anticipated to generate the volume of truck
traffic as would a truck distribution facility or large warehouse.
The detailed modeling results wa :: [Inc the assumptions for the
URBEMIS2001 modeling have been included in Appendix 15.3, Air
Quality Data. In summary, the emissions of TAC's are anticipated to be a
result of construction activities that would be short- termed and cease
upon development of the Project. However, it is to the discretion of the
City of Seal Beach for follow -up review based upon identified end users of
the Project. Thus, at this time, TACs are not anticipated to result in
significant impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.
In order to account for the screening of future uses, the following
mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Final EIR:
5.4 -2b Should a potential end -user be id whose land use would c ause a
particulate diesel index of 0.0003 ulm or increase the volume to capaci ratio
(also called the Intersection Capacity Utilization ) by 0,02—(2— percent) for an
intersection with a LOS of D or worse. a preliminary s enino shall be conducted
per SCAQMD Rule 1401 and 212 to determine whether a Health Risk
Assessment (HRA ) shall be pre�are�
23C. A local CO screening analysis is required to assess the potential for
localized concentrations of CO to occur with implementation of the
proposed Project. The CO screening was conducted in accordance with
the Local Analysis Flow Chart presented in Figure 3, Local CO Analysis
(Section 4.0), of the Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide
Protocol revised December 1997. The results of this evaluation are
presented below:
Is the proiect in a CO non - attainment area? The proposed Project is
located within a Federal and State CO attainment area.
Was the area re- designed as "attainment" after the 1990 Clean Air Act?
According to the SCAQMD, the SoCAB was re- designed as "attainment"
after the 1990 Clean Air Act.
Does the project worsen air quality? The following criteria (as contained in
Section 4.7.1 of the Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide
Protocol) was used to determine whether the proposed Project is likely to
worsen air quality for the area:
a. A portion of the Project site is currently developed with industrial
uses. The proposed Project would implement mixed uses, which
have the potential to generate additional trips. CO emissions
under the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds of 550 Ibs /day based upon modeling with
URBEMIS2001. Given the nature of the proposed Project (mixed
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -194 Comments and Responses
r
` I BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
uses including a hotel), a significant number of additional cold
starts could be created with Project implementation.
U b. The proposed Project would increase local traffic beyond existing
or plann con � s as it pr y ^ ^ poses to Change the existing
industrial land use to a mixed -use site. This would require a
Specific Plan and a General Plan Amendment. In addition, the
Project would not include overall circulation improvements to
improve the volume to capacity ratio.
23D. Page 5.4 -17, Paragraph 3 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
U
r,
r;
U
The Project site is in an area where CO emissions have dramatically decreased and have not
exceeded the State and Federal standards over the past five years. Based upon the 1=712A'S
SCAQMD's recommendation,
the hi hest
CO concentration over the last five years of monitoring data was used Therefore, the
threshold would be 4-4 9_7 ppm, which was measured at the North Long Beach monitoring
station on December 19, This is well below the State standard of
20 ppm and the Federal standard of 35 ppm. The measured levels of CO at this monitoring
station can be considered worst -case, since the monitoring station is located in a more
concentrated urbanized area and receives higher CO levels than the Boeing Specific Plan
site.
L . FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -195 Comments and Responses
c. For intersections, reduction in average speed or an increase in
average delay is generally considered as worsening traffic flow.
With the addition of Project generated traffic, intersection delays
are deteriorated to below an LOS D. As such, the proposed
Project would result in an air quality impact due to increased idle
time associated with implementation of the Project (refer to the
Project Traffic Study). Based upon the analysis as contained
'
within the EIR and based upon a determination of that when a
project increases the volume to capacity ratio by 0.02 for any
intersection with an LOS of D or worse, the following intersections
would have the potential to create a CO Hotspot:
♦ Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd Street/Westminster Avenue;
o Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue;
L
o Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue;
o Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 southbound ramps;
♦ Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 northbound ramps;
o Bolsa Chica Road at Westminster Avenue.
As demonstrated above, the proposed Project would have the potential to
L
create a CO Hotspot and impacts are assumed to be significant and
unavoidable due to the lack of feasible mitigation measures to reduce the
vehicle idle time at impacted intersections.
23D. Page 5.4 -17, Paragraph 3 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
U
r,
r;
U
The Project site is in an area where CO emissions have dramatically decreased and have not
exceeded the State and Federal standards over the past five years. Based upon the 1=712A'S
SCAQMD's recommendation,
the hi hest
CO concentration over the last five years of monitoring data was used Therefore, the
threshold would be 4-4 9_7 ppm, which was measured at the North Long Beach monitoring
station on December 19, This is well below the State standard of
20 ppm and the Federal standard of 35 ppm. The measured levels of CO at this monitoring
station can be considered worst -case, since the monitoring station is located in a more
concentrated urbanized area and receives higher CO levels than the Boeing Specific Plan
site.
L . FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -195 Comments and Responses
G, ofd 0
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR O
23E. The detailed URBEMIS2001 (Windows 6.2.2) output sheets are included
in Appendix 15.5, Air Quality Data. (1
23F. To the extent practical, information from the Project Traffic report has ((�J
been utilized in the air q uality analysis and URBEMIS2001 modeling.
However, for the purposes of this analysis the URBEMIS2001 default
values have been used in the following calculations:
® Land Use Trip generation
Vehicle Fleet percentages
Trip characteristics
® Variable starts
This analysis is conservative for these factors and represents a worst -
case scenario.
23G. The total demolished material has been revised to reflect a volume of
137,358.4 cubic feet over a period of 33 days. Refer to Response to
Commentor No. 231 for text changes.
23H. The Year has been changed to 2006 for Area Source and Operational
emissions. Revised assumptions and URBEMIS2001 detailed modeling
streets have been included in Appendix 15.3, Air Quality Data.
Additionally, please refer to Response to Commentor No. 23F.
231. The emissions for haul truck operations have been derived using the
EMFAC 2002 spreadsheet as provided by the SCAQMD. The calculation
involves the following formula:
Emissions (Ibs /day) = N x TL x EF
Where N = number of trips, TL = trip length (miles /day) and EF =
emission factor (Ibs /mile)
Using a scenario of grading operations that are expected to import
approximately 100,000 cubic yards of soil. Based upon the standard
dimensions of a haul truck, it is estimated that each truck would haul 12
cubic yards, with an average of 3 minutes to load the truck. The haul
route considered for this analysis is Interstate 405 to Seal Beach
Boulevard. Depending on the location of import site, a conservative
estimate is 500 yards a day, or 42 inbound and outbound trips per day.
N = 84 trips (per day)
TL = 20 miles
EF = (delivery trucks)
CO = 0.02309
NOx = 0.029607
ROG = 0.003148
SOx = 0.000243
PM10 = 0.000961
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -196 Comments and Responses
U
L
U
. u
U
U
G
U
I
L
u
t
,
L-i
U
G
G
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
CO (Ibs /day) = 84 trips x 20 miles x 0.02309 Ibs /mile = 38.8
NOx (Ibs /day) = 84 trips x 20 miles x 0.029607 Ibs /mile = 49.7
ROG (Ibs /day) = 84 trips x 20 miles x 0.003148 Ibs /mile = 5.3
SOx (Ibs /day) = 84 trips x 20 miles x 0.000243 Ibs /mile = 0.4
r- v iu 11U
n nb J /U /.+ ay ) _ V an +ri..� w 7n milcc v n 000961 the /mile = 1.6
• • - - - � u� n �v vv
These emissions have been summed into the construction emissions
estimates and the following text changes have been made to Tables 5.4-
2, 5.4 -3, 5.4 -4 and 5.4 -5 of the Final EIR:
Table 5.4 -2
Construction Emissions
Emissions
Pollutant (pounds /day)'
Source
ROG
NOX ,
CO
PM10
Unmitigated Emissions
47.452.7
6-13:4 663.1
9- :6-4.4
99 102.7
SCAQMD Threshold
75
100
550
150
Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation?
No
Yes
No
No
Mitigated Emissions
45:3 50 –Q
0 632.7
9 6 48.4
62:A - 65.0
Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation?
No
Yes
No
No
ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides
CO = carbon monoxide PM10 = fine particulate matter
NOTES:
' Emissions calculated using the URBEMIS 2001 Computer Model as recommended by the SCAQMD and Project specifi
construction data provided by the Project applicant.
Z Calculations include emissions from numerous sources including: site grading, construction worker trips, stationary equipment,
diesel and gas mobile equipment, off -site haul route import and asphalt off - gassing using a maximum amount of grading per
day of 5 acres for approximately 260 working days. Air quality modeling assumes that the roadway surface will be graded, and
that rough grading will occur for the proposed pad foundations. Results are based on the maximum amount of site grading,
construction and asphalt activity that would occur in one day. Refer to Appendix 15.3, Air Quality Data, for assumptions used in
this analysis, including quantified emissions reduction by mitigation measures. Emissions would also exceed the SCAQMD
quarterly construction emissions for NOx.
3 The reduction /credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigations included in the UREBMIS 2001 computer
model and as typically required by the SCAQMD. The mitigations include the following: proper maintenance of mobile and other
construction equipment and speed limitation on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Table 5.4 -3
Mobile Source Emissions
Project
Pollutant- (Pounds /Day)
ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
(unmitigated)
• Vehicle Emissions'
4385 148.3
4-84.6 Z8-7
4 524A 1704.1
79.2
ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides
CO = carbon monoxide PMio = fine particulate matter
NOTE:
1 – Based on UREBMIS 2001 modeling results, worst -case seasonal emissions for area and mobile emissions, and
trip rate data provided in the Project Traffic Study.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -197 Comments and Responses
BOEIN S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Table 5.4-4
Area Source Emissions
Project
Pollutant (Pounds/Day)
ROG.. "
NOx. ,
CO
PM10
. ...
(unmitigated)
(unmitigated)
• Area Source Emissions
0.4
344 28 7
6 3 5.4
4-4 U
ROG = reactive organic gases
NOx = nitrogen oxides
CO = carbon monoxide
PMlo = fine particulate matter
NOTE:
43" 148.3
1 – Area Source emissions excludes the use of fireplaces and wood burning stoves.
Table 5.4 -5
Long -Term Project Emissions
Project
Pollutant (Pounds/Day)
NOx
- "CO
PM10
(unmitigated)
• Area Source Emissions z
0.4
34:3 28.7
6.3 5A
44 U
• Vehicle Emissions
43" 148.3
484:6
4 4
0 17 4.1
79.2
Total Unmitigated Emissions
438 9 1487
215:9 226.4
4530
3 1�7 9..3
80:33 80-1
SCAQMD Threshold
55
55
550
150
Is Threshold Exceeded?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(Significant Impact ?)
ROG = reactive organic gases
NOx = nitrogen oxides
CO = carbon monoxide
PM10 = fine particulate matter
NOTE:
1 – Based on UREBMIS 2001 modeling results, worst -case seasonal emissions for area and mobile emissions, and
trip rate data provided in the Project Traffic Study.
2 – Area Source emissions excludes the use of fireplaces and wood burning stoves.
23J. The temperature range for the URBEMIS2001 model are winter (40
degrees F) and summer (90 degrees F). These corrected numbers were
utilized in the modeling run. Revised assumptions and URBEMIS2001
detailed modeling streets have been included in Appendix 15.3, Air
Quality Data.
23K. Mitigation Measure 5.4 -1a of the Draft EIRhas been revised in the Final
EIR as follows:
5.4 -1a During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive
dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive
measures using the following procedures, as specified in the South Coast Air
Quality Management Districts Rules and Regulations.
0 On -site vehicle speed will be limited to 15 miles per hour.
0 All on -site construction roads with vehicle traffic will be watered periodically.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -198 Comments and Responses
L '
L
J
U
U1
u
G
f'.
L
L
I
U
u
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
♦ Streets adjacent to the project reach will be swept as needed to remove silt
that may have accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
♦ All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust. Watering will occur at least twice daily with
complete coverage, preferable in the late morning and after work is done for
the day.
♦ All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities will cease during
periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 35 miles per hour averaged over one
hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
♦ All material transported on -site or off -site will be either sufficiently watered or
securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
♦ The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation
operations will be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
♦ These control techniques will be indicated on project grading plans.
Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic site inspections by the
City.
♦ Visible dust beyond the pro e[t r line emanating from the_�ro will be
prevented to the maximum extent feasible.
e.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -199 Comments and Responses
- ' 1gJJy.iF_CIr?,u, - Sy,� a 4P RTaT:^ T� \Ca��f� ^- • ` - -a� ��•L�y� � ®e 2 4 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION — C® M j`� 1®
District 12 w
3337 Michelson Orive. Suite 380
Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 —• - • • :._ �.. —. _
Flat yolirpowere
Past -it' Fax Note 7671 Gdiv a o� dreianrl
I IT_ , 1 — ^��� UtlSl1 �i
I I ' 1 '�' C l t MYVv r , m . 0"
LkzN — Q,3
February 18,1 2003
Mac Cummir gs
City of Seal cach
211 Eighth S reet
Seal Beach. A 90740
File: IGR/CEQA
SCH #: 2002031015
Log #: 836C
SR: PCH, SR-22,1-406
Subject: Boeing Specific Plan Project
Deer Mr. Cummings,
Thank you for the opportunity to reviow and comment . on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Boeing Specific Plan Project dated
December 2002. The proposed Specific Plan provides for four planning areas within
the property. Planning Area one would maintain existing Boeing operations. Planning
Area two allows for 345,000 square feet of light industrial uses. Planning Area three
allows for 628,000 square feet of light industrial uses. Planning Area 4 would be
developed within a 120 - room .hotel and 325,000 square feet of retail. The proposed
building /expansions would result in a total 2,210,500 square feet of -floor area,
representing a net increase of 1,060500 square feet over the. existing floor area of
1.150,000 square feet The project development will include an interior roadway
system along with supporting utilities and other infrastructure system. The project Is
located on Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue in the City of Seal Beach.
The nearest state routes to this project are SR -1, SR -22, and 1-405.
Caltrans District 12 status is a responsible agency on this project. Although the
subject project is not adjacent to the state facility, there will be direct traffic
impacts to the system due to the listed mitigation measures proposed on the
state facility. Caltrans has the following comments:
Traffic
1. The issues of greatest concern to Caltrans are those that may impact traffic
circulation and increase demand on state facilities. The Final Environmental 24A
Impact Report (FEIR) should discuss impacts on local and regional
transportation system in detail and propose mitigations to reduce the impacts
"C alrro s Lonprava mohi/iy across California
14 -200
U
U
Date February '1 8. 2003
( Page 2 of 5
U
to a level of insignificance. Further, a discussion of cumulative . impacts
associated with this and other nearby developments must be included in the 24A
DEIR. Further, a discussion 'on funding responsibilities and fair share for the
�. mitigation r:nsts should he inciuripd In the FFIR.
2.. Last Paragraph in Page 2 (Boundary of the Traffic Study): Section III of the
Caltrans' Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies specifies the 2 ��
thresholds for determining the boundary of the traffic study of state facilit .
Please expand study area accordingly. y
U 3. Table 7C (Page 28): Pass - by Trips .of 34. 44 and 43 percents were assumed
for retail shop, quality restaurant and high- tumover restaurant respectively.
The report states the percentages are from ITE Handbook. ITE Handbook lists 24C
many different rates with significant variation in percentages. Please specify in
the report where and why rates are from.
4. Exhibit 7A TO Exhibit 7F: The right turn movement from WB Seal Beach to NB
PCH and the left: turn movement from SB PCH to EB Seal Beach are ignored
in the trip distribution. Instead, 5-12% is distributed to Balsa Avenue
(; between PCH. and Seal Beach Blvd. This segment of Balsa Avenue is a two
u lane minor street with no passing allowed and with three stops and the posted
speed limit is 25mph. Given that, Balsa Avenue cannot be a very attractive
choice over the route via PCH /Seal Beach intersection_ A brief field
�<1 observation as well as the comparison of the existing turning volumes indicated
as such. Please distrihute reasonable percentages of trips to the route via
PCH /Seal Beach Blvd.
5. Trip Assignment (Page 36): Trip generators in table 78 and distribution types
in exhibits 7A through 7F are not exactly matching. In order to clarify this, it is
rec••ommended to have a table similar to the following. Please show net trips
only.
L
U
L
'Distribution
Pattern
Planning ; Daily 2-
rea (PA) way
AM Peak
PM Peak
i In
Out
In
Out
Exhibit 7A
3
3
'
_
Exhibit 7B
2
3
Exhibit 7C
Exhibit 7D
Exhibit IE
,
Exhibit 7F
6. 'Page 8 -23 (ICU Calculation at Seal Beach /S13 405 ramp): For customary
traffic engineering practice, lanes nf 1.5 and 0.5 should be used for westbound
W
L , 14 -201
Date: February 18, 2003
Page 3 of 5
left -tum and westbound thru movements respectively.
accordingly.
1
r
Please 're vise 1 24F 0
7. Storage Capacity at Turning Pockets: Added traffic may cause overflow 3t the
turning pockets of intersections. Adversely impacted pockets should be 24G
identified and mitigated.
8. Second Paragraph in Page 70: Please indicate the schedule of the Seal Beach o
Blvd Over crossing Project in relation to the progressive development of the 24H
proposed Boeing Speck Plan. (�
Transportation Planning /Forecasting U
9. Traffic counts on 1- 405/SR -22 are not provided in the Exhibit o of Section 15.2.
This value is required analyzing project impacts on the main lines of 1- 241
405/SR -22. (See number 4 below)
10. In Table 5.34 of the DEIR, the Year 2002 Existing Trafflc V/C Ratlo ai location
K is incorrect. It shows 1.067 instead of 1.118.
11. Even though the conclusion of the ICU calculation yields satisfactory results at
most intersections as mentioned in the DEIR. some trip movements at PCH
and 1-405 ramps are significantly impacted by the additional projected trips.
Following examples depict adverse project impacts on the State facilities in the
Year 2006:
a. At 1-405 southbound on -ramp at Seal Beach Blvd., the project adds 185
trips (601 -416) during the PM Peak Hour.
b. At 1-405 northbni,nd nn -ramp at Seal RPa�.h Rlvd., the projPrt adds 192
trips (892 -700) during the PM Peak Hour.
C. At 1-405 northbound off -ramp at Seal Beach Blvd., the project adds 222
trips (528- 306).during the AM Peak Hour.
d. At PCH and Seal Beach Blvd. the project adds 126 trips (708 -582) to
the southbound during the PM Peak Hour.
e. At PCH and Loynes Drive, PCH main line carries 130 additional trips
(1444 - 1311) during the PM Peale Hour.
KZ N
i
12.The ICU method only addresses the intersection deficiencies, yet it does not
adequately deal with the specific trip movements (i.e. southbound Seal Beach 24L Blvd. to southbound PCH or northbound Seal Beach Blvd. to southbound 1-405
ramp). Please identify measures to mitigate these specific deficiencies and
submit to Caltrans for review and comment.
13. Refer to Exhibit 5.3 -13 of the DEIR - Year 2006 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
with Project Traffic, at the Seal Beach Blvd. and Old Ranch Parkway 24
intersection: specify huw the throughput trafrc volume 2041 is calculated.
�E3- is -e063 _„ 14 -202
'15�
f
t
1
0
u
U
G
Date: February its, 2003
Page 4 of 5
How does--this value relate to the volume 1758 at the Seal Beach Blvd.
southbound on- ramp ?"
Project Management
14. Section 5.3 -37 of the DER and Appendices Volume 1, rage 70, Traffic Impact
Study Report- Further discussion and clarification on the recommended
widening of the Seal Beach Boulevard over- crrissing on 1-405 is required. it is
true that the widening project is consistent with the City's 2006 Capital
Improvement Plan, however, according to the City's Draft Project Study Report
dated February 2003 that was recently submitted to Caltrans, on page 1
Alternative S. only two off -ramps are proposed for widening. The City has
chosen to postpone the bridge widening until construction time of the SR -22
HOV project, which is being planned for 2020 at the earliest. The FEIR should
discuss the impacts on the system due to such long time frame before the
bridge is widened. Should funding for the SR -22 HOV project be redirected or
other transportation modes be planned for, the City should be prepared to
substitute/have other alternative mitigation measures to balance development
and transportation within this location of the City. Please include a list of such
suggested miligdlion measures that may involve any state facilities.
Environmental
G
15.The DEIR does not contain a Cumulative Impact section. The Cumulative
impact of several projects is the change in the environment that results from
the incremental impact of the project when added together, related past,
present or reasonable foreseeable, probable future projects. Cumulative
impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant projects
taking place over a period of-time (CEQA Guidelines sec. 15355). Please
include a Cumulative Impact section in the Final EIR.
16. If any project work (e.g. storage of materials, street widening, ' emergency access
lJ improvements. sewer connections. sound walls. storm drain construction, street
connections, etc.) occurs in the vicinity of the Caltrans Right -of -Way, an
encroachment permit would be required and environmental concerns must be
adequately addressed. If tha environmental documentation for the project door not
meet Caltrans requirements, additional documentation (e.g. Native American Heritage
Commission consultation for cultural resources) would be required before approval of
u the encroachment permit. Please coordinate with Caltrans to meet requirements for
lJ any work within or near Caltrans Right -of -Way. (See Attachment: Environmental
Review Requirements for Encroachment Permits)
17.All work within the State Right of Way must conform to Caltrans Standard
Plans and Standard Specifications for* Water Pollution, Control, including
Production of a Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) or Storm Water
Ir - •
L . 14.203
Date: Febr•.iary 18, 2003
Page 5 of 5
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPPI as required. Any runoff draining into
Caltrans Right of Way from constniction operations, or from the resulting
project, cannot be approved by District 1 2 Environmental Planning: Measures
must be incorporated to contain all vehicle loads and avoid any tracking of
materials, which may fall or blow onto Caltrans roadways or facilities. (See
Attachment: Water Pollution Control Provisions)
M,
I tl
�17
18. Please refer to our previous District 12 letter dated April 2, 2002 comment
number 6 for Guide for the preparation of Traffic Impact Study Guide and 24
Suggested Traffic Mitigation Measures and District 7 letter dated January 24,
2003 (copies attached).
We would like the Opportunity to review and comment on the above
requested information prior to the certifrcatian of the FEIR. Caltrans ���
encroachment permit on . #his project is- contingent upon receipt of all the
necessary information and documentation.
If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call D
Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267.
LJ
Sincerely, (�
U
�J
�r
Robert F. Joseph, Chief
IGR/Community Planning Branch
C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research
Ron Helgeson, HO IGR/Community Planning
Saied Hashemi, Traffic Operations
Charlie Lamvood, Transportation Planning
Leslie Mandersceld, Environmental Planning
Vinh Pham, Project Management
u
f]
14 -204 0
U
<`1
LJ
i
lJ
�.1
U
,
LJ
U '
U
i
L
r+
L
ATTACHMENT
CALTRANS DISTRICT 12
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROVISIONS
Any ru noff draimrig into Caltrans. Right of Way must fully conform to the cu discharge
,oquircmcnts of the Regional Vvatcr Quality CwALAVi Bean! (RWQCB) to avoid impacting water
quality. Permittce shall fully conform to the requirements of the Caltrans Statewide ;National Pollutant
1� :s�harEs'Elim ?nation System (?-IDES) Storm Water Permit, Order 'No. 99.06-DWQ, NPDES No.
CAS000003, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWtCE) on July 15, 1999, in
addition to the BMPs specified in the Caltrans Storm Water Management Pi:%n (SWMP), ' When
applicable, the Permittee grill also conform to the requirements of the General NPDES Permit for
Construction Activities, Order No. 99 -08 -DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, and -any subsequent
General kermtt to etli= at the time of issuance of this Encroachment Permit. These permits regulate
storm water and non -storm water discharges associated with year -round construction activities.
Please note that project activities should pay extra attention to storm water pollution control curing the
"Rainy Season" (October 1" May 1 "). and follow the Water Pollution Control DIv1173 to minimize
impact to receiving waters. 'Measures must be incorporated to contain all vehicle loads and avoid any
tracking of materials, which may fall or blow onto Caltrans Right of Way.
For all projects resulting in 2 hectares (5 acres) or more of soil disturbance or othomise subject to the
NPDES program, the Contractor will develop, implement, and .maintain a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) conforming to the requirements of the Caltrans Specification Scction 7-
I.01G "Water Pollution Control ", Caltrans Statewide :Nkli1;S -Permit, the General NPDES Permit for
Cortstructi.on Activities, and the Caltrans Storm Water.Quality Handbooks "Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Pollution Control Program (WPC ?) Pr e paratloa Matntdl ", qua
"Construction. Site Best Management Practices (B.MPs) Manual" effective November 2000, and
subsequent. revisions. In addition, the ,SWPPP rn»sr. ennfnrm to tbr. rMillremcmts of the SWRCB
Resolution No. 2001 -046, the Sampling and Analytical Procedures (SAP) Plan.
For all projects resulting in less than 2 hectares (5 acres) of soil disturbance or not otherwisc stibjeet to
the requirements of the NPDES program, the Contractor will develop, implement, 'and maintain a
Water Pollution Control Program (WkCli) conforming to the requirement; of Caltrans Specifications
Section 7 -1 -.010, "'dater Pollution Control", and foe Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks
"Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan . (SWPPP) and Water Pollution Coutrol Provain (
Preparation Manual ", at:d "Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Martial" efr".ective
Nlnvcmhcr 7.000, and subsequent revisions.
Copies of the Permits and the Construction Contractor's Guide and Specifications of the Caitrans
Storm Water Quality Hanif000k may be obtained from the Department or Transportation, Material
OP-Moons Branch, Publication Distribution Unit, 1900 Royal Oalcs Drive Sacramento, California
Y)2 J LJ, Te1ep17one: (916) 445 -3520. Copies of the Pet and Handbook are also available for review
at Caltrans District 12, 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine. California 92612. Telephone: (949)
724 -2260. Electronic topics ;;wi be fuund at iltp;iww•w.dot ca. tov ing /consti
Roviscd 1 W2 =ror
El . -
c:G -1 P -?aG11 1 _S: :20
14 -205
F. @S
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
Any Parts, outside of Caltrans, that does work on a State Highway or Inters;a:e Kg,ilway in California ,needs to apply for an
9nc; oachment permit. To acquire any encrcachman; permit e:)y1tut,rttentai concerns trust be addressed. t_;tvtronmental
review of encroachmen permit applications may take 3 weeks. if the application is complete or longer if the application is
inccmplets. For soii disturbing activities (e.g. ;eotechnicai borings, gradinG, usaGe of unpaved roads from Which dirt anti nthar
materials may be tracrced onto the S• :ateAnterstate highways, etc.), corrpliance with Water Quality and Cultural Resources
Provisions are emphasized. Surveys may/ may not be soil- disturbing activities, depending an 11;e site ar survey method.
A complete application for environmental review includes the following:
1. If an environmental document (CE. EIRIEIS, ND, e;c.) has been completed for the project, copy of the final, approved
document must be submlaed with the application.
2. Water Quality Provisions All work within the State Right of Way'must conform to Caltrans Standard Plans and Standard
Specifications for Water Pollution, Control including production of a Water Pollution Control Program or Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan as required. I he applicant must provide Encroachments with- a copy of the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPOP) including Best Management practices (BIVPs) tic be implemented for construction activities
imoac:ing Caltrans Ripht of Way. prepared for this avrequired by the NPI)FS Atatowide Storm Water Pormit for General
Construclion Activities. If no SWPPP has been prepared for this project, then the applicant must folJovr the requirements
describes in ;he attached Water Pollution Control Provisions (please see attachment).
3. Cultural Resources Provisions: If not included In the environmental document. before permit approval'and project
construction, the encroachment Perimit applicant must complete a Cultural Rebourro Atcv..CcmP.nt pum tiant to Caltrans
Environmental Handbook. Volume 2, Appendix 5-1, and Exhibit 1, as amended. The Cultural Resources Assessment
ascertains the presence or absence of cultural resources within a one -rnile radius of the project area and evaluates the
impact to any hiowricol /cultures rasource. Cultural Resources include'thosis rezuumles significani In American history,
architecture, archaeology, and culhire, including Native American Resources" ( Caltrans Environmental Handbook Volume
2, Chaptert, as amended)]. The Cultural Resource Assessment must include.
a) a clear project description and map indicating project work, staging areas, site access, etc.;
b) a Record Search conductted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at
C3liferni3 State Univer-city, Fullcrion. For information cell (714) 278 -5395:
C) proof of Native Amercan consultation. Consultation involves contacting the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), requesting a search of their Barred Lands File, and following the recommendations
provided by the NAHC. For information call (916) 652 -4082:
d) documentation of any historic properties (e.g. prehistoric and historic sites, buildings. structures, objects, or
districts listed or., eligible fnr, nr TintPntiAly Pligihlp fnr iictinr nn the National Register of Historic Places)
within a one mile radius of the project area;
e) and a survey by qualified archaeologist for all areas that have not been previously researched.
The SCCIC and NAHC have an approximate turn around time of 2 weeks.
4. Biological Resources Provisions:, Work conducted within Caltrans Right of Way should have the appropriate plant and
wildlife surveys completed by a qualified biologist. If the information is not included it . the environmental document.
Envirormental r'lanning requests that the applicant submit a copy of the biological study, survey, of taci*m-cdl t"rt by a .
euaiified biologist that provides details or tie existing vegetation and wildlife at the project site and any vegetation that is to
be removed during project activities. Official lists ar:d databases should also be consulted for sensitive species such as the
California Natural Diversity Catabase and lists provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department
of =ish and Gan°e. Any impacts that affect waterways and drainages and/or open space during construction. or that occur
indirectly ac a result of the project mutt be eoordinetcd with the appropriate resource agencies. As guidance, we ask that
the applicant ine:ude:
a) clear description of erojec: activities anc the project site
b) completed environmental significance checklist (riot just yes and no answers, but a description should be given as to
the reason for the response).
c) Staplrrn/srnrP.pA a nnted r+n oroject plans.
d) proposed time of year for worts and duration of activities (with information avaitab.e),'
�• e) any proposed mitigation (if applicable to the project),
f) and a record of any prier rcbvAurur dyet,uy L'uriUsvu1iUCr1Ge (if applicrabte to the project).
14 -206
c =E -18- 220.:, 1 5:21?
L
r 1 CTATE OF CALIFORNIA•-- BUSiNESS AND — PANSPORTATION AGENCy GRAY DAVIS, Covemor
I
DEPARTMENT OF TP.ANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 12 -•�''�
't Y`9ri
r ; 3337 Michelson. Drive Suite 380
�j Irvino, CA- 02612- $894
FAX AND MAIL
r ' April 2. 2nn7
U
Mr. Mac Cummins File: IGR/CEQA
City of Seal Beach SCH #: 2002031015
LJ 2'11 — 8 Street Log #: e388
Seal Seach, CA 90740 SR #: 40S & PCH
Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for Doeing Headquarters Site (formerly known as the Pac:ifit:
Gateway Project)
L
Dear Mr. Cummins:
Thank you for the onporbinity :n raviPw anti rnmmPnr nr. the NOP for the Boeing Headquarters Si'.e
EIR prepared March 2. 2002.'The proposed project will be located at the Boeing space and
Communications Headquarters complex at 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard near Westminster Avenue in
r , the cityof Seal Beach. According :o the NOP, this El viigiiidled Burn a Mitigated Negative
j Declaration (MND) prepared for a project entitled the Pacific Gateway Project located at tine same
uuu Boeing Headquarters site. The MNO was prepared and circulated by the city of Seal Beach in March
2001. Comments were raised from resource agencies whether or not three drainage areas located on
the project site characterized a wetland. Subsequently, Boeing conducted site - specific biological and
rPoiilatnry analy.%we of Iha drainaoP arpac. Additinnal analysRC rRlstin0 to Atiarnative Ignrl usPlt wprP
also performed. As a result, the Pacific Gateway Project MND was revised in to this CEIR to better
respond to o;erat;onal factors and other constraints identified iri subsequent analyses.
Caltrans Dlstrlct 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has the following comments:
1. The Traffic Forecasting 3ranch agrees that a full traffic analysis should be performed to analyze
r I the total impact after development on the roadway system, specifically or: Pacific Coast Highway
U (SR - 1). 1 - 405 and SR -22;
( I 2. The Traffic Operations Branch states that be traffic impact study should include the State highway
U facilitiea that will be adversely impacted by the traffic to be generated by the proposed
development; 'State highway facilities" Includes highways and intersections, freeway ramps and
intersections, ald -- reeway rnairnjines;
3. Please include 25 -year traffic projections when analyzing :ang- and short -term effects;
4. Please discuss cumulative impacts of all nearby developments that will be affected by the project;
S. Mitigation reasures should assure that troffc /circulotion is mointnincd of an adcquoto Ioval of
service, or any adverse impacts are reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation measures
C j 14 -207
FE S- 15:2!
P . ZIP_
n
should include the funding resporsibilities, sources, and schedules for implcmentation (e.g. be a
clear as to what work is to be done, who will do what, when it should occur and the source of funds
to accomplish me work). The ❑EIR should discuss developer financing of improvements to State
facilitiac that will become necessary as a consequeiwe or this proposed development. Finally, a
monitoring prcgram should be part of the CEIR;
6. We are enclosing two guidance documents: (1 j SuggestedTraffic Miligation Measures and (2)
Caltrans' Guide for the Prei3araffon of Traffic Impact Studies for your consideration. a
Please continue to keep us informed-of this project and other future developments that could
potsntiolly impact Iho trensportation raollties. M you have any questions or need to contact us, please a
do not hesitate to call Becky Shumway (949) 440 -4461.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Jose 9,hief
Advanced Planning Branch
Enclosures
cc: Ron Helgeson
Terry Roberts
Saied Hashemi
Charlie Larwood
1
1
i 7M7
1
r
,r.
PEES -18 -2203 :5 =2!
I
I
14 -208 a
P.09
I
'_1'eaC4
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Further, consistent with Caltrans requirements, existing and projected AM
G and PM peak hour operating conditions at the nine state - controlled study
intersections within the study area have been evaluated using the
Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM2000 for signalized intersections)
operations method of analysis and the results are summarized in Table
5.3 -14 on page 5.3 -50 of the DEIR.
i�
Li
With regards to cumulative impacts, Pages 5.3 -22 through 5.3 -27 of
Subsection 5.3, Traffic and Circulation, discusses the cumulative traffic
impacts associated with the proposed project as well as nearby
developments. Table 5.3 -6 on Page 5.3 -27 provides a trip generation
summary table for the related projects included in the traffic study. It is
further noted that pursuant to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the
Draft and Final EIR provide a comprehensive review of cumulative
impacts for each subject area of Subsection 5.0. The cumulative analysis
is predicated on the listing of cumulative projects contained in Section
4.0.
As indicated on Page 5.3 -12 of the Draft EIR, the City of Seal Beach has
established a transportation impact fee program for projects within the
City of Seal Beach on right -of -way controlled or proposed to be controlled
by the City of Seal Beach.
FINAL o APRIL 2003
14 -209
Comments and Responses
Response to Commentor No. 24
Robert Joseph, California Department of Transportation
Li
February 18, 2003
r
24A. Utilizing the LOS standards and traffic impact criteria established in the
Boeing Specific Plan Project Draft EIR, the proposed project's potential
impacts on the transportation system within the project study area were
L
evaluated and mitigation measures to offset the project's significant traffic
impacts were identified. Table 5.3 -8 on Page 5.336 provides a summary
of the near -term (Year 2006) analysis for the Boeing Specific Plan project
Li
and it identifies all impacted intersections. Table 5.3 -11 on Page 5.3 -42
provides a summary of the near -term (Year 2006) daily analysis for the
proposed project. Pages 5.3-43 through 5.346 discuss all planned
improvements, recommended improvements and project- specific
improvements for the intersections impacted by the Boeing Specific Plan
project.
((,
U�
Pages 5.3-46 and 5.3 -47 of the Draft EIR discuss the Boeing Specific
Plan projects fair share contribution for City of Long Beach improvements
(i
and City of Westminster improvements. Table 5.3 -12 on Page 5.3 -47
�J
provides a description of the proposed improvements and the project's
fair share contribution towards those improvements. Table 5.3 -13 on
r ;
Page 5.3 -48 provides the Boeing Specific Plan project's estimated traffic
U
impact fee for the City of Seal Beach. Please note that the total provided
in Table 5.3 -13 includes the project's fair -share contribution towards
r 1
improvements identified for the Seal Beach Boulevard and 1-405 Freeway
U Overcrossing.
Further, consistent with Caltrans requirements, existing and projected AM
G and PM peak hour operating conditions at the nine state - controlled study
intersections within the study area have been evaluated using the
Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM2000 for signalized intersections)
operations method of analysis and the results are summarized in Table
5.3 -14 on page 5.3 -50 of the DEIR.
i�
Li
With regards to cumulative impacts, Pages 5.3 -22 through 5.3 -27 of
Subsection 5.3, Traffic and Circulation, discusses the cumulative traffic
impacts associated with the proposed project as well as nearby
developments. Table 5.3 -6 on Page 5.3 -27 provides a trip generation
summary table for the related projects included in the traffic study. It is
further noted that pursuant to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the
Draft and Final EIR provide a comprehensive review of cumulative
impacts for each subject area of Subsection 5.0. The cumulative analysis
is predicated on the listing of cumulative projects contained in Section
4.0.
As indicated on Page 5.3 -12 of the Draft EIR, the City of Seal Beach has
established a transportation impact fee program for projects within the
City of Seal Beach on right -of -way controlled or proposed to be controlled
by the City of Seal Beach.
FINAL o APRIL 2003
14 -209
Comments and Responses
Ci of acA
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Refer to Response to Commentor Nos. 1 C and 4A.
24B. Consistent with the City of Seal Beach requirement, the scope of work
and primary boundary for the Boeing Specific Plan traffic impact study
was established based on coordination with City staff and through
application of the City's ° 1% measurable impact criteria ", which is defined
as a project - related increase of one percent (1 %) or more in the existing
capacity of the potential study intersection.
The nine (9) state route intersections within the project study area that are
located along SR -1 (Pacific Coast Highway), SR -22 (Garden Grove
Freeway) and 1 -405 (San Diego Freeway) were evaluated in accordance
with the criteria specified in Section II of the recently published Caltrans
Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, [June, 2001]. Table
5.3 -14 on page 5.3 -50 of the DEIR summarizes the results of the peak
hour capacity analysis based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000
(HCM2000 for signalized intersections) operations method of analysis.
No additional study intersections on Pacific Coast Highway located north
of Loynes Drive (intersection 21) or south of Seal Beach Boulevard
(intersection 6) were evaluated in the DEIR since the proposed Boeing
Specific Plan project did not have a significant traffic impact at these two
state route intersections when compared to LOS standards and traffic
impact criteria established in the Draft EIR. The same is true for the state
route intersections located on Studebaker Road, north of the SR -22 EB
and WB Ramps (intersections 3 & 4) at the 1-405 Freeway.
Since the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project significantly impacted the
intersection of Bolsa Chica Road at Westminster Avenue, an expansion to
the study area to include three additional state route intersections was
completed.
A near -term (Year 2006) analysis was conducted at the intersections of
Bolsa Chica Road/Valley View Boulevard at Garden Grove Boulevard,
Valley View Boulevard at SR-22 Westbound Ramps, and SR-22 Eastbound
Ramps /1-405 Northbound off -ramp at Garden Grove Boulevard in
accordance with the criteria specified in Section II of the recently published
Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studie$ [June, 2001].
The significance of the potential impacts of the project at these three
additional state route intersections was then evaluated using the LOS
standards and traffic impact criteria established in the Draft EIR.
Review of the table below shows that, based on the HCM method of
analysis, the intersections of Bolsa Chica Road/Valley View Boulevard at
Garden Grove Boulevard and Valley View Boulevard at SR-22 Westbound
Ramps currently operate at LOS D or better during the AM peak commute
hour and PM peak commute hour. Upon completion and occupancy of the
proposed project in the Year 2006, these two -study intersections are
forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable level of service.
1
'I
U
0
0
J
0
L
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -210 Comments and Responses
0
L.
r
L-k
LJ
u
Li
G
I
.L�
F1
Li
I�
Li
El
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
The intersection of SR-22 Eastbound Ramps /1-405 Northbound off -ramp at
Garden Grove Boulevard currently operates at LOS D and LOS E during the
AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Upon completion and occupancy of
the proposed project in the Year 2006, no change in operating conditions is
forecast at this study intersection.
Hence, it is concluded that the Boeing Specific Plan project would not have
a significant impact at these three additional state route intersections when
compared to the City of Seal Beach level of service standards and traffic
impact criteria established in the Draft EIR.
>•s .
s .
r
a.
SRS ,.> ;. ..• ,• :.
Year. 2006:.:
: ,
z
:,,•..
Year 2006 .
• '
`
Year.2002'.Ezishhg
Backgro, ri ;
Plus Project ,:;
'
Project Only
A;
Time':
Traffic:CondiNons
,raffic
=:`Conditions" °
.Traffic Conditions'
"Significant .
Key Intersections.
gy m. ,
Time.
Conditions'
',y. Conditions'
Conditi ons .
. Im act_
P
= "Delays;
LOS
�Deiay
LOS`•E
:Delay'
LQS`
"Yes/No
..=
";
3
(sectveh) `
➢ Bolsa Chica Road /Valley
t(sectveh)
0.778
C
; : M
D
➢ Bolsa Chica Road /Valley
AM
20.5
C
22.4
C
22.6
C
No
View Boulevard at Garden
PM
29.0
C
38.4
D
40.9
D
No
Grove Boulevard
➢ Valley View Boulevard at
AM
0.742
➢ Valley View Boulevard at
AM
15.4
B
16.1
B
16.5
B
No
SR -22 WB Rams
PM
15.2
B
16.5
B
16.7
B
No
➢ SR -22 EB Ramps / 1-405 NB AM 46.7 D 53.9 D 54.5 D No
Off -Ramp at Garden Grove PM 59.3 E 74.8 E 74.8 E Noy
Boulevard
Project ICU increment at this study intersection is less than 0.010. Hence, the project does not have a significant traffic impact when evaluated
using the traffic impact criteria established in the Draft EIR.
Further, based on the ICU method of analysis, the City of Seal Beach level
of service standards and ,traffic impact criteria established in the Draft EIR, it
is concluded that the Boeing Specific Plan project would not have a
significant impact at these three additional state route intersections.
a. „v s ;. • . . , i,h:,.,
vr,
r
ay. •..
° '2002
Yea
:. 3ro tpAtq%:• =•. •.•
” *:Year 2006'
;:; a• w•• r y .,.
. 'Year 200fi
.ex phaa I
Yea 2fOnly
'°•Existing 4
"Background°
_ Plus Project..._:'.
•:Projec
Traffic: k '
"°
':'Traffic, ,.',
-
-
s5ignificaht.lmpact
: v :
. '•. �••
•.Y^t.s�a3: >
gy m. ,
Time.
Conditions'
',y. Conditions'
Conditi ons .
..
Kgy Intersections`
Period:':
' ' "ICU, LOS"
ICU' - LOSS:
' :.ICU LOS
` ,gICU YeslNo
..=
";
3
➢ Bolsa Chica Road /Valley
AM
0.778
C
0.836
D
0.850
D
.014
No
View Boulevard at Garden
PM
0.906
E
0.975
E
0.979
E
.004
No
Grove Boulevard
➢ Valley View Boulevard at
AM
0.742
C
0.771
C
0.785
C
.014
No
SR -22 WB Ramps
PM
0.805
D
0.837
D
0.841
D
.004
No
➢ SR -22 EB Ramps / 1 -405 NB
AM
0.667
B
0.716
C
0.719
C
.003
No
Off -Ramp at Garden Grove
PM
0.774
C
0.833
D
0.833
D
.000
No
Boulevard
'Inc = Incremental ICU
24C. The average pass -by trip percentages for the PM peak hour were taken
from Chapter 5 of the Trip Generation Handbook, published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), October 1998. The average
pass -by percentages of 34% for retail shops, 44% for quality restaurants
FINAL ® APRIL 2003
14 -211
Comments and Responses
of �ws�
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
and 43% for high- turnover restaurants can be found on Pages 42, 47 and
48 of the Trip Generation Handbook, respectively.
24D. The right -turn movement from westbound Seal Beach Boulevard to
northbound Pacific Coast Highway, and the left -turn movement from
southbound Pacific Coast Highway eastbound Seal Beach Boulevard
were considered in the development of the distribution patterns for the
Boeing Specific Plan project. The utilization of Bolsa Avenue, between
Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard, by Boeing Specific
Plan project traffic is an indication of the project's potential impact on this
two -lane street, which is now used as a "cut- through" route, and
congestion on Pacific Coast Highway. Thus, the project traffic distribution
patterns documented in the traffic study are concluded to be accurate and
valid.
In response to Caltrans concerns, the project's traffic analysis consultant
has prepared an ICU /LOS sensitivity analysis for the study intersections
of Pacific Coast Highway /Main Street - Bolsa Avenue, Pacific Coast
Highway /Seal Beach Boulevard, and Bolsa Avenue /Seal Beach
Boulevard re- distributing the entire 5 -12% of project traffic that is
projected to use Bolsa Avenue as a "bypass" to the Seal Beach
Boulevard /Pacific Coast Highway route.
The redistribution of project traffic using Bolsa Avenue between Pacific
Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard, as identified in Exhibits 7A,
7B, 7C, 7D, 7E and 7F of Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study, to the Pacific
Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard intersection does not change
the findings of the Draft EIR. As identified in the table below, the Boeing
Specific Plan project would not have a significant impact at the key study
intersections of Pacific Coast Highway /Main Street - Bolsa Avenue, Pacific
Coast Highway /Seal Beach Boulevard, and Bolsa Avenue /Seal Beach
Boulevard. These three study intersections are forecast to operate at
level of service D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the
Boeing Specific Plan project.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -212 Comments and Responses
Year'.2002;.•
= Year:2U06
Yea2U06
'a
'
3; `� '`k�`
Year 2006 Project
-'
tscistin
Back round
p
Only
.:
Traffic
Conditions
Traffic.P,:.
Conditions'
Traffic
Conditions
.
Significant Impact-
me
Key Intersections .4
t Period ,
ICU
, ;ICU
LOS.:
ICU ;
-- LOS
`,t lnc *:° �'
YIN
,
➢ Pacific Coast Highway at
AM
0.624
B
0.682
B
0.685
B
0.003
N
Main Street/Bolsa Avenue
PM
0.724
C
0.796
C
0.801
C
0.005
N
➢ Pacific Coast Highway at Seal
AM
0.771
C
0.845
D
0.882
D
0.037
N
Beach Boulevard
PM
0.769
C
0.836
D
0.873
D
0.037
N
➢ Seal Beach Boulevard at Bolsa
AM
0.340
A
0.371
A
0.404
A
0.033
N
Avenue/Anchor Way
PM
0.394
A
0.438
A
0.476
A
0.038
N
' Inc = Incremental ICU
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -212 Comments and Responses
L
L
t
I`
V
I
U
r�
V
L
r
L
L
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJEC EIR
24E. As requested, the following table has been provided to clarify which
project trips correspond to the trip distribution patterns presented in
Exhibits 7A, 76, 7C, 7D, 7E and 7F.
24F. The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) worksheet for the intersection of
Seal Beach Boulevard and the 1 -405 Southbound Ramp is consistent with
the City of Seal Beach methodology for the "coding" of shared left -thru
lanes for intersections with split - phased signal operation, like that d the
subject intersection. Thus, the traffic analysis does not need to be
revised.
Nevertheless, in response to Caltrans concerns, a sensitivity analysis has
been prepared for the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405
Southbound Ramps using lanes of 1.5 and 0.5 for the westbound left -turn
and through movements, respectively. As shown below, the results of
this minor "lane assignment" revision does not change the findings of the
Draft EIR (refer to summary of level of service calculations provided in
Table 5.3 -8, Page 5.3 -36 of the Draft EIR for comparison).
• ' •Planning;,•.; "
Year 2002 > <> -'
AM
Peak Hour ° •' • •
PM Peak Hour
Distribution Pattern °='
.'
,Area (PA)
2 -Way _
' '
Out:
;:;Total
' = .
Out
Total
s
<:hTraffie
Traffica;�
-Traffic • ;�
ti
Year;ZU06with;::.
" : <
;:Time
:Conditions
- > ,"' Conditions
PA 2
872
46
-1
45
-7
64
57
Exhibit 7A
PA 3
2,110
266
36
302
41
300
341
,t':YIN'=
ICU
PA 2
308
80
11
91
11
83
94
Exhibit 7B
PA 3
2,586
323
44
367
49
364
413
Exhibit 7C
PA 3
354
44
6
50
7
50
57
Exhibit 7D
` ICU = Incremental ICU
870
41
29
70
44
30
74
Business Hotel
Exhibit 7E
3
83
64
147
115
94
209
Retail / taurant
Exhibit 7F
PA 1
2,720
309
42
351
44
320
364
Total
13,810
1,192
231
1,423
304
1,305
1,609
24F. The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) worksheet for the intersection of
Seal Beach Boulevard and the 1 -405 Southbound Ramp is consistent with
the City of Seal Beach methodology for the "coding" of shared left -thru
lanes for intersections with split - phased signal operation, like that d the
subject intersection. Thus, the traffic analysis does not need to be
revised.
Nevertheless, in response to Caltrans concerns, a sensitivity analysis has
been prepared for the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405
Southbound Ramps using lanes of 1.5 and 0.5 for the westbound left -turn
and through movements, respectively. As shown below, the results of
this minor "lane assignment" revision does not change the findings of the
Draft EIR (refer to summary of level of service calculations provided in
Table 5.3 -8, Page 5.3 -36 of the Draft EIR for comparison).
24G. The City of Seal Beach has established a Traffic Fee Program to ensure
that intersection and roadway segment improvements within the right -of
way controlled or proposed to be controlled by the City of Seal Beach are
funded as development occurs within the right -of -way controlled or
proposed to be controlled by the City. With the exception of
improvements along the project frontage along Seal Beach Boulevard
and Westminster Avenue, the proposed project is not directly responsible
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
14 -213
Comments and Responses
Year 2002 > <> -'
"' '.Year 2006
Year 2006 ••
Yeas 2006
F:
;.te
Existing:
Background;
.k..
PlusiProject
8,
..Project,.._
>;
• x. " ' '
s
<:hTraffie
Traffica;�
-Traffic • ;�
ti
Year;ZU06with;::.
" : <
;:Time
:Conditions
- > ,"' Conditions
_�- Conditions;•
_ �►
Impact;
Improvements
-
Key Intersections9;r?x'
Period
-'"
y =
; ICU,',
ICU .
; ;:LOS,
ICU
;LOS '
.Inc.'a
,t':YIN'=
ICU
LOS'.x;
➢ Seal Beach Blvd at
AM
0.931
E
1.031
F
1 °114
F
.083
Y
0.807
D
1 -405 SB Ramps
PM
1.012
F
1.145
F
1.239
F
.090
Y
0.859
D
` ICU = Incremental ICU
24G. The City of Seal Beach has established a Traffic Fee Program to ensure
that intersection and roadway segment improvements within the right -of
way controlled or proposed to be controlled by the City of Seal Beach are
funded as development occurs within the right -of -way controlled or
proposed to be controlled by the City. With the exception of
improvements along the project frontage along Seal Beach Boulevard
and Westminster Avenue, the proposed project is not directly responsible
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
14 -213
Comments and Responses
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
for constructing /implementing the recommended off -site improvements
identified on Pages 5.3 -43 and 5.3 -44 of the Draft EIR.
For impacts within the right -of -way controlled by agencies other than the
City of Seal Beach, any valid impact fees shall be paid by the project
applicant directly to those agencies.
As such, consideration of "design- related" issues, such as storage
capacity for left -turn and right -turn pockets at impacted intersections, are
not required by the City of Seal Beach in the preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies, which is a planning document. This issue, among others (i.e.,
widening impact, lane widths, utility relocation, transitions, tapers, signal
phasing, etc.), is considered during the design process (not planning
process) and preparation of construction related intersection improvement
plans.
Nevertheless, a queuing analysis has been prepared for the intersections
impacted by the Boeing Specific Plan project using Year 2006 projected
traffic volumes with project traffic. The recommended storage capacities
for left -turn and /or right -turn lanes at impacted intersections are provided
for informational purposes, and are summarized below.
24H. According to the City of Seal Beach, the roadway and intersection
improvements proposed for the Seal Beach Boulevard /1-405 Freeway
Overcrossing are not expected to be completed by the Year 2006. As
indicated on page 7 of Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study, the Boeing Specific
Plan is expected to be completed in four major phases with an anticipated
buildout by the Year 2006. The four major phases consists of the following:
o Phase I: Construction of a 628,000 SF business park in PA -3 by
the Year 2004
® Phase II: Construction of 55,000 SF hotel with 120 rooms and
32,500 SF of retail /restaurant space in PA-4 by Year 2005
® Phase III: Demolition of existing floor area in PA-2 and
construction of 345,000 SF of business park floor area by Year
2006
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -214 Comments and Responses
'
Minimum RequiredlRecommended Storage Capacity in feet"�
: >. : < :
,
Peak
; �. •, ;.; .:; y (No. of likum lanes)'
NBL'
NBR
SBt.'
` SBR •
;r EBL ''
EBR ''
': :WBL `'
WBR
KEY IMPACTED INTERSECTIONS:x:
.
➢ Pacific Coast Highway (N /S) at
AM
350'(2)
225'
—
—
—
—
—
—
2°dMestminster Avenue (E/W
PM
—
—
175'(2)
300'
200'(2)
400'
250'(2)
150'
➢ Studebaker Road (N /S) at
AM
—
—
200'(2)
400'(2)
600'(2)
—
—
575'
Westminster Avenue (E/W)
PM
—
—
—
—
_
_
_
—
➢ Seal Beach Boulevard (N /S) at
AM
—
—
250' (2)
475'
—
—
300'(2)
125'
Westminster Avenue EIW
PM
190'(2)
250'
—
—
375'(2)
—
—
—
➢ Bolsa Chica Road (N /S) at
AM
400' (2)
—
—
100'
—
—
—
—
Westminster Avenue E/W
PM
—
—
200' 2
—
375'
125'
125'
—
➢ Seal Beach Boulevard (N /S) at I-
AM
—
—
—
—
_
_
_
_
405 SB Ramps (E/W)
PM
100'
100'
300' 2
100'
100'
—
350'(2)
—
➢ Seal Beach Boulevard (N /S) at I-
AM
—
—
—
_
_
_
_
_
405 NB Rams ENV
PM
100' 2
—
400'
100'
175'
100'
350'
500'
24H. According to the City of Seal Beach, the roadway and intersection
improvements proposed for the Seal Beach Boulevard /1-405 Freeway
Overcrossing are not expected to be completed by the Year 2006. As
indicated on page 7 of Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study, the Boeing Specific
Plan is expected to be completed in four major phases with an anticipated
buildout by the Year 2006. The four major phases consists of the following:
o Phase I: Construction of a 628,000 SF business park in PA -3 by
the Year 2004
® Phase II: Construction of 55,000 SF hotel with 120 rooms and
32,500 SF of retail /restaurant space in PA-4 by Year 2005
® Phase III: Demolition of existing floor area in PA-2 and
construction of 345,000 SF of business park floor area by Year
2006
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -214 Comments and Responses
r:
I
V
G
r�
L'
C
tJ
F
L I
.1
V
r
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
♦ Phase IV: Construction of up to 345,000 SF of new light industrial
floor area in PA -1 by Year 2006
241. As requested, the information below provides a summary of existing
mainline peak hour traffic volumes on the 1-405 Freeway and SR -22
Freeway as documented in the 2001 Traffic Volumes on California State
Highways book published by Caltrans.
State Route 22
PM 2.65
west of Knott Avenue
14,600 vehicles per hour (two-way)
State Route 22
PM.3.59
west of Beach Blvd
10,600 vehicles per hour (two -way)
State Route 22
PM 4.81
west of Magnolia St
13,400 vehicles per hour (two -way)
1-405 Freeway
PM 19.16
west of Westminster
20,600 vehicles per hour (two-way)
1-405 Freeway
PM 20.75
west of Jct. 22 Fwy
20,800 vehicles per hour (two-way)
1-405 Freeway
PM 23.28
west of Seal Beach BI
30,000 vehicles per hour (two-way)
24J. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19T.
24K. The potential impact of the Boeing Specific Plan project at the Seal Beach
Boulevard /1-405 Freeway Overcrossing as well as all other study
intersections was evaluated using the LOS standards and traffic impact
criteria of the City of Seal Beach and documented in the Boeing Specific
Plan Project Draft EIR.
a. As shown below, based on the results of a peak hour roadway
segment analysis, the proposed Boeing Specific Plan is projected
to significantly impact the operating conditions of the 1-405
Southbound on -ramp based on LOS standards and impact criteria
documented in the Draft EIR. By the Year 2006, the 1-405
Southbound on -ramp is projected to operate at LOS F without or
with the proposed project traffic.
A potential Caltrans improvement to resigning the single
occupancy vehicle (SOV) lane to allow "2 cars per green" would
cure the peak commute hour's impact when the SOV lane is
metered. Implementation of this resigning would result in LOS D
or better conditions on the 1-405 Southbound on -ramp during the
peak commute hours.
b. As shown below, the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project would
not impact the operating conditions of the 1 -405 Northbound on-
ramp. This ramp is projected to continue to operate at an
acceptable service level (LOS D or better).
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -215
Comments and Responses
Year 2006 With Improvements
Peak
Option A'
Volume
Capacity
Vic
LOS
'Location
Hour.
1-405 Freeway at
AM
776
1,440
0.539
A
Southbound On -Ramp
PM
1,191
1,440
0.827
D
Notes:
I This change would modify the meter rate and re-sign the existing SOV lane to allow 2 vehicles per green.
b. As shown below, the proposed Boeing Specific Plan project would
not impact the operating conditions of the 1 -405 Northbound on-
ramp. This ramp is projected to continue to operate at an
acceptable service level (LOS D or better).
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -215
Comments and Responses
C# of s� - ReWA
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
c. The project's potential traffic impact to the 1-405 Northbound off-
ramp to Seal Beach Boulevard is reflected in the intersection level
of service calculations provided on Table 5.3 -8 on page 5.3 -36 of
the Draft EIR. The project's significant traffic impact at this
location is mitigated by the proposed City of Seal Beach
Improvement Project for the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing
at 1-405.
d. As indicated on Table 5.3 -8 on page 5.3 -36 and Table 5.3 -14 on
page 5.3 -50 of the Draft EIR, the intersection of Seal Beach
Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway is forecast to operate at
acceptable LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours with the
addition of Boeing Specific Plan project traffic. Thus, the Boeing
Specific Plan project would not have a significant traffic impact
and no mitigation measures are required of the Boeing Specific
Plan Project at this study intersection. Refer also to Response to
Commentor No. 24D.
e. As indicated on Table 5.3 -8 on Page 5.3 -36 and Table 5.3 -14 on
Page 5.3 -50 of the Draft EIR, the intersection of Loynes Drive and
Pacific Coast Highway is forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D
during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Boeing
Specific Plan project traffic. Thus, the Boeing Specific Plan
project would not have a significant traffic impact and no mitigation
measures are required of the Boeing Specific Plan Project at this
study intersection.
24L. As the lead agency, the City of Seal Beach established the criteria by
which the potential traffic impact of the Boeing Specific Plan was
analyzed. The City of Seal Beach utilizes the Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) as the primary method of analysis to determine
intersection deficiencies.
Given the above, and as shown in Column 4 of Table 5.3 -8 on Page 5.3-
36, the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway
is projected in the Year 2006 to operate at LOS D during the AM peak
hour and PM peak hour with the Boeing Specific Plan project. Hence, no
mitigation measures are required at this study intersection.
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -216 Comments and Responses
Peak
Year 2006 Background Traffic Volumes-..
Year 2006 Total Traffic Volumes with
Significant
Location
Project Traffic
Impact
Hour
Volume
Capacity
VIC
LOS
Volume
Capac'dy : VIC
I LOS:
VIC Inc.
YIN
1405 Freeway at
AM
751
900
0.834
D
776
900
0.862
D
0.028
N
Southbound On -Ram
PM
1 1,025
900
1.139
F
1 1,191
900
1.323
F
1 0.184
Y
1405 Freeway at
AM
855
1,700
0.503
A
889
1,700
0.523
A
0.020
N
Northbound On -Ram
PM
1,143
1,700
0.672
C
1,335
1,700
0.785
D
0.113
1 N
Notes:
The volume shown for the 1-405 Southbound On-Ramp is for the SOV lane only.
It was assumed that 10 percent
of the total volume would utilize the 110V lane.
c. The project's potential traffic impact to the 1-405 Northbound off-
ramp to Seal Beach Boulevard is reflected in the intersection level
of service calculations provided on Table 5.3 -8 on page 5.3 -36 of
the Draft EIR. The project's significant traffic impact at this
location is mitigated by the proposed City of Seal Beach
Improvement Project for the Seal Beach Boulevard overcrossing
at 1-405.
d. As indicated on Table 5.3 -8 on page 5.3 -36 and Table 5.3 -14 on
page 5.3 -50 of the Draft EIR, the intersection of Seal Beach
Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway is forecast to operate at
acceptable LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours with the
addition of Boeing Specific Plan project traffic. Thus, the Boeing
Specific Plan project would not have a significant traffic impact
and no mitigation measures are required of the Boeing Specific
Plan Project at this study intersection. Refer also to Response to
Commentor No. 24D.
e. As indicated on Table 5.3 -8 on Page 5.3 -36 and Table 5.3 -14 on
Page 5.3 -50 of the Draft EIR, the intersection of Loynes Drive and
Pacific Coast Highway is forecast to operate at acceptable LOS D
during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Boeing
Specific Plan project traffic. Thus, the Boeing Specific Plan
project would not have a significant traffic impact and no mitigation
measures are required of the Boeing Specific Plan Project at this
study intersection.
24L. As the lead agency, the City of Seal Beach established the criteria by
which the potential traffic impact of the Boeing Specific Plan was
analyzed. The City of Seal Beach utilizes the Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) as the primary method of analysis to determine
intersection deficiencies.
Given the above, and as shown in Column 4 of Table 5.3 -8 on Page 5.3-
36, the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway
is projected in the Year 2006 to operate at LOS D during the AM peak
hour and PM peak hour with the Boeing Specific Plan project. Hence, no
mitigation measures are required at this study intersection.
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -216 Comments and Responses
F
� y
'-Year 2006. �;
' e .Year 200E ' ,.
Year 2006
r�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
• ,Year:2002
' Background, ;
Page 5.3 -43 of the Draft EIR identifies the mitigation measures at the
Project
intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard /1 -405 Southbound Ramps
intersection. Refer also to Response to Commentor No. 5F.
iI
24M. The existing and projected PM peak hour traffic volumes between the
!
Seal Beach Boulevard /1-405 Southbound Ramp and the Seal Beach
Year 2006 with
Boulevard /1 -405 Northbound Ramp /Old Ranch Parkway have been
r
reviewed and adjusted to reflect a "balanced" flow per Caltrans request
r.� Conditions .•
(Note that this calculation does not include the recent City of Seal Beach
-Significant
proposed overcrossing approach improvements discussed in Response
4. >.
Key Intersections
to Commentor No. 5F) between these two study intersections. As shown
,H,: " "
below, the results of balancing the PM peak hour traffic volumes do not
,..
.:..,. : >
change the findings of the Draft EIR. Both study intersections would be
significantly impacted by the proposed project. However, the City of Seal
L)
Beach is proposing improvements at the Seal Beach Boulevard /1-405
Freeway Overcrossing. Also refer to Response to Commentor No. 5F.
L'
Li
f�
r
1J
s:
L
ti
p
Li
Please note that the PM peak hour levels of service summarized in the
table above represent the anticipated operating conditions assuming
completion of the phased improvements as proposed by the City of Seal
Beach and documented in the Project Study RepordProject Report for the
Route 1 -405 at Seal Beach Boulevard."
24N. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 5F.
240. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 24A regarding Cumulative "Traffic"
Impacts of related projects considered in Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study, for
the Boeing Specific Plan.
24P. Comment is noted.
24Q. Comment is noted.
24R. Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study, for the Boeing Specific Plan provides an
analysis of key study intersections and roadway segments along state
routes within the project study area, which was defined by the City of Seal
Beach.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -217 Comments and Responses
� y
'-Year 2006. �;
' e .Year 200E ' ,.
Year 2006
r '
• ,Year:2002
' Background, ;
s= <Plus Project ,
Project
Traffic
Tiaffle
Traffic
t m, Only sr
Year 2006 with
'"„ '
r• tTime
•'.'°:Conditions a,s ;
r.� Conditions .•
` Conditions
��
-Significant
Improvements
- Rs
4. >.
Key Intersections
.,
Period ,_�
,H,: " "
, ;�;`
,..
.:..,. : >
lin act '
ICU-
LOSS
'ICU
' LO S °;
`Inc'
YIN.
'ICU
`w LOS`
;' �'�''.•
x ;'� °•
�,
,LOSICU`
➢ Seal Beach Blvd at
PM
1.021
F
1.153
F
1.243
F
.090
Y
0,845
DE
IA05 SB Ramps
0.925
➢ Seal Beach Blvd at
PM
0.946
E
1.094
F
1.114
F
.020
Y
0.929
€D
1-405 NB Ramps
0.813
Inc = Incremental ICU
Please note that the PM peak hour levels of service summarized in the
table above represent the anticipated operating conditions assuming
completion of the phased improvements as proposed by the City of Seal
Beach and documented in the Project Study RepordProject Report for the
Route 1 -405 at Seal Beach Boulevard."
24N. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 5F.
240. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 24A regarding Cumulative "Traffic"
Impacts of related projects considered in Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study, for
the Boeing Specific Plan.
24P. Comment is noted.
24Q. Comment is noted.
24R. Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study, for the Boeing Specific Plan provides an
analysis of key study intersections and roadway segments along state
routes within the project study area, which was defined by the City of Seal
Beach.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -217 Comments and Responses
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Per the City of Seal Beach requirements, the potential traffic impacts of
the Boeing Specific Plan project were evaluated in relation to existing
conditions and future weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for
a near -term traffic setting upon completion and full occupancy the
proposed project in the Year 2006. A long -term (25 -year) analysis is not
required by the City of Seal Beach or by CEQA. Refer to Response to
Commentor Nos. 24A and 240.
24S. The "Responses to Comments" will be made available to Caltrans
pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines.
�,1
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -218 Comments and Responses U
I r
�d
F
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY
COMMENT NO. 25
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ;
South Coast Area Office -�
L200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach CA 90802 -4302 CfTY OF SEAL BEACH Februar 49, 2003
(562) 590 -5071 ry
Mr. Mac Cummins
� E3 2 0 2003
Development Services Dept. DEPARTMENT OF
City of Seal Beach
f � 211 Eighth Street DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Subject: COMMENTS — BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
Site: 2201 Seal Beach Blvd. (Boeing Space & Comm. Div. HQ Property)
Seal Beach, Orange County
SCH# 2002031015
I L)
Dear Mr. Cummins:
Commission staff received the subject Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) which requests
submittal of comments by February 19, 2003. Commission staff understand the project being
evaluated is the subdivision of the 107 acre Boeing and Space Communications Headquarters
Property including maintaining approximately 1,150,000 square feet of existing building area of
which approximately 345,000 square feet would be re -used and /or demolished and re- constructed,
plus an additional 1,060,500 square feet of uses. In total, the 2,210,500 square feet would be
comprised of light industrial (1,150,000 square feet), 973,000 square feet of business park uses,
55,000 square feet of hotel uses, and 32,500 square feet of commercial, retail, and /or restaurant
uses. In addition, roads, utilities and water quality management infrastructure will be constructed
to support the new development.
r The proposed project is located within the coastal zone in the City of Seal Beach. The proposed
development will require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission.
The following comments address the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the Chapter
3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The comments contained herein are those of
Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as representing the opinion of the
Coastal Commission itself. As described below, the proposed project raises issues related to the
L r protection of wetland habitat and environmentally sensitive habitat areas, water quality, coastal
access and recreation, cultural resources, and visual resources.
j Biological Resources
a. Wetlands
F
Section 30233 of the Coastal Act regulates the dredging and /or fill of coastal waters and wetlands
LJ within the coastal zone. In addition, Sections 30231 and 30240 of the Coastal Act require the
protection of sensitive habitats, through the use of appropriate buffers, among other methods.
The DEIR states there are three man -made drainage ditches on the project site. According to the
DEIR, two of these drainage ditches (portions of Ditch A and all of Ditch B) exhibit wetland
r characteristics that would cause them to be deemed 'wetlands' under the Coastal Act. The DEIR
states that the third drainage ditch (Ditch C) would not be deemed a wetland under the Coastal Act
because the ditch lacks wetland hydrology or soil characteristics.
j A portion of Ditch A and all of Ditch B would not be filled by the proposed project. However, the
proposed project would modify the banks of these ditches to create terraces as well as incorporate
14 -219
KWU
0
I
Comments
Boeing Specific Plan EIR
1 �
SCH# 2002031015
U
Page 2 of 8
25D
the ditches into a proposed water quality management system. Under this scenario, the wetlands
would serve a dual purpose as habitat and as a water quality best management practice (BMP).
Typically, the Commission prefers separation of existing wetlands from water quality management
systems due to the added disturbance that such use introduces to the wetlands. For instance,
��
wetlands used as BMPs often must be periodically dredged to remove accumulated sediments. In
LJ
addition, storm water from developed areas flushing through the wetlands contains contaminants
25E
that can degrade the wetland habitat. Rather, the Commission prefers separation of water quality
BMPs from existing wetlands so that disturbances are isolated to the BMP and do not degrade the
existing wetland.
In this case, Commission staff recognize that the existing wetlands are present within man -made f�
drainage ditches. Thus, the presence of the wetlands is attributable to storm flows from developed I
areas, rather than due to some other more natural hydrologic regime. Nevertheless, there is no 25B
distinction made in the Coastal Act between wetlands created by natural factors and those created
by anthropogenic activity. Thus, there is no Chapter 3 policy basis to treat these two types of
wetlands differently.
The DEIR briefly explains that modification of the drainage ditches to serve a water quality function
would not directly impact the channel bed of the ditches. It is unclear if this statement pertains to
the development phase only, or to both the development and post - development (operational) 25C
phase of the project. The DEIR should clarify whether the drainage ditches would be subject to
any dredging or other maintenance throughout the life of the development. If the ditches would be
subject to any anticipated disturbances (e.g. those associated with maintenance), these
disturbances should be identified and impacts analyzed.
The DEIR indicates that there would be 25 foot wide buffers on each side of the drainage ditches.
The DEIR should clarify the meaning of 'buffer' in this case. Typically, the Commission has
required the establishment of 'no development/limited development' buffers adjacent to wetlands
and other sensitive habitats. In most cases, construction of structures and other high intensity use
in DEIR, it
25D
activities would be excluded from the buffer zone. Based on the description the
appears that significant grading to create the terraces would be occurring within the proposed 25
foot wide 'buffers'. Other unspecified work may also be occurring in the 'buffer'. The DEIR should
clarify the use of the term 'buffer', describe the activities that would occur or be allowed to occur in
1
the buffer, and analyze the impacts associated with those activities.
LJ
Also, the Commission has commonly required a minimum 100 foot wide buffer adjacent to
The DEIR the
25E
wetlands. In this case, the DEIR proposes 25 foot wide buffers. should analyze
buffering needs of the habitat on the site in the context of this proposed 25 foot wide buffer.
The DEIR states the proposed project would fill Ditch C. Since this ditch lacks wetland indicators,
the DEIR states that no wetland fill would occur. The Commission will need to review the wetland
determination at the time an application is made for a coastal development permit to verify there
25F
are no wetlands that may be impacted by the project. If wetlands impacts would occur, these
impacts would need to be analyzed for consistency with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. In
addition, an alternatives analysis would need to be developed.
b. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
The DEIR states that the project site contains two special status plant species, the southern
blite. These habitat, some wetland
25G
I
tarplant and the woolly sea - rare plants and their as well as
V
14.220 0
L.
I
Comments
Boeing Specific Plan EIR
SCH# 2002031015
Page 3 of 8
habitat areas, can be considered environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA). Section
30107.5 of the Coastal Act defines ESHAs as
...any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially
4 valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily
disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.
The DER states that about 385 southern tarplant individuals and about 12 woolly sea -blite
individuals, all located along the margins of Drainage C, would be impacted by the proposed
project. The DER states that the tarplant population isn't ESHA because the plant is tolerant of
disturbance and that there is a larger population of the plant on the Hellman site. In addition, the
j DER argues that the tarplant on the Boeing site isn't playing a "valuable role" in the local
ecosystem. The DER offers no specific analysis of whether woolly sea - blite is ESHA, but says
that this plant is common in the region (and presumably not ESHA).
r •.
The southern tarplant has been identified as sensitive and /or as ESHA by the Commission at other
sites within the coastal zone (e.g. Bolsa Chica in Orange County and Dos Pueblos in Santa
Barbara County). This suggests that the population at the Boeing site may also be found to be
► ESHA. Based on the information provided in the DER, Commission staff can neither object nor
concur with the determination regarding ESHA. However, it should be noted that the DER offers
little scientific basis for making a non -ESHA determination. For instance, the DER states that the
r southern tarplant is tolerant of disturbance, thus it isn't ESHA. However, there is no explanation
given as to whether the population of tarplant at the site would return once project impacts occur.
This seems unlikely, given that buildings and parking lots are proposed in the area presently
r , occupied by the tarplant. Furthermore, the DER states that the tarplant isn't ESHA because it
y i plays no valuable role in the local ecosystem. However, there is no explanation of the role that the
tarplant plays in the ecosystem and how it was found to have no valuable role within that system.
Additional analysis is required in order to properly determine whether the tarplant is ESHA.
lJ! Also, Commission staff are presently researching whether the Commission has previously
identified woolly sea -blite as ESHA. However, the comments above are also applicable to the
discussion regarding woolly sea- blite. The DER states that the woolly sea -blite isn't ESHA
r 1 ' because it is locally abundant. Plants that are locally abundant, but regionally or globally rare, can
�• still be considered rare. Thus, the woolly sea -blite can still qualify as ESHA based on rarity.
However, rarity isn't the only factor determining whether ESHA is present. The special nature or
role that the plant plays in the ecosystem and susceptibility to disturbance are also factors. A
complete analysis of the woolly sea -blite populations needs to be conducted that addresses all of
the factors that contribute to an ESHA determination.
r i Finally, the DER offers little specificity about the proposed mitigation for impacts to tarplant and
j woolly sea - blite and whether these mitigation measures are feasible. For instance, the DER
should explain exactly how and where the proposed mitigation would occur on the Hellman site.
The DER should explain whether property within the Hellman site would be acquired and /or
identify the arrangement by which Boeing would obtain permission to undertake mitigation on
property they don't own. Also, if the habitat at the site is found to be ESHA, it should be noted that
compensatory mitigation, such as transplantation, has been found by the California Supreme
Court to be inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. Avoidance of the impact, rather
j than compensatory mitigation, would be mandated in such an instance.
R
25G
25J
Li 14 -221
Comments
Boeing Specific Plan EIR
SCH# 2002031015
Page 4 of 8
Other Biology Issues
The DER notes that red - tailed hawks, turkey vulture and American kestrels were found circling the
site, perching and making kills. Nevertheless, the DER asserts that the project site represents
poor foraging habitat for raptors. While the habitat may be poor, it is not absent. Preservation and
enhancement of foraging area on the site may be an appropriate way to mitigate for the
elimination of significant areas of open space. Commission staff would expect to revisit this issue
at the time an application for a coastal development permit is made.
u
a
a
25K O
Also, the proposed project includes landscaping of common areas, road medians, setbacks, and
water quality enhancement areas. In order to assure that invasive exotic species are not spread
to any sensitive biological resource areas, Commission staff recommend that only plant species 25L
native to this region of California be utilized for landscaping purposes. Furthermore, as discussed
more fully below, landscaping should be utilized to screen new development and improve views of
existing development from public vantages, such as nearby Gum Grove Park.
Public Access and Recreation
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act contains policies that require protection and enhancement of public
access to coastal areas and encourages visitor serving and recreation oriented development.
Some of the relevant policies are as follows:
Act
f
Section 30210 of the Coastal states:
U
In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution,
maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall
be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect
public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.
25M 0
Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states:
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where
feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.
Section 30212.5 of the Coastal Act states:
Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking areas or facilities, shall
be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise,
of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.
Section 30222 of the Coastal Act states:
V
The use of private lands suitable for visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities designed
to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private
residential, general industrial, or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or
coastal- dependent industry.
1�
Section 30252 of the Coastal Act states:
The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to
( 1
the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing
�f
14 -222 a
r'
14 -223
Comments
Boeing Specific Plan EIR
SCH# 2002031015
Page 5 of 8
commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will
minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the
development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving
the development with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high
intensity uses such as high -rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreations
needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the
amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of
r
onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development.
5
Section 30222 of the Coastal Act places a priority on visitor serving commercial recreational
facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation over general commercial
development. The proposed project is primarily a "general commercial" development. However,
the proposed specific plan does include a five acre area (Planning Area 4) where visitor oriented
uses, such as a hotel, would be allowed. Nevertheless,'the proposed plan includes a provision
that would allow, 18 months from the City's adoption of the specific plan, business park land uses
within Planning Area 4. This 18 month period in which to secure interest in commercial and visitor
oriented uses within Planning Area 4 seems rather short. Commission staff would encourage the
City to extend this period and /or include provisions in the specific plan that would indefinitely give
priority to commercial and hotel uses in Planning Area 4.
J ,
Also, the traffic analysis prepared for the p roject states that there will be a significant unavoidable
r
impact upon traffic in the project area. These unavoidable impacts would occur at the Seal Beach
Boulevard bridge freeway overcrossing and at the Seal Beach Boulevard/Westminster Avenue
to through at
intersection. At the Seal Beach Boulevard Bridge the impact is anticipated continue
least 2006, or until the bridge is replaced in conjunction with planned improvements to the Garden
Grove Freeway (SR -22). Similarly, the impact at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and
Westminster Avenue may continue indefinitely, or until property can be acquired from the Navy to
2 ��
make necessary improvements. The DER states that these impacts are beyond the control of the
City and are unavoidable.
V
These anticipated traffic impacts may have an adverse impact on the public's ability to access the
coastline. Seal Beach Boulevard is a significant access way to Seal Beach and it's visitor serving
f
oriented amenities, including the beaches. There is no discussion of the potential impact on public
access in the DEIR. The EIR must analyze the impact that the proposed project would have on
the public's ability to access the coast in this area. Unavoidable traffic impacts that adversely
impact the ability of the public to access the coast may be considered inconsistent with the public
access policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
Commission staff disagree with the DEIR's statement that the traffic impacts are beyond the
r'
control of the City. The City could consider alternative land uses and intensities of development of
j
the project site that would result in lesser traffic impacts. Alternatives should be considered in the
EIR that reduce the intensity of development of the site to a level that would result in no impact or
less than significant adverse traffic impacts upon Seal Beach Boulevard. In addition, rather than
�
allowing development to occur in advance of provision of the traffic impact mitigation measures,
provisions could be inserted into the specific plan that link the use and allowable intensity of
development to the actual implementation of traffic mitigation improvements at the Seal Beach
Boulevard/Westminster Intersection and the Seal Beach Boulevard bridge. In this way, the City
could control traffic impacts associated with the project.
Finally, the Air Quality section of the DER states that the proposed project would require importing
building This
2 5P
100,000 cubic yards of soil to the site that would be used to create a level site.
14 -223
Comments
Boeing Specific Plan EIR
SCH# 2002031015
Page 6 of 8
grading would rely on 42 inbound and 42 outbound truck trips per day for a period of
approximately 260 days. There is no discussion in the DEIR of the traffic impact associated with
this operation. The traffic analysis should analyze the impact that this temporary impact would
have upon public access to the coast. In addition, this element of the project should be identified
in the project description. Alternatives that avoid the import of soil to the site should be
considered.
Water Quality
The DEIR discusses water quality in terms of CEQA requirements and Regional board
requirements. In addition to CEQA, Regional Board and other regulatory requirements, the
proposed project will undergo review based upon water quality provisions in the Coastal Act.
Sections 30230 and 30231 of the California Coastal Act provide the broad basis for protecting
coastal waters, habitats, and biodiversity from degradation of water quality associated with new
and redevelopment.
Sound water quality management utilizes a three - pronged approach: site design, source control,
and treatment control Best Management Practices. A successful program would first incorporate
site design measures to minimize impact to the hydrologic landscape and source control Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce dry weather flows and the generation and introduction of
pollutants into runoff. A few examples of site design practices include minimizing impervious
surfaces, using porous pavements or alternative pavers in parking areas, preserving native
vegetation and root systems, minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and reducing roadway or
parking lot length. Some examples of source control BMPs include planting native, drought
tolerant, non - invasive vegetation; minimizing pesticide and fertilizer use; using efficient irrigation
systems; and implementing parking lot and street sweeping programs, among other measures.
After site design and source control BMPs have been designed, treatment control BMPs -- typically
in a treatment train approach for an extensive development like the one proposed — should be
designed for the development. Treatment control BMPs should be designed to treat the specific
pollutants generated on each portion of the site. In addition, the proposed measures must be
sized and designed to mitigate water quality impacts generated by the development. As a goal,
the Commission has required post- construction structural BMPs (or suites of BMPs) should be
designed to treat, infiltrate or filter the amount of stormwater runoff produced by all storms up to
and including the 85th percentile, 24 -hour storm event for.volume -based BMPs, and /or the 85th
percentile, 1 -hour storm event, with an appropriate safety factor (i.e., 2 or greater), for flow -based
BMPs.
Based on Section 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission must ensure that
a development minimizes to the maximum extent feasible polluted runoff and its impact to coastal
waters. Even where there is existing development on a site, a redevelopment project needs to
demonstrate that it is minimizing to the maximum extent feasible the impact to coastal water
quality. Therefore, the development should incorporate, and the EIR should discuss, the site
design, source control, and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used
in association with the entire site, including the re- developed areas of the site and the hotel and
commercial development in Planning Area 4. Parking lots, landscaped areas, restaurants, loading
and unloading docks, dry weather flows, and trash and debris are common constituents in
commercial and hotel areas, and BMPs should be designed to address these constituents.
C!i'�
14 -224
U
Comments
Boeing Specific Plan EIR
SCH# 2002031015
Page 7of8
Finally, Commission staff suggest use of catch basin inserts throughout the development, use of
filtration systems near areas with especially high risk of pollutant generation (loading /unloading
docks, restaurants, parking lots, etc.), and the use of biofiltration, as is proposed by the project.
f , Cultural Resources
The DEIR states that there are cultural deposits within the project area and that the proposed
(r project would impact these cultural deposits under the various project alternatives. Section 30244
1, of the Coastal Act requires the implementation of reasonable mitigation measures to minimize or
avoid impacts upon cultural resources. The DEIR states that additional subsurface investigation is
required in order to determine whether the cultural deposits would be considered significant.
Proposed mitigation measures include implementation of a test phase and provisions for the
development of a research design document. Once testing and the research design is complete,
the mitigation measures require monitoring of the site during grading and implementation of
mitigation measures if additional significant resources are found.
Prior to approval of any development at the site a complete cultural resources test program should
be undertaken and, if significant cultural resources are found, a mitigation plan should be
I prepared. It is important that the test program and mitigation plan precede approval of
development plans in order that a full range of alternatives, including avoidance of important sites,
can be reasonably considered. The test program and any resultant mitigation plan should be peer
r reviewed by Native Americans with cultural ties to the area as well as other archeologists. The
U comments by these persons should be incorporated into the test program and mitigation plan.
Commission staff are concerned that the mitigation measures in the DEIR do not give serious
consideration to in situ preservation and avoidance of significant cultural sites, if found on the
property. Rather, the mitigation measures state that if in situ preservation is not to be used that
other measures such as capping, relocation of the resources and other measures would be
implemented. The process outlined in the DEIR seem to overwhelmingly favor data /artifact
recovery rather than avoidance /in situ preservation. No criteria or process is identified in the
mitigation measures for determining whether in situ preservation would occur or if other measures
would be implemented. Accordingly, the mitigation measures are inadequate.
t J Furthermore, the construction -phase mitigation measures give no consideration to in -situ
preservation. Rather, data /artifact recovery is the only mitigation measure outlined. Once the
testing is completed and mitigation plan is developed, detailed contingency measures should be in
place during the construction grading phase. Native American monitors should be present as well
as certified archeologists. Both parties should be empowered to halt grading or redirect work, as
appropriate, to permit sampling, identification, evaluation of the findings, and development of
{ additional mitigation measures, as necessary. Thresholds should be in place that would dictate
J whether construction -phase finds necessitate halting construction at the site and reconsideration
of the project design and mitigation measures. The construction phase contingency measures
should specify the procedures for developing construction -phase sampling, identification and
evaluation. A full range of mitigation measures should be considered, including avoidance /in situ
preservation as well as other alternatives.
U r
I�
25S
L 14 -225
Comments
Boeing Specific Plan EIR
SCH# 2002031015
Page 8 of 8
Visual Resources /Landform Alteration
Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states:
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a
resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to
protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of
natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and,
where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New
development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline
Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation
and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.
The proposed project would construct buildings upon land that is presently vacant. The site is
visible from nearby Gum Grove Park. In addition, views across the site from Westminster
Boulevard may presently offer views of Gum Grove Park and the Hellman lowlands (presently
planned for habitat restoration). The DEIR states the proposed project would have a less than
significant impact upon visual resources based on proposed site planning, architectural, and
landscape design guidelines. Commission staff would encourage the development of the project
in a manner that preserves vantages across the site to Gum Grove Park. In addition, development
should be sited and designed to restore and enhance the visual experience from Gum Grove Park
and other recreational areas that have views of the project site.
Also, the Air Quality section of the DEIR states that 100,000 cubic yards of soil will be imported to
the site. Presumably, other grading will also occur at the site. The importation of soil would
elevate the site and potentially increase the overall height of development at the site when viewing
the site from other public vantages, such as Gum Grove Park. This grading could be considered
landform alteration under the Coastal Act. The impact of importing soil to the site and grading
should be analyzed in the DEIR in terms of potential impacts upon the scenic and visual qualities
of coastal areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Commission staff request notification of any future activity associated with this project or related
projects. Please note, the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. More specific
comments may be appropriate as the project develops into final form.
:i rel
Karl Schwing
Coastal Program Analyst
Cc: State Clearinghouse
California Department of Fish and Game
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Native American Heritage Commission
4M
14 -226
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
. Response to Commentor No. 25
Karl Schwing, California Coastal Commission
February 19, 2003
25A. Comment is noted. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 25F regarding
buffers protecting potential wetlands.
f�
25B. The Project is consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act in that the
Project proposes full avoidance of impacts to the wetland areas
Drainage Ditches A and B would not be used for purposes of providing
r water quality treatment. The Project as currently designed would treat all
storm flows up to the 85` percentile requirement in a separate water
quality system before the water reaches the preserved and enhanced
Drainage Ditches and any associated wetland habitat. The Drainage
Ditches would continue to be used as soft - bottom channels to convey
storm flows into the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin (LARB) while providing
indirect benefits such as restored and enhanced wetland habitat and
j incidental water quality treatment. Currently, the Drainage Ditches are
periodically cleared for weed abatement, and sediment removal to
maintain flood control requirements. Maintenance of restored and
preserved wetland areas along the bottoms of Ditches A and B will
continue following construction, as these areas will continue to serve in
their current capacity as drainage conduits for the site. Proposed
maintenance requirements would result in much lesser impacts to the
tJ ditches due to the upstream water quality BMPs that will remove gross
pollutants, including sediments, debris and trash, from entering the
r j Ditches. Long -term maintenance would primarily be limited to occasional
hand clipping of vegetation. Should the Ditches ever require sediment
L .� FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -227 Comments and Responses
associated with Drainage Ditches and limited grading in connection with
wetland function restoration in Drainage Ditch A. As noted in Draft EIR
Section 5.6 -16, Drainage Ditch C does not exhibit the hydrogeomorphic
functions of wetlands in that it provides for no dynamic or long -term
storage of surface water and it exhibits minimal energy dissipation and no
moderation of subsurface flows. Similarly, it does not exhibit any of the
biogeochemical functions of a wetland. It is largely unvegetated, receives
i
no dry- season flows and only limited storm flows, and provides for very
limited nutrient cycling or carbon export due to the sparse character of the
vegetation. Finally, it fails to exhibit any of the habitat functions of
7
wetlands.
25C. The drainage ditches were initially created as a system to manage
(
drainage for the site. Their primary functional purpose was and is to
provide drainage for the site. Any wetland characteristics of Drainage
Ditches A and B would be enhanced under the Project with the
implementation of the proposed wetland restoration program, which is
expected to increase the wetland functions on the site by reducing
disturbance resulting from occasional maintenance of the ditches and
replacing the mostly non - native vegetation with native vegetation. These
f
features are proposed as components of the restoration program.
U
Drainage Ditches A and B would not be used for purposes of providing
r water quality treatment. The Project as currently designed would treat all
storm flows up to the 85` percentile requirement in a separate water
quality system before the water reaches the preserved and enhanced
Drainage Ditches and any associated wetland habitat. The Drainage
Ditches would continue to be used as soft - bottom channels to convey
storm flows into the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin (LARB) while providing
indirect benefits such as restored and enhanced wetland habitat and
j incidental water quality treatment. Currently, the Drainage Ditches are
periodically cleared for weed abatement, and sediment removal to
maintain flood control requirements. Maintenance of restored and
preserved wetland areas along the bottoms of Ditches A and B will
continue following construction, as these areas will continue to serve in
their current capacity as drainage conduits for the site. Proposed
maintenance requirements would result in much lesser impacts to the
tJ ditches due to the upstream water quality BMPs that will remove gross
pollutants, including sediments, debris and trash, from entering the
r j Ditches. Long -term maintenance would primarily be limited to occasional
hand clipping of vegetation. Should the Ditches ever require sediment
L .� FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -227 Comments and Responses
O Df <�___Rea,A
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
removal, the procedure would be coordinated with a Biologist and
revegetation of the areas would be required. Vegetated habitat would be
maintained and /or re- established along the bottom of these Ditches in
between periods of maintenance. In addition, using the Drainage Ditches
as part of a water quality management system would be consistent with
Coastal Act Section 30231, which requires that the biological productivity
and the quality of coastal wetlands be maintained and, where feasible,
restored.
25D. While Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act does not appear to distinguish
between natural and artificial wetlands, Appendix D of the Coastal
Commission's Statewide Interpretive Guidelines recognize a limited
exception for the purposes of identifying wetlands using the technical
criteria contained in the Interpretive Guidelines. According to this
exception, narrow, manmade nontidal drainage ditches excavated from
dry land are not considered wetlands under the Coastal Act. Thus, the
Coastal Commission does draw a distinction in some instances between
wetlands created by natural factors and those created artificially.
25E. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 25C. According to project
information, maintenance requirements would have significantly fewer
impacts than current practices, and there would be no dredging, during
either the construction or maintenance phases of the Project associated
with Ditch B. Any related maintenance activities requirements within the
floor of the Drainage Ditches A and B would be no worse than the current
maintenance practices, which include periodic clearing of the ditches for
weed abatement, and to maintain water flow. Maintenance would be
limited to those activities intended to ensure the success of the mitigation
planting, such as weed control, plant replacement, pruning and staking,
pest control, and trash removal.
The existing ditches were constructed for the sole purpose of providing
drainage of storm flows and nuisance water from the adjacent aerospace
facility. The areas adjacent to the ditches consist of barren fields that are
disked every few months and therefore support no habitat of any sort.
Ditch A supports very limited amounts of vegetation that consists of
mostly non - native weeds. Ditch B, which receives regular nuisance flows,
supports a narrow ribbon of native and non - native herbaceous species
that exhibits very limited habitat value, while Ditch C, the driest of the
ditches, also supports a predominance of non - native species and exhibits
essentially no habitat value.
The term "buffer', as it is used in the Draft EIR, refers to transitional
habitat areas that provide protection of wetland habitat located within
Ditches A and B. The functions provided by the wetland buffers proposed
at the Project site include: 1) filtering of sediment, excessive nutrients,
and pollutants from runoff prior to entering the Ditches; 2) protection from
disturbance for species that occur within the Ditches; and 3) creation of
additional wetland habitat that would not be subject to the disturbances
that currently impact wetland habitat within the Ditches. In general, the
function of buffers is to limit potential indirect impacts to species using the
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -228 Comments and Responses
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
wetlands associated with development; however, in this instance, the
minimal wildlife usage of the existing wetlands is limited to common
avifauna, such as black phoebe, American crow, mourning dove, killdeer,
and house finch, which are fully adapted to the urban setting, including
residential and other developed areas. As such, buffers in excess of 25
feet would serve no benefit to these species.
F 1 The buffer areas would consist of the proposed wetland terraces and
U native vegetation plantings located adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B.
These buffers are intended to expand the available wetland habitat on
site, while providing protection of existing habitat from the proposed
U development. Short-term construction activity will be required within the
buffer areas in order to create the proposed wetland terraces. This
construction would have no significant impact on the wetland habitat
{� located within the Ditches. In their current condition, the proposed buffer
areas consist of upland disked field. Creation of wetland terraces within
these areas would expand and support the existing wetland habitat on-
site. With the creation of wetland terraces, these buffers would provide
greater protection of existing wetland resources by slowing water
movement through the area, reducing , scour impacts to existing
vegetation, and filtering imported contaminants prior to reaching existing
�j habitat.
Furthermore, the Project would not involve the dredging or filling where
wetland characteristics have been identified, except in Drainage Ditch A,
where they are permitted for "restoration purposes" under Coastal Act
Section 30233.
`-} 25F. Comment is noted.
25G. There is no scientific basis for making the determination that the drainage
ditches constitute environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs), nor
does the isolated existence of particular plant species make the drainage
r ditches ESHAs under the Coastal Act. The southern tarplant and wooly
seablite occur in the drainage ditches in extremely limited numbers and
are very isolated populations. Their occurrence does not signify the
, existence of a valuable ecosystem. Without the Project's development,
U , these isolated populations experience greater impacts than with the
proposed Project, given regular weed abatement programs in the area.
25H. Coastal Commission staff notes that "(T)he southern tarplant has been
identified as sensitive and /or as ESHA by the Commission at other sites
Ell within the coastal zone (e.g., Bolsa Chica in Orange County and Dos
Pueblos in Santa Barbara County). This suggests that the population at
the Boeing site may also be found to be ESHA. Based on the information
provided in the DER, Commission Staff can neither object nor concur
with the determination regarding ESHA."
While it is true that the southern tarplant has been identified as sensitive
C and /or as ESHA by the Commission at other sites within the coastal zone,
it is important to note that in the case of Bolsa Chica, noted by
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -229 Comments and Responses
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Commission staff in their letter, the Commission did not designate the
tarplant as ESHA and permitted impacts to this species with mitigation.
Similarly, in two other nearby projects, Hellman Ranch in Seal Beach and
Marina Shores in Long Beach, the Commission did not designate this
species as ESHA and approved relocation of individuals impacted by
each of these respective projects. In the case of Dos Pueblos, the Santa
Barbara County LCP has a provision that all CNPS List 1B species are to
be designated as ESHA, so the ESHA determination was "automatic ".
The 385 individuals that occur in Ditch C do not constitute ESHA for a
number of reasons. Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act defines ESHA as:
...any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either
rare of especially valuable because of their special nature or role
in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded
by human activities and developments.
While it is acknowledged that this species is designated by the California
Native Plant Society (CNPS) as a "rare" plant by virtue of its placement
on List 1B of the California Native Plant Society Inventory, Sixth Edition,
of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, this species still
occurs on a large number of protected sites in the tens or hundreds of
thousands. The Boeing population accounts for less than 0.2- percent of
the Orange County population. Furthermore, the Boeing population is not
associated with any native habitat; rather, both the ditch within which it
occurs and the adjacent fields are dominated by non - native habitat that is
disked a number of times per year, precluding the establishment of any
native habitat. In applying the term ecosystem to this site, it should be
understood that Ditch C and the adjacent disked lands support no native
habitats and consequently support minimal habitat values, even for the
most highly urban - adapted species such as American crows, starlings,
and mourning doves.
Within this highly disturbed setting, these plants are clearly not "especially
valuable" because of their "special nature or role in an ecosystem ". In
native settings, many plant species exhibit functions that make them
particularly important (i.e., functional) within the native ecosystems in
which they occur. Significant functions that many plant species exhibit in
native communities include 1) provision of habitat (including structure or
resources) for rare and endangered species, 2) provision of habitat for
keystone species; 3) provision of resources for important pollinators,
especially pollinators that are important for other sensitive plant species;
and 4) effects on soil either through erosion control or associations with
mychorrizal fungi that often benefit native scrub, grassland and woodland
communities.
On the highly disturbed Boeing site, the southern tarplant does not
support any listed or other special- status species, nor does it support any
keystone species. Southern tarplant is pollinated by Halictid bees, which
comprise the largest and most common group of native bees, none of
which are listed or have special status. Because of the regular disking of
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -230 Comments and Responses
BOEINGS I PLAN PROJECT EIR
the site, there are few (if any) other native plants species that would
benefit from the support given to pollinators. With regard to soil functions,
southern tarplant is an annual that occurs on disturbed areas with alkaline
or saline soils and has no known mychorrizal associations (most annual
species do not and the southern tarplant does not begin growing until
j summer, blooming in fall, when mychorrizal fungi go dormant due to a
lack of moisture in the soil). Similarly, because these species do not
f germinate until late into the rainy season, they provide little erosion
(� protection.
In addition to these considerations, the role of disturbance is important in
the life cycle of this species, as cyclical flooding or similar types of
disturbance keeps the habitat open, allowing this species to thrive. Even
though Ditch C does not exhibit an optimal hydrological regime, it
continues to support a limited number of this species because the regular
lJ clearing keeps the habitat open within the ditch. In fact, it is likely that
anthropogenic disturbance has contributed to the persistence of this
species on the site.
The 385 individuals that occur in Ditch C constitute a small population
F " and are associated with an artificial ditch that supports essentially no
ti native habitat. Furthermore, this population is subject to on -going weed
abatement activities and is under constant threat of reduction or
elimination from weed abatement and occasional maintenance activities
in the Ditch. In addition, relocation of the tarplant to Ditches A and B
would provide for a superior likelihood of long -term persistence on this
site, especially once maintenance of Ditch C is terminated. Importantly,
Drainage Ditch C is located nearly 4,000 feet from the Hellman Ranch
site meaning that the on - site individuals are "isolated" from the Hellman
population because the Halictid bees that serve as the primary pollinator
have a average home range of between 300 and 400 feet, and a
maximum range of no more than 600 feet which means that there is no
genetic exchange between the Boeing and Hellman Ranch populations.
The proposed relocation program would result in a substantial benefit to
(,! the species and would more than mitigate for the loss of the plants within
Ditch C during grading, and would bring the two populations into contact
j The proposed restoration program would result in a benefit to the species
and would mitigate loss of the plants during grading. The mitigation
program as proposed would involve the relocation of a portion of the on-
site population to Drainage Ditch A, thereby maintaining a more viable
and protected population on -site and relocation of a portion of the
population to the nearby Ditch B, which would increase the size and
F- 1 viability, creating a larger, more stabile population. As noted above,
establishment of populations in Ditch A and Ditch B would bring the on-
site population into genetic contact with the Hellman population which
would be of benefit to both populations.
Translocation /restoration of this species has been successfully
accomplished by Glen Lukos Associates. Construction of Tesoro High
School in southern Orange County resulted in impacts to approximately
L FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -231 Comments and Responses
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
300 individuals of the tarplant. As mitigation, seed was collected from the
individuals to be lost and the seed was hand - broadcast one time into a
freshly graded wetland mitigation site consisting of alkali meadow and
mulefat scrub. The relocation site was monitored for three years (in
accordance with the project's 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement). At
the end of year one, approximately 1,100 individuals were present, at the
end of year two about 6,000 individuals were recorded, and at the end of
the third year the site supported 11,000 individuals, far surpassing the
required performance standards.
Relocation of the 385 individuals, as proposed as a component of the
project, would compensate for the loss of these individuals in Drainage
Ditch C (i.e., reducing the impacts to a less than significant level), and
would provide a net benefit to this species in the region.
251. This CNPS List 4 species occurs on coastal bluffs and slopes, coastal
dunes, and the margins of salt and brackish marshes from Baja to Santa
Barbara including the Channel Islands and Guadalupe Island (Mexico).
This species is still fairly common in a variety of habitats in Orange and
San Diego counties and is associated with salt marshes, creek mouths
and beaches north of Santa Monica to Ventura County and Santa
Barbara County.
Coastal Staff states the following regarding the woolly sea - blite:
The DEIR states that the woolly sea - blite isn't ESHA because it is
locally abundant. Plants that are locally abundant, but regionally
or globally rare, can still be considered rare. Thus, the woolly sea -
blite can still be considered as ESHA based on rarity. However,
rarity isn't the only factor determining whether ESHA is present.
The special nature or role that a plant plays in the ecosystem and
susceptibility to disturbance are also factors. A complete analysis
of the woolly sea - blite populations need to be conducted that
addresses all of the factors that contribute to an ESHA
determination.
First, with regard to rarity, it is important to note that the California Native
Plant Society (CNPS) placed woolly sea -blite on List 4 of the 6 th Edition of
its Inventory. List 4 is defined by CNPS as "Plants of Limited Distribution
— A Watch List ". CNPS further explains this designation on page 55 of
the Inventory (6 Edition):
The 554 plants in this category are of limited distribution or
infrequent throughout a broader area in California, and their
vulnerability or susceptibility to threat appears relatively low at this
time. While we cannot call these plants "rare" from a statewide
perspective, they are uncommon enough that their status should
be monitored regularly. Should the degree of endangerment or
rarity of a List 4 plant change, we will transfer it to a more
appropriate list.
FINAL A APRIL 2003 14 -232 Comments and Responses
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Thus, CNPS does not consider this species to be of sufficient rarity to
I place it on List 1 B or on List 2, and CNPS is the authority in the status of
U the plants listed in their Inventory.
C 1 1
U
U
U
U
U
P
U
G
C'
U
U
r
U
El
C
Furthermore, the statement that locally abundant plants that are
regionally or globally rare, and therefore potential ESHA, applies to nearly
all California native plants. For example, using this standard, the most
common shrub in cismontane southern California, chamise (Adenostoma
fascicultum), would be considered "rare" because it does not occur in
other parts of the world. Application of such a standard is unworkable
and clearly not defensible.
Furthermore, based on the characteristics noted above, this species does
not play a special role or exhibit a special nature in the ecosystem. The
small plant does not provide habitat for nor is it used in any way by any
state or federally listed species or any other special- status species nor is
this plant used by any keystone species. Woolly sea -blite is in the
Chenopodiaceae or Pigweed family, which includes a predominance of
wind - pollinated species including this species. Therefore, pollinators do
not interact (and therefore benefit) from this species. Similarly, given the
small stature and small numbers on the site, this species would not
provide for any sort of erosion control. Finally, members of the
Chenopodiaceae do not form mychorrizal associations. Therefore, this
species exhibits no special soil- forming or - restoring functions in the
ecosystem that consists of a disturbed artificial ditch and adjacent disked
fields.
As noted in the Biological Technical Report, the loss of 12 individuals has
been concluded as not significant under CEQA. As noted above, the
CNPS does not consider List 4 species to be either "rare" or
"endangered" across their range in California; rather List 4 species are to
be monitored to ensure that populations remain at healthy levels. If the
population of a specific List 4 species drops, then CNPS will move the
species to a list that reflects the level of threat. Although not required as
mitigation under CEQA, the 12 individuals of wooly sea -blite will be
relocated to Drainage Ditch A as a component of the restoration program,
ensuring that this species persists on the site.
25J. The EIR biological assessment indicates that protective measures for the
tarplant and sea -blite are likely to benefit the populations of these plants
to a greater extent than if the Project were not to be developed. The
Hellman Ranch site would not be used for off -site mitigation of these plant
species. The use of Drainage Ditches A and B for mitigation would allow
the species closer contact to the existing Hellman Ranch populations,
thereby increasing their genetic diversity and enhancing the survival
chances of these isolated populations. Refer also to Response to
Commentor No. 25H.
25K. On Page 4 of the Coastal Staff letter, under 'other biological issues ", the
extent of raptor use appears to be misstated. The letter states: "[t]he
DEIR notes that red - tailed hawks, turkey vulture and American kestrels
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -233
Comments and Responses
C Dw s�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
were found circling the site, perching and making kills ", giving the
impression that each of the site species were exhibiting the mentioned
behaviors. Such is not the case as set forth in the section that addresses
raptors in the DEIR:
"Limited raptor foraging behaviors have been observed at the
project site and suitable foraging habitat is of very low quality.
Raptors observed within the vicinity of the project site during
focused surveys have included the red - tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and American
kestrel (Falco sparverius). Observed foraging activities exhibited
by red - tailed hawks and turkey vultures at the site were limited to
circling directly above or immediately off site. An American kestrel
was observed on one occasion to successfully kill an item of prey
in the adjacent flood - control basin and then return to the project
site to consume the prey on a telephone pole. No other raptor
species (including loggerhead shrike, white - tailed kite, northern
harrier, and red - shouldered hawk) were observed utilizing the
site. "
25L.
25M
Red - tailed hawks and turkey vultures were never observed on the site
and were never observed taking prey or attempting such. The one kill by
a kestrel was clearly offsite (in the Alamitos Retarding Basin) and brought
to an on -site telephone pole after the offsite kill. It should be noted that a
total of 10 raptor surveys were conducted on the site (between June 2001
and April 2002) to ensure that the full range of raptor use was recorded.
Because of regular maintenance of the site, the project site supports
essentially no vegetation for much of the year, providing a very limited
resource base for small mammals and invertebrates that would support
raptors. Furthermore, the water quality basins that are part of the Project
could potentially serve as raptor foraging areas. As such, implementation
of the project would have no measurable effect on raptor foraging or use.
The Landscape Plan for the project does not propose invasive exotic
species listed by the California Exotic Pest Plant Council (CaIEPPC) or U
CNPS.
Table 5.1 -2 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as folows:
Table 5.1 -2
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis
Applicable Coastal Act Goal /Objective
-Project Consistency Discussion,-, ,• .
Section 30210. In carrying out the requirement of
Consistent Due to the sensitive nature of existing uses
Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution,
and concerns about security, access to the site has been
maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted,
restricted since the 1960s. The site has been developed
and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all
with buildings and associated facilities suitable for light
the people consistent with public safety needs and the
industrial uses and has been used as such for decades.
need to protect public rights, rights of private property
The Specific Plan area is zoned and currently used for
owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.
industrial and manufacturing purposes. The Specific
Plan area is one of only two sites in the City of Seal
Beach that is zoned for such uses. Because of security
concerns (particularly since September 11), the need to
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -234 Comments and Responses
t
If
u
�i
f'
L
I f.
l_.1
C
r;
U
0
f'
t �
U
L
Ir
cli�w s�
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Section 30211. Development shall not interfere with the
public's right of access to the sea where acquired
through use or legislative authorization, including, but not
limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches
to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
section suziz. tai t-Mic access Trom the nearest puonc
roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be
provided in new development projects except where (1) it
is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs,
or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2)
adequate access exists nearby, or (3) agriculture would
be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not
be required to be opened to public use until a public
agency or private association agrees to accept
responsibility for maintenance and liability of the
accessway.
pu�c�_ ices inclu i r i g_aLQm_ 'lities. mall
be distributed throu rrea so as to miti
ag ainst the__Jmpacts,__s_Qcial���herwise. of
protect the confidentiality of the existing on -site
operations, and the limited availability of manufacturing
and industrial sites within the City, public access through
the Specific Plan area would not be appropriate.
However, the Specific Plan would maximize access by
improving Adolfo Lopez Drive, thereby providing a
connection to potential access trails that may be located
within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area directly
south of the Specific Plan area.
a significant portion (approximately 58 %) of the Specific
Plan area is currently used as the headquarters site for
Boeing Space and Communications Operations. The
public has neither acquired nor claimed any right of
access through use or legislative authorization over any
portion of the area covered by the Specific Plan. This
Chapter 3 policy, which expressly applies to the public's
right of access where acquired through use or legislative
authorization, does not apply to the Specific Plan as
proposed. Due to the nature of the proposed uses and
the location of the Project site, Project development
would not interfere with the public's right of access to the
sea.
Consistent The nearest public roadway to the
shoreline is two miles south of the Specific Plan area.
The Specific Plan area is not located between this public
roadway and the shore, therefore this Chapter 3 policy,
which expressly applies to maximizing access from the
nearest public roadway to the shoreline, does not apply
to the Specific Plan as proposed. Nevertheless, the
Specific Plan would maximize access from the Specific
Plan area to the shoreline by improving Adolfo Lopez
Drive, thereby providing a connection to potential access
trails that might be located on the Hellman Ranch
property directly south of the Specific Plan area. Refer to
Response to Section 30210.
overuse with regard to publiefacilities. No such impacts
could Dccur.
Planning Area 4 is planned for commercial lodging and retail land uses
that provide commercial and visitor - serving services. For these uses,
Planning Area 4 is regulated by design guidelines, development
regulations and requirements identified for Planning Area 4. As noted in
L; Section 5.1 of the EIR, the Project site has been developed with buildings
and associated facilities suitable for light industrial uses and has been
used as such since the 1960s. The Specific Plan area is one of only two
sites in the City of Seal Beach that is zoned for industrial and
+ i manufacturing uses, and is currently used for such purposes. Moreover,
U the site requires restricted access and is not in proximity to coastal waters
or other commercial recreational facilities. Given the constraints of the
(A site, the 18 -month period represents a reasonable time in which to secure
(� interest in such areas. If, after 18 months from the adoption of the Boeing
Specific Plan, such lodging and commercial land uses are determined
r infeasible, this Planning Area may be developed with business park land
L� uses.
f t ;
L, FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -235 Comments and Responses
0 of <�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
25N. Comment is noted. Page 5.3 -57 of the Boeing Specific Plan Project Draft
EIR recognizes that the improvements planned as part of the Seal Beach
Boulevard /1-405 Freeway Overcrossing Improvements, as well as at the
Seal Beach Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection, may not be
completed until after Year 2006 or at all. As such, if the City of Seal
Beach approves the project, the City shall be required to adopt findings in
accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a
Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section
15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
It is further noted that the Seal Beach Boulevard /1-405 Freeway
Overcrossing, is outside of the Coastal Zone. Section 30604 of the
Coastal Act states that "[n]o development or any portion thereof which is
outside the coastal zone shall be subject to the coastal development
permit requirements of [the Coastal Act], nor shall anything in [the Coastal
Act] authorize the denial of a coastal development permit by the
commission on the grounds the proposed development within the coastal
zone will have an adverse environmental effect outside the coastal zone."
Thus, the coastal development permit may not be denied based upon the
Project's impacts at the Seal Beach Boulevard /1 -405 Freeway
Overcrossing.
Although significant traffic impacts have been identified, such impacts
within the Coastal Zone will be mitigated either by improvements or the
payment of fees, which may in turn be used to improve traffic conditions
at the specific intersections identified or elsewhere within the community
and /or Coastal Zone. As such, the proposed project would not adversely
impact the public's ability to access the coastline.
250. Refer to Response to Comment No. 7D. Chapter 7.0 of the Draft EIR
provides the alternatives analyses, which included the "No Project/No
Development" Alternative. As stated on Page 7 -2 of the Draft EIR, the
forecast of adverse service levels (LOS E or F) at six intersections would
continue because there is uncertainty as to whether improvements
planned by the City of Seal Beach can be implemented. Thus, it can be
concluded that reducing the intensity of development would not change
the results of the traffic analysis. As shown in Table 5.3 -8 on Page 5.3 -36
of the Draft EIR, the following six intersections are projected to operate at
LOS E or F without (see column 2) or with (see Column 3) the Boeing
Specific Plan Project traffic.
Key Intersection
1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2 "d St/Westminster Avenue
2. Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue
9. Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue
10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 SB Ramps
11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 NB Ramps
12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -236 Comments and Responses
U
PeaA
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Although construction of the improvements recommended at these six
intersections would be the responsibility of the Cities of Long Beach, Seal
Beach and Westminster, the Boeing Specific Plan Project would be
required to pay its fair share towards the construction of the
r i recommended mitigation measures, for intersections located outside the
City of Seal Beach (i.e., Key Intersections Nos. 1, 2 and 12 above), and
pay transportation development fees under the City of Seal Beach's
Traffic Fee Program for all impacted intersections in the City of Seal
Beach (i.e., Key Intersection Nos. 9, 10 and 11 above).
r ' It is further noted that the traffic measures required at intersections 1, 2, 9
IUUI and 12 are beyond the control of the City of Seal Beach since they are
located within right -of -way controlled by other agencies.
�I 25P. The 260 -day estimate is based on a conservative nine cubic yards per
tractor tuck load. If a tractor truck plus dump trailer is utilized, one could
expect to use 12 cubic yard truck loads. This would equate to
(i approximately 170 days. For project grading, standard professional
�.j practice to provide building pads, parking lots, and street systems that
provide adequate safety from flooding would be required. Also, any
construction activity that requires lane closures on Seal Beach Boulevard
during non -peak hours during the summer months would be restricted.
Thus, temporary impacts upon public access to the coast would be
minimized.
25Q. Comment is noted. The Water Quality Assessment Report (Fuscoe
Engineering, March — 2003) is included as a Technical Appendix to the
EIR. The Water Quality Assessment Report (provided in Appendix 15.8)
includes a comprehensive regulatory discussion of the Coastal
Commission requirements for development in addition to the CEQA and
r ; SARWQCB regulations. This discussion notes that the Coastal
U Commission is responsible for protecting water quality in coastal
environments and that they provide a broad basis for protecting coastal
( waters, habitats and biodiversity associated with new development and
redevelopment projects under California Pub. Res. Code Section 30230
and 30231. To meet these objectives, the Coastal Commission supports
(j a three - pronged approach to water quality management: site design,
source control and treatment control BMPs (see Section 1.2, Page 2).
L
U
U
The revised Water Quality Assessment Report (see Section 3.1, Page 4)
describes the site design objectives as:
0 Preservation of central "man- made" drainage ditch and the
associated wetland habitat.
0 Restoration and enhancement of the south "man- made" ditch.
o Mitigation and on -site relocation of the Southern tarplant species
form the north drainage ditch.
o Minimization of impervious surfaces near the LARB to provide
opportunities for urban runoff treatment prior to discharge.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
14 -237
Comments and Responses
C ows�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
o Incorporation of water quality treatment basins within the
development area to treat and control pollutants before entering
the nearby water body ( >2 acre footprint).
o Preservation of historical drainage patterns.
0 Minimization of directly connected impervious areas by utilizing
landscaped areas for roof drainage where feasible.
It also describes numerous source control measures (see Section 4.2,
Page 7) which include, but are not limited to, the use of native plant
species within water quality treatment basins and drought resistant native
plants in landscaped areas, efficient irrigation systems, minimal pesticide
and fertilizer application, properly designed trash enclosures to minimize
contact with storm water, properly designed outdoor material storage
areas to protect from direct precipitation, no direct connection of truck
wells to the storm drain system, regular sweeping of all streets and
parking lots, routine maintenance of all catch basins and grate inlets,
stenciling or signage of source control messages on all catch basins,
educational materials related to urban runoff distributed to all building
owners and tenants, educating and training maintenance staff to identify
and incorporate BMPs into maintenance practices, litter control for the
entire project area, and housekeeping of all loading docks to minimize
potential contact of pollutants with storm water.
Finally, the revised Water Quality Assessment Report details treatment
control BMPs specific for Planning Area 3 (which includes Planning Area
2 and runoff from 17 acres of Planning Area 1) which would meet the
Coastal Commission's post - construction structural BMPs requirements for
volume -based BMPs to be sized to adequately treat, infiltrate or filter the
volume of runoff from a 24 -hour, 85 percentile storm events determined
from the local historical rainfall record. Similarly, for flow -based BMPs,
they must adequately treat or filter the volume or runoff from a 85
percentile hourly rainfall intensity, as determined from the local historical
rainfall record, multiplied by a factor of two (see Section 3.3, Page 5). For
Planning Areas 2 and 3, the Project implements the site design, source
control, and treatment control BMPs that meet Coastal Commission
requirements and SARWQCB regulations. With respect to Planning
Areas 1 and 4, the Project would be conditioned to satisfy the same
requirements and regulations as part of the design and approval process
for those phases.
The revised Water Quality Assessment Report demonstrates that the
water quality measures within the conceptual water quality control plan
are adequately sized and have been incorporated into the site plan. It
also provides evidence of the anticipated removal efficiencies of the
various pollutants based on regional data of similar BMPs for all proposed
BMPs, including CDS units (or their equivalent), multi - purpose water
quality /detention basins, and filtration basins (see Section 4.3, Pages 8-
11).
A comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would be
provided to the Coastal Commission and City of Seal Beach for review
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -238 Comments and Responses
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
during the final design phase. Refer to Mitigation Measure 5.9 -1 b. The
purpose of the WQMP is to provide additional details related to the water
quality treatment plan including catch basin inserts, storm drain inserts,
and water quality treatment basins. The analysis would include a
L il l modified version of the Simple Method To Calculate Urban Stormwater
(Schuler, 1999) to estimate the anticipated pollutant loadings per storm
event and to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed water quality
E BMPs. The WQMP would define those responsible for the long -term
maintenance of the treatment BMPs as well as expand upon the source
control measures for the various activities that will occur with the
L.1 proposed project. Maintenance schedules for street sweeping, water
quality basin maintenance, irrigation, pesticide training and application,
etc. and other non - structural BMPs will also be addressed at that time.
r�
L
El
U
L
'.
U
F 1
U
L'
L
L
The revised Water Quality Assessment Report includes a general
discussion of the site design, source control and anticipated treatment
control BMPs for Planning Area 4 which would include maximizing runoff
into local landscaping and planter areas throughout the parking lots and
building footprint areas, structural BMPs for the parking lots will also be
utilized if the infiltration zones are not able to handle the first flush
treatment requirements, finally, bio- swales may also be used (see Section
4.3, Page 10). A Water Quality Management Plan will be prepared
specific to Planning Area 4 during the final design phase to demonstrate
compliance with the water quality treatment regulations of the SARWQCB
and the water quality treatment requirements of the Coastal Commission.
The WQMP would also identify the maintenance responsibilities and
restriction activities to minimize impacts to coastal water quality.
25R. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 29A.
25S. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 29A. The mitigation plan would be
developed for any cultural properties found to be eligible for the California
Register of Historic Places. The mitigation plan would explore and
consider avoidance options (see below) and provide a context and
methodology for data recovery at sites that could not be avoided. The
specific features of the detailed mitigation plan would be specific to the
site and developed in consultation with the Native American Heritage
Commission, the Most Likely Descendant ("MILD"), the City, the Coastal
Commission, and Boeing, once the MILD has been identified.
If the testing reveals more than one undisturbed burial site within the
project area, construction plans will be reviewed to assess the feasibility
of avoiding impacts. Refer to Mitigation Measure 5.7 -3b. This
assessment will be based on consultation among Boeing, the
archeological consultant, and the MLD. Based on this consultation,
Boeing would consult with the City and Coastal Commission on
avoidance options. Avoidance options would include incorporating sites
into open space or landscaping, or capping with fill or pavement.
FINAL 1 APRIL 2003 14 -239 Comments and Responses
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
25T. Gum Grove Park is located approximately two miles away from the
project. Because of the distance between Gum Grove Park and the
Project site, views from Gum Grove Park would not be impacted by the
Project. Moreover, the Project site does not contain any natural
landforms, ocean views, or scenic coastal features. The majority of the
Project site is developed with existing buildings and parking lots visible
from southern and western vantage points, such as Gum Grove Park.
Consistent with Coastal Act Section 30251, the proposed redevelopment
of the Project site is located in the opposite direction of, and therefore
would not impact, views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas
nor would the redevelopment of the Project involve the alteration of
natural landforms. In addition, the Project would be visually compatible
with the character of surrounding areas, which include industrial,
commercial, and residential uses.
The area adjacent to Seal Beach Boulevard is not a designated scenic
area as described in Coastal Act Section 30251. As noted in the EIR, this
portion of Seal Beach Boulevard has no scenic resources or designated
vistas (Draft EIR at 5.2 -11), and the Project site is not considered "highly
scenic," such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation
and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and
Recreation.
25U. The Project site is relatively flat with no significant topographical features
and mostly developed with artificially deposited fill. Any currently existing
landforms are not natural and any alterations to such landforms by the
import of additional fill would be solely for the purpose of creating building
pads that are only slightly elevated to match existing developed
conditions, and to facilitate adequate sewerage and drainage.
Furthermore, landscaping on the southern boundary of the site will
include 15 to 25 foot wide landscaped buffers along Adolpho Lopez
Street, including street trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Additional
landscaping could be required as part of Precise Plan review to mitigate
any impacts.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -240 Comments and Responses
I
U
1
PLANNING BUREAU
COMMENT NO. 26
CITY OF LONG BEACH
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT
333 W. Ocean Boulevard ! Long Beach, CA 90802 ! (562) 570 -6354 FAX (562) 570 -6068
February 27, 2003
I
Mr. Mac Cummins
Department of Development Services
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Mr. Cummins:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Boeing Specific Plan Project,
Environmental Impact Report. My primary concern regarding this project is the affect it
will have on Long Beach's adjacent Island Village community. Following are comments
in this regard:
Will this project be sold with entitlements, and if so, who will be responsible
for design review with regard to Sub area 3. In this regard, will the City of 26A
Seal Beach adopt design guidelines as part of the Boeing Specific Plan
Project?
2. Will there be parking and /or vehicle circulation adjacent to the Island Village
neighborhood? The City of Long Beach would request that there be no 26B
parking and or vehicle /truck circulation behind the structures on the western
edge of Sub area 3.
3. Please indicate the number of daily truck trips expected for the entire
development and how that will impact noise and capacity on Westminster 26C
Boulevard. In addition, is there an adequate truck - turning radius at the
intersection of 2 nd Street (formerly Westminster) and Studebaker Road?
4. After consulting with the Long Beach traffic engineer, there is no agreement
between the City of Long Beach and the City of Seal Beach regarding the
feasibility of suggested mitigation measures at the intersections of 2 n, Street 26D
and Studebaker Road or 2" Street and PCH. Please explain the process for
implementing these mitigation measures.
r•
14 -241
Mr. Mac Cummins
February 27, 2003
Page 2
5. Please explain the proposed landscape buffer, species and diameter, to be
installed along the western edge of Sub area 3. It would be helpful if there 26E
were a rendering included that depicted the view from the eastern edge of
Island Village looking east to Sub area 3.
6. 1 would like to request that my office be notified, by certified mail, of all
upcoming public meetings regarding the Boeing Specific Plan Environmental 26F
Impact Report.
Sincerely,
Angela Reynolds
Advance Planning and Environmental Officer
Long Beach City Hall, 7 Floor
333 W. Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802
Cc: The Honorable Frank Colonna, 3` District Councilman
14 -242
1
r�
Response to Commentor No. 26
Angela Reynolds, City of Long Beach
February 27, 2003
U
U
D
C
L
0
U
U 1
ti
u
L�
E
26A. The Boeing Specific Plan (which includes the Design Guidelines) would
be implemented through the use of Precise Plans. Precise Plans
establish development guidelines for proposed structures or
improvements for each planning area within the Specific Plan for the
following reasons:
♦ To ensure consistency with the adopted Specific Plan.
♦ To encourage continuity in design and development.
♦ To promote the highest contemporary standards of site design.
♦ To assure substantial long -range compliance with the City of Seal
Beach General Plan.
Procedures for review of Precise Plans are in accordance with the
provisions of Article 29 of Section 28 -2900 through Section 28 -2910 of
the Municipal Code of the City of Seal Beach, as established by
Ordinance 948. Exceptions are noted below:
♦ The fee for the Precise Plan review shall be in accordance with
the current comprehensive fee resolution of the City of Seal
Beach. Additional funds may need to be deposited with the City of
Seal Beach. At the request of the Director of Development
Services. This may be required to ensure full cost recovery of City
services in reviewing Precise Plans and other discretionary land
use requests.
♦ Along with the supplemental requirements of Article 29, Section
28 -2903, at the request of the Director of Development Services,
the developer is required to submit:
- A preliminary landscape plan, addressing streetscape and
project landscaping themes, including proposed size and
quantities of all proposed landscape materials.
- Architectural elevations and floor plans drawn to scale,
including samples of exterior materials and textures.
- Detailing of exterior hardscape materials and textures.
- Precise sign plan locations, size, colors and letter type of
all proposed signage.
- Preliminary grading plan, showing areas of cut and fill,
location and elevation of all pads, and height of cut and fill.
- Such other information as may be needed and deemed
appropriate by the Department of Development Services
BOEINGSPECIFI PLAN PROJECT EIR
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -243
Comments and Responses
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
(e.g., traffic studies, noise studies, water quality
management plans, etc.).
Precise Plans are required prior to obtaining building permits for all
Planning Areas within the Specific Plan. Precise Plans would be
processed concurrent with discretionary approvals to the greatest extent
practicable.
Authority for approval of Precise Plans rests with the Director of
Development Services pursuant to Article 29, Section 28 -2904, et. seq.
Precise Plan approval, in accordance with this policy, are valid for a
period of two (2) years. If construction of a project does not commence
within that time period and proceed with due diligence thereafter, the
Director of Development Services may grant a time extension of up to two
years. If, after 4 years construction does not commence, the approval of
the Precise Plan would terminate and additional review and approval
would be required. In the event of litigation, time periods for approval
would be tolled for the period of time litigation is in existence. Precise
Plan revisions that are minor in nature would be reviewed and approved
by the Director of Development Services.
The design guidelines contained in the Specific Plan (refer to Appendix
15.10) define the general criteria for implementing coordinated design,
organizational unity and overall visual identity for the new areas to be
developed, while maintaining opportunities for specific needs and
creativity for each project. Included are parameters for integrated site
planning, architecture, landscaping and exterior lighting, as well as
procedures and requirements for design submittal and review. The intent
of these guidelines is to establish a consistent design concept that
produces a clear image and a sense of prestige, efficiency and integrity.
The Specific Plan emphasizes a clean, contemporary, straightforward and
quality image. This image is expressed in site planning, architecture,
landscaping, lighting, and signage. Architectural design is to be
compatible in character, massing and materials throughout the Specific
Plan area, while allowing for individual identity and creativity in each
project.
The design guidelines have been developed to be "guidelines" as
opposed to "development regulations" identified in Section 5 of the
Specific Plan, and should not be interpreted to require stringent
compliance with any particular element. To promote the quality of design
planned for this project, the design guidelines given in this document
establish criteria that enhance the coordination, organization, function and
identity of the site, while maintaining a compatible relationship with the
surrounding development of the Specific Plan.
2613. Comment is noted and will be considered during Precise Plan review.
26C. Table 5.3 -5 on Page 5.3 -17 of the Boeing Specific Plan Project Draft EIR,
provides a summary of the traffic generation forecast for the proposed
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 14 -244 Comments and Responses 0
U
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Boeing Specific Plan project. As indicated, the potential number of truck
(j trips to be generated by the proposed light industrial facilities of the
L�J Boeing Specific Plan is estimated to be approximately ten percent (10 %)
of total traffic generation for such uses. Based on the information
(1 provided in this table, the total (net) truck trips forecast for the entire
development totals 860 daily trips.
U The adequacy of truck turning radius at the intersection Pacific Coast
Highway and 2 nd Street/Westminster is a "design- related" issue that did
not require evaluation based on the criteria of the City of Seal Beach. This
issue, among others (i.e., widening impact, lane widths, utility relocation,
transitions, tapers, signal phasing, etc.), is considered during the design
process (not planning process) and preparation of construction related
intersection improvement plans, such as those now being considered by
i the City of Long Beach for this key intersection. We understand that
the feasibility of acquiring the right -of -way necessary to implement
improvements recommended at Pacific Coast Highway /2 "d Street —
Westminster.
26D. The mitigation measures identified on Page 5.3 -44 of the Draft EIR at the
intersections of Pacific Coast Highway /2 Street - Westminster and
Studebaker/Westminster are generally consistent with those
recommended in the Traffic Impact Study for the Marina Shores
Promenade
u
U f
L i 9 Traffic Impact Study for PCH @ Studebaker (Marina Shores Promenade) Marketplace, dated September
27, 1997, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers for the Selleck Development Group, Inc. and the City of
Long Beach.
1
preliminary engineering plans have been prepared and the City of Long
Beach is currently negotiating with adjacent property owners to determine
FINAL o APRIL 2003
14 -245
Comments and Responses
With the exception of improvements along the project frontage on Seal
Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue, the proposed Project is not
responsible for constructing /implementing any of the recommended off-
U
site improvements identified on Page 5.3-44 of the Draft EIR.
Per the City of Seal Beach policy, the Boeing Specific Plan project would
(i
be required to pay a total of $175,822.50 and $175,093.25 in impact fees
to the City of Long Beach to mitigate its significant traffic impact at Pacific
Coast Highway and 2 nd Street/Westminster Avenue, and Studebaker
Road and Westminster Avenue, respectively.
26E. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 11 E.
26F. Comment is noted.
u
U f
L i 9 Traffic Impact Study for PCH @ Studebaker (Marina Shores Promenade) Marketplace, dated September
27, 1997, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers for the Selleck Development Group, Inc. and the City of
Long Beach.
1
preliminary engineering plans have been prepared and the City of Long
Beach is currently negotiating with adjacent property owners to determine
FINAL o APRIL 2003
14 -245
Comments and Responses
Gabrielino Tongva I ndians of California
n6 al Couna
March 3, 2003
Michael "Mac" Cummins, Associate Planner
City of Seal Beach
City Hall - 211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Mr. Cummins:
COMMENT NO. 27
Ko6ert F. Dorame
Tribal Chairperson
5450 5lauson Avenue, Suite 151
Culver City, CA 90230 -6000
Voice: 56Z-76 i-6+17
rax: 5 6 Z -9 Zo -944'9
stongva@earthlink.net
The Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council is very interested and
concerned about the proposed Boeing development, documented in the "Boeing
Specific Plan Project Environmental Impact Report". The project is within the traditional
boundaries of our tribe's ancestral territories as acknowledged by the California Native
American Heritage Commission.
Our first issue is that only one and not all of the Gabrielino Tongva tribes were contacted
regarding the draft EIR. It is our understanding that government entities or companies
that receive government contracts are obligated to contact each tribe listed on the
California Native American Heritage Commission's contact list. Further, both our tribe 27
and the San Gabriel tribe are well known to your city planning office and have been in
existence far longer than the only group you contacted. We are puzzled and disturbed
by this omission and would like an explanation for this error on the part of Boeing and of
the City of Seal Beach.
There are a number of corrections and comments to be made regarding the EIR. 0
1. Robert F. Dorame has been involved with cultural resources since a young child and
has worked in cultural resources since the early 1970's and not since 1991, as stated in 27"
the EIR. Robert is not a past chairman of the tribe and instead, has led his tribe since d
1999.
2. A former pothunter, active from the 1950s through the 1980's informed our tribe that 0
human remains were unearthed on the Boeing site near the hill and Adolfo Lopez Drive. 27C
This is not to be confused with ORA 264 to the south or ORA 265 to the west but instead,
an independent location, which we consider extremely sensitive. u
1
14 -246 0
C
U
Page 2
Boeing Specific Site Plan Comments
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
3. The EIR listed Luiseno and Juaneno as tribes affiliated with this region. We wish to
correct this statement. Gabrielino Tongva territory has always been identified as
encompassing all land north of the Santa Ana River. This site is definitely far within that 27D
southern border between the Gabrielino Tongva and the Juaneno. The Luiseno are not
even near our historical boundaries and we are curious as to why either of these tribes
have been included in this EIR.
r It is critical that Gabrielino Tongva Indians are engaged to monitor all phases of pre-
construction including soil testing, grading and utility trenching that involves any soil 27E
disturbances. This includes any archeological testing prior to development.
In the event of any uncovering of human remains, it is crucial that a plan is in place to
insure any ancestral remains are treated with dignity and sensitivity in the removal and
reburial process. We are prepared to provide another copy of our Burial Procedures to 27F
Cj the City of Seal Beach and will be available to consult with the landowner if this occurs.
In all government - related projects and many privately owned properties where more
than one tribe has requested to participate in the monitoring, a rotation system is 27G
implemented so that all tribal governments who show an interest, have the opportunity
r1 to participate in protecting their cultural resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to present our concerns to you about this development
project. Thank you for your consideration of our request.
tJ
U '\-�
Robert Dorame
r
Tribal Chairperson
Cc: Rob Wood, CA Native American Heritage Commission
Karl Schwing, CA Coastal Commission
David Quintana, .Attorney at Law, Legal Council, TGIC Tribal Council
G
Eli
C j 14 -247
0 of <�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 27
Robert Dorame, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California
March 3, 2003
27A. The City's distribution of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Public
Review Draft EIR has fully complied with the CEQA Guidelines
requirement. It is further noted that the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council was included in the NOP and EIR distribution
which was sent to Samuel H. Dunlap, Tribal Secretary, Gabrielino Tongva
Tribal Council, 501 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 500, Santa Monica,
California 90401.
27B. Comment is noted.
27C. Comment is noted.
27D. Comment is noted.
27E. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 29A.
27F. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 19gq.
27G. Comment is noted.
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 14 -248 Comments and Responses
i
02/26/2003 97 :Zb
(1
Comments Related to Boeing Specific Plan Project
February 6, 2003
William G. Hoy '
For information/clarification: Is the survey work that has been performed by KEA of
U sufficient detail to provide reasonable assurance that burial sites will not be disturbed?
My concern is that we not put the City nor concerned Native American persons through
an ordeal like we have seen at Herons PointEellman Ranch.
u
The mitigation measures proposed in the Boeing Specific Plan appear to be the standard
operating procedure for Such projects, however, these mitigation measures (ie. Ceasing
all grading at once if human remaim are found) must be followed to the letter.
U
G •
LJ
G
1
U
U
U •
1
FEB-26 -2003 07:.47
•
6267113 14 -249 98% P. 02
C116T 0,cs�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLA PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 28
William Hoy, Seal Beach ResidenUArchaeological Advisory Committee Member
28A. Refer to Response to Commentor No. 29A.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -250 Comments and Responses
L
L
L"
G
G
U
U
L
L)
L
0
n
COMMENT NO. 29
OE�q�
9 SP 2:
Memorandum
To: Archaeological Advisory Committee
From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Date: February 5, 2003
SUBJECT: COMMENTS RE: BOEING SPECIFIC PLAN DEIR
- CULTURAL RESOURCES SECTION
Provided below are my comments on the Boeing Specific Plan DEIR, Cultural
Resources Section:
❑ Page 5.7 -10, BURIAL SITES: This paragraph should be revised to include a
general discussion regarding the discovery of human remains on the nearby
Hellman Ranch properties, and the increased potential for the discovery of
unknown locations for human remains on the subject property. In addition,
there should be a general discussion regarding the additional mitigation steps
that would be required based on the compliance issues raised on the Hellman
Ranch /John Laing Homes project to the south. Particular emphasis should be
placed on the procedures that have been utilized on the adjoining Hellman
Ranch /John Laing Homes project that have been utilized in consultation with
the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to mitigate the impacts to the discovery of
any unknown human remains.
This discussion should include the preparation of a "Mitigation Plan" if a
significant number of unknown human remains are encountered during the
test phase and construction grading monitoring on the Boeing properties.
This "Mitigation Plan" should discuss the following issues:
❑ Continued Native American (Monitoring
❑ All ground disturbance in any portions of the project area with the
potential to contain human remains or other cultural material will be
monitored by a Native American representative of the MILD. Activities
to be monitored will include all construction grading, controlled grading,
and hand excavation of previously undisturbed deposit, with the
CADocuments and Settings\gaPLocal Setdngs\TempOraft EIR Cultural Resouroes Section Comment Memo.doc\LW\02 -05-03
14 -251
D
Director of Development Services Comments re:
Boeing Speck Plan DEIR — Section 5.7, Cultural Resources
February S, 2003
Draft EIR Cultural Resources Section Comment Memo 2 r
14 -252
exception of contexts that are clearly within the ancient marine terrace
that comprises most of Landing Hill.
a
❑
Exposure and removal of each burial will be monitored by a Native
American. Where burials are clustered and immediately adjacent, one
monitor is sufficient for excavation of two adjoining burials.
a
❑
Excavation of test units will be monitored. Simultaneous excavation of
two test units if less than 20 feet apart may be monitored by a single
Native American.
{�
•
If screening of soil associated with burials or test units is done
�J
concurrently with and adjacent to the burial or test unit, the Native
American responsible for that burial or test unit will also monitor the
(�
screening. If the screening is done at another location, a separate
�J
monitor will be required.
•
All mechanical excavation conducted in deposits that may contain
human remains (i.e., all areas not completely within the marine terrace
deposits) will be monitored by a Native American.
❑ Notification Procedures for New Discoveries
❑
When possible burials are identified during monitoring of mechanical
excavation, or excavation of test units, the excavation will be
29A
temporarily halted while the find is assessed in consultation with the
lead field archaeologist. If the find is made during mechanical
excavation, the archaeologist or Native American monitoring the
activity will have the authority to direct the equipment operator to stop
while the find is assessed. If it is determined that the find does not
constitute a burial, the mechanical excavation will continue.
❑
If the find is determined to be a human burial, the lead archaeologist
will immediately notify the Site Supervisor for the developer, as well as
the Principal Investigator for EDAW. The Principal Investigator will
immediately notify the MLD and the Director of Development Services
O
for the City of Seal Beach. The City will provide the Coastal
Commission with weekly updates describing the finds in writing.
a
❑ Identification of Additional Burials
❑
For all discovered human burials, attempts will continue to be made to
locate additional burials nearby through hand excavation techniques.
a
This will be done through the excavation of 1 x 1 m exploratory test
units (ETUs) placed along transects extending radially from each
identified burial or burial cluster. The spacing of the ETUs will be
determined upon consultation with the Project Archaeologist and the
MLD. The radial transects will be designed to test areas within 50 feet
(15 m) from the edge of each burial or burial cluster. Excavation of
!
these units will be limited to areas containing intact cultural deposit (i.e.
�J
areas that have not been graded to the underlying marine terrace) and
will be excavated until the marine terrace deposits are encountered, or
Draft EIR Cultural Resources Section Comment Memo 2 r
14 -252
(
U
i
El
L
u
G
L
i
U
u
U
U
Director of Development Services Comments re:
Boeing Specific Plan DEIR — Section 5.7, Cultural Resources
February 5, 2003
to the excavation depth required for the approved grading plan. The
soil from the ETUs along the radial transects will be screened only if
human remains are found in that unit.
❑ Controlled grading will be conducted within these 50 -foot heightened
investigation areas with a wheeled motor grader. The motor grader will
use an angled blade that excavates 1 to 2 inches at a pass, pushing
the spoil to the side to form a low windrow. Monitors will follow about
20 feet behind the motor grader, examining the ground for evidence of
burials.
❑ When a burial is identified during controlled grading, the soil in
windrows that may contain fragments of bone from that burial will be
screened. At a minimum this will include the soil in the windrow within
50 feet of the burial in the direction of the grading.
❑ If additional burials are found during controlled grading, additional
ETUs will be hand excavated in the radial patterns described above.
❑ Burial Removal and Storage
❑ Consultation with the MLD will occur regarding the treatment of
discovered human burials. If the MLD determines it is appropriate to
have discovered human remains pedestaled for removal, that activity
will be conducted in a method agreed to by the MLD.
❑ After pedestaling or other agreed upon burial removal program is
completed, the top of a burial will be covered with paper towels to act
as a cushion, and then a heavy ply plastic will be placed over the top to
retain surface moisture. Duct tape will be wrapped around the entire
pedestal, securing the plastic bag and supporting the pedestal. Labels
will be placed on the plastic indicating the burial number and the
direction of true north in relation to the individual burial. Sections of
rebar will be hammered across the bottom of the pedestal and parallel
to the ground. When a number of parallel rebar sections have been
placed this way, they will be lifted simultaneously, cracking the
pedestal loose from the ground. The pedestal will then be pushed
onto a thick plywood board and lifted onto a pallet. A forklift will carry
the pallet to a secure storage area or secure storage containers
located on the subject property.
❑ If another agreed upon burial removal program is utilized, that method
shall be carried out in a manner agreed upon after consultation with
the MLD.
❑ Study of Burial Remains
❑ If the burials are removed in pedestal and are incompletely exposed,
osteological studies are necessarily limited to determination (if
possible) of age, sex, position, orientation, and trauma or pathology.
After consultation, and only upon written agreement by the MLD,
additional studies that are destructive to the remains may be
Draft EIR Cultural Resources Section Comment Memo 3
14 -253
0
Director of Development Services Comments re:
Boeing Specific Plan DEIR — Section 5.7, Cultural Resources
February 5, 2003
undertaken, including radiocarbon dating of bone or DNA studies. If
the MLD determines that only non - destructive additional studies may
be allowed, one shell may be removed from each burial and submitted
for radiocarbon dating. The assumption here is that the shell would
have been part of the fill for the burial pit, and therefore would provide
0
a maximum age for the burial.
❑ The MLD may indicate a willingness to consider some additional
exposure and study of the skeletal material removed from the sites.
Such study would not involve removal of the remains from the project
area, but rather would be undertaken near the storage area. To the
extent allowed by the MLD, the bones would be further exposed within
the existing pedestals or other medium containing the human remains
and additional measurements taken. Consultation with the MLD
regarding the feasibility of these additional studies prior to reburial
(�
would occur.
�J
❑ Repatriation of Burials and Associated Artifacts
❑ Once all portions of the project area have been graded to the
underlying culturally sterile marine terrace deposits, or to the
excavation depth required for the approved grading plan, the
29A (�
repatriation process will be initiated for all recovered human remains
U
and associated artifacts. Once a reburial site has been identified and
prepared, the remains and associated artifacts will be transported from
the secure storage area to the site for reburial. Appropriate ceremony
will be undertaken during this process at the discretion of the MLD.
❑ Additional Studies
❑ Considerable additional data relating to regional research issues may
be uncovered if substantial numbers of human burials and other
archaeological features are encountered during the construction
O
monitoring for the development. If this occurs, additional analysis be
conducted. The analysis will be designed to more completely address
the research issues discussed in the approved 'Research Design ", and
to provide additional mitigation of impacts to the sites in light of the new
finds. The following studies would be potentially applicable:
❑ Radiocarbon Dating
❑ In considering the implications of the burials in interpreting site
use and regional settlement, it is critical to assess the time
range represented by the interments. Do they correspond to
the full temporal range of site use, or only a limited timeframe?
Although direct dating of the bones may not possible due to the
destructive nature of the radiocarbon technique, the MLD may
a
approve the removal of a single shell from the interior of each
burial for dating. Although this will not provide a direct date of
the burial, assuming the shell was part of the burial fill it should
Draft EIR Cultural Resources Section Comment Memo 4 U
14-254
L'
G I
L�
I
v
L'
III
U
Director of Development Services Comments re:
Boeing Specific Plan DEIR — Section 5.7, Cultural Resources
February S, 2003
provide a maximum age (that is, the burial should not be older
than the shell). In addition, an equivalent number of additional
samples from non -burial contexts would also be taken for
comparative purposes. These data would provide a more
secure measure of the intensity of occupation during different
periods.
❑ Sediment Cores
❑ Dating results obtained to date on the Hellman Ranch /John
Laing Homes properties may suggest a possible link between
the use of the sites within the project area and the productivity
of the adjacent lagoon and estuary systems. To assess this link
using independent environmental data on the subject property,
two sediment cores will be taken from suitable locations of the
property. Sediments in the cores will be examined and
described in the field by a geologist, and samples collected for
dating and pollen analysis. These data will then be used to help
reconstruct the habitats present on the property during the
periods the sites were occupied. This analysis will be included
in the final report documenting the testing, data recovery, and
construction monitoring phases of this investigation.
❑ Comparative Studies
❑ The substantial assemblage of artifacts recovered during the
monitoring on the Hellman Ranch /John Laing Homes properties
provides a basis for comparison with other sites and will
contribute to an understanding of regional patterns. This
analysis will be included in the final report (see below).
❑ Animal Interments
❑ Animal interments may be discovered within the project area.
Because these are not human remains, somewhat more
intensive study is possible. Because these features are
uncommon and represent very culture- specific religious
practices, they are useful in reconstructing cultural areas during
certain times in prehistory. Analysis of animal interments will
include: (1) exposure to determine burial position; (2) photo
documentation; (3) examination of skeleton for age /sex,
traumatic injury, pathology, butchering, or other cultural
modification; (4) radiocarbon dating; and (5) examination of
grave dirt for evidence of grave goods or stomach contents.
❑ Curation
❑ Cultural materials recovered from the cultural resources monitoring
and mitigation program for the development will be curated either at an
appropriate facility in Orange County, or, in consultation with the City,
at the San Diego Archaeological Center.
Draft EIR Cultural Resources Section Comment Memo 5
14 -255
I
Director of Development Services Comments re:
Boeing Specific Plan DEIR — Section J. 7, Cultural Resources
February 5, 2003
❑ Preparation of Final Report
❑ The final technical report will be prepared and submitted to the City
a
and CCC within 12 months of the completion of the archeological field
work. The report will conform to the developed by the California Office
of Historic Preservation for Archaeological Resource Management
Reports (ARMR). It will be prepared in sufficient quantity to distribute
to interested regional researchers and Native American groups. It will
thoroughly document and synthesize all of the findings from all phase
of the cultural resources program. Funding will be provided by the
29A
landowner.
❑ Page 5.7 -3, BURIAL SITES, Mitigation Measure 5.7 -3: The language of the
mitigation measure should be revised to reflect preparation of a "Mitigation
Plan" developed in consultation with the Native American Heritage
Commission and the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to mitigate the impacts of
a
the discovery of any unknown human remains, as discussed in the comment
regarding Page 5.7 -10.
a
D
Fill
U
Draft EIR Cultural Resources Section Comment Memo 6
14 -256
i BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Response to Commentor No. 29
Lee Whittenberg, City of Seal Beach
L1 February 5, 2003
29A. On Page 5.7 -10 of the Draft EIR, a new paragraph has been added in the
Final EIR under the Subheading "Burial Sites" as follows:
C �
U
G
U
L il
r,
Ell
Due to the discoveni of human remains on the nearby Hellman Ranch p erties . there is an
increased potential for the discovery of unknown locations for human remains on the subject
roe Mitigation procedures have been identified that would be required based on the
compliance issues raised on the Hellman Ranch /John Laing Homes projact to the south.
The procedures have been utilized at the Hellman Ranch site in consultation with the Most
Likely Descendent (MLD) to mitigate the impacts to the discovery of any unknown human
remains. Mitigation involves a "Mitigation Plan." should -a significant number of unknown
human remains be encountered during the test phase and construction grading monitoring
on the Boeing -pro e .
In addition, Mitigation Measure 5.7 -3b has been incorporated into the
Final EIR as follows:
BURIAL SITES
5.7 -3 Should any human bone be encountered during any earth removal or disturbance
activities, all activity shall cease immediately and the city selected archaeologist
and Native American monitor shall be immediately contacted, who shall then
immediately notify the Director of Development Services. The Director of the
Department of Development Services shall contact the Coroner pursuant to
Section 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native
American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be
Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
5.7 -3b If more than one Native American burial is encountered durin any earth removal
or disturbance activities, a "Mitigation Plan" shall be prepared and subject to
M proval by the City of Seal Beach Community Develop Department. The
Mifi ation Plan shall include the following_procedures:
Continued Native American Monitoring
♦ All gerund disturbance in an ortions of the roject area with the potential to
contain human remains or other cultural material shall be monitored by a
Native American representative of the MLD. Activities to be monitored shall
include all construction g rading,_ controlled arading. and hand excavation of
previously undisturbed deposit, with the exception of contexts that are clearly_
within the ancient marine terrace that comprises most of Landing Hill.
♦ Exposure and removal of each burial shall be monitored by a Native
American. Where burials are clustered and immediately adjacent. one
monitor is sufficient for excavation of two adjoining burials.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 14 -257 Comments and Responses
cll�of s��
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
American.
0 If screening of soil associated with burials or test units is done concurrently
with and adjacent to the burial or test unit the Native American responsible for
that burial or test unit will also monitor the screening. If the scre Wing is done
at another location a separate monitor shall be required
0 All mechanical excavation conducted in deposits that may contain h uman
remains i.e.. all areas not completely within the marine terrace deposits) shall
be monitored by a Native American
Notification Procedures for New Discoveries
0 When possible burials are identified during monitorina of mechanical
exc vation or excavation of test units, the excavation shall be tempolad
halted while the find is assessed in consultation with the lead field
archaeologist If the find is made during mechanical excavation the
archaeologist or Native American monitoring the activity shall have the
authority to direct the equipment operator to stop while the find is assessed. If
it is determined that the find does not constitute a burial, the mechanical
excavation shall continue.
0 If the find is determined to be a human burial the lead archaeologist shall
immediately notify the Site Supervisor for the developer, as well as the
Principal Investigator. The Principal Investigator shall immediately notify the
LD and the Director of Development Services for the City of Seal Beach.
The City shall provide the Coastal Commission with we klv updates
describing the finds in writing.
Identification of Additional Burials
® For all discovered human burials attempt$ all continue to be made to locate
additional burials nearby through hand excavation techni This shall be
done through the excavation of 1 x 1 m exploratory test 6n (ETUs
along transects extending radiallv from each identified burial or burial cluster
The spacing of the ETUs shall be determined upon consultation with the
Proiect Archaeologist and the MLD The radial transects shall be desiane to
test areas within 50 feet (15 m) from the edge of each burial or burial cluster.
Excavation of these units shall be limited to areas containing intact cultural
deposit (i.e.. areas that have not been graded to the underlying marine
terrace) and shall be excavated until the marine terrace deposits are
encountered, or to the excavation epth req fired for the approved r ding
plan The soil from the ETUs-a—lonq the radial transects shall be screened only
if human remains are found in that unit
® Controlled qra in shall be conducted within these 50 -foot heighten
investigation areas with a wheeled motor. rader. The motor grader shall use
an angled lade that excavates 1 to 2 inches at a pass � ushin tg he spoil to
the side to form a low windrow. Monitors shall follow about 20 feet behind the
motor grader, examining the around for evidence of burials
0 When a burial is identified durinas ntrolled radina, the soil in windrows th2t
m ay contain fragments of bone from that burial shall be screened At a
minimum this shall include the soil in the windrow within 50 feet of the burial in
0
I
1�
I
1
0
11
j
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -258 Comments and Responses 0
i
�I
LI
U
L
L
G
Ci D
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
♦ If additional burials are found during controlled g rading. additional ETUs will
be hand excavated in the radial oatterns described above.
Burial Removal and Storag
♦ Consultation with the MILD shall occur re . arding the treatment of discovered
human burials. If the MILD determines it is apprQpriate to have discQyQred
human remains pedestaled for removal, that activity shall be conducted in a_
method agreed to by the MILD.
o After pedestaling or other afire pon burial removal program is completed
th top of a burial shall be covered with paper towels to act as a cushion and
then a heavy—ply—plastic will be placed over the top to retain surface moisture.
Duct tape shall be wrapped around the entire pedestal, securing the p astic
bag and suaporting the pedestal. Labels shall be Dlaced on th_e_plastic
indicating the burial number and the direction of true north in relation to the
individual burial Sections of rebar shall be hammered across the bottom of
th p edestal and parallel to the ground. When a number of parallel rebar
sections have been placed this way, they shall be lifted simultaneously,_
cracking the pedestal loose from the ground The pedestal shall then be
pushed onto a thick plywood board and lifted onto a pallet. A forklift shall
carry the pallet to a secure storage area or secure storage containers located
on the subject property
♦ If another a upon burial removal program is utilized, that method shall be
carried out in a manner agreed upon after consultation with the MILD.
Study of Burial Remains
i
LJ
L ,
.1
U
�I
LJ
♦ If the burials are removed in pedestal and are incomplete exposed -
osteolog studies are necessarily limited to determination (if possible) of
age sex position orientation and trauma or Datholo4v After consultation
and only upon written agreement by the MLD, additional studies that are
destructive to the remains may be undertaken. including radiocarbon dating of
bone or DNA studies. If the MLD determines that only non - destructive
additional studies may be allowed, one shell may be removed from each
burial and submitted for radiocarbon datin The assumption here is that the
shell would have been part of the fill for the burial—pit and there— fore would
provide a maximum a for the burial.
0 The MILD may indicate a willingness to consider some additional exposure
and study of the skeletal material removed from the sites. Such stud yopld__
not involve removal of the remains from the Drr_o area, but rather would be
Undertaken near the storage area. To the extent allowed by the MLD, the
bones would be further exposed within the existing_ pedestals or other medium
containina the human remains and additional measurements taken.
Consultation with the MILD regarding the feasibility of these additional studies
prior to reburial would occur.
Re patriation of Burials and Associated Artifacts
♦ Once all portions of the project area have been graded to the underly
culturally sterile marine terrace deposits or to the excavation depth required
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -259
Comments and Responses
cof T of d
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
recovered human remains and associated artifacts. Once a reburial site has
been identified and prepared, the remains and associated artifacts shall be
transported from the secure storage area to the site for reburial. Appropriate
ceremony will be undertaken during this process at the discretion of the MLD.
Additional Studies
® Considerable additional data relating to regional research issues may bb _
uncovered if substantial numbers of human burials and other archaeolo
features are encountered during the construction monitoring for the
development. If this occurs, additional analysis be conducted. The an si*
shall be designed to more completely address the research issues discussed
in the approved "Research Designn", and to provide addition— of
impacts to the sites in light of the new finds. The following studies would be
potentially applica le:
Radiocarbon Dating. In considering the implications of the burials in
inter retina site use and regional settlement, it is critical to assess the
time range represented by the interments. Do they correspond to the full
temporal range of site use, or only a limited timeframe? Although direct
dating of the bones may not possible due to the destructive nature of the
radiocarbon technique. the MILD -ma approve the removal of a single
shell from the interior of each burial for dating. Although this shall not
provide a direct date of the burial, assuming the shell was part of the
burial fill it should provide a maximum ape that is. the burial should not
be older than the shell). In addition, an equivalent number of additional
samples from non - burial contexts would also be taken for comparative
purposes. These data would provide a more secure measure of the
intensity of occupation during different periods.
Sediment Cores. Dating results obtained to date on the Hellman
Ranch /John Laing Homes properties may sug esg t a possible link between
the use of the sites within the project area and the productivity of the
adjacent lagoon and estuary systems. To assess this link using
independent environmental data on the sub'e Ct p ro erty , two sediment
cores will be taken from suitable locations of the propertv. Sediments in
the cores shall be examined and described in the field by a-geoloaist and
samples collected for dating and Dollen analysis. These data shall then
be used to help reconstruct the habitats present on the rho Burin
the periods the sites were occupied. This analysis shall be included in the
final m ort documenting the testing, data recov!D- r and construction
monitoring phases of this investig to ion.
Com parative Studies. The substantial assemblage of artifacts recovered
wring the monitoring on the Hellman Ranch /John Laing
�r_o gerties provides a basis for comparison with other sites and shall
contribute to an understandina of regional patterns. This analysis shall be
included in the final report (see below).
- Animal Interments. Animal interments may be discovered within the
project_ area. Because these are not human remains, somewhat more
intensive study is possible. Because these features are uncommon and
represent very culture - specific reli ious practices. they are useful in
reconstructing cultural areas during certain times in prehistory. Anal
f animal interments will include: !1) exposure to determine burial position:
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 14 -260 Comments and Responses
I
1
0
11,
J
0
11
J
0
d
U
'-Pe=
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
radiocarbon datin an (� examination of crave dirt for evidence of
grave oods or stomach contents.
1J
L
Curation
♦ Cultural materials recovered from the cultural resources monitoring and
mitigation program for the development shall be curated either at an
appropriate facility in Orange County, or, in consultation with the City_, at the
San Diego Archaeological Center.
Preparation of Final Rep-O t
L
U!
L-
i
r)
Li
u
ji
LJ
r '?
L
G
4 The final technical report shall be prepared and submitted to the Ci and
CCC within 12 months of the completion of the archeological field work. The
res ort shall conform to the guidelines developed by the California Office of
Historic Preservation for Archaeological Resource Management Reports
(ARMR). It will be p in sufficieni to distribute to interested
reg ional researchers and Native American groups. It shall thoroug
document and synthesize all of the findings from all phase of the cultural
resources program. Funding shall beDrovided by the landowner.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
14 -261
Comments and Responses
I
L
F
-Lj
r ,
IL
Errata
F
L
r ,
ILV
F
Ld
r
L
F
L
F
L
i
F
L
Lj C, f s�a �
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
r > ERRATA
l-�
► The paragraph stating the adoption of overriding considerations at the bottom of
Page 2 -6 of the Draft EIR will be repeated on Page 2 -7 of the Final EIR. The
paragraph reads as follows:
If the City of Seal Beach approves the Project, the C shall be required to adopt findin
accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and oreoere a Statement of
Overriding C in accordance with Section 15093 of the CE _A Guid elines.
► The paragraph stating the adoption of overriding considerations at the bottom of
Page 2 -6 of the Draft EIR will be repeated on Page 2 -7 of the Final EIR. The
paragraph reads as follows:
rf
U
�I
�I
) r
U'
r�
L
If the City of Seal Beach a _proves the Project, the Ci shall be required to adopt findin
accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and orepare a St atem e nt o f
Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQAQwdehnes.
Page 3 -11, Paragraph 2 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
Planning Area 3 would include a new road system including ingress /egress from Seal Beach
Boulevard and Westminster Avenue via Apollo Drive, providing access to the new industrial
park and existing facilities. As part of the develo ment of Plannin A rea 3. Adolfo Lopez
Drive would be widened and extended.
Page 3 -13, Paragraph 1, of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
Because the City's draft LUP and Local Coastal Program (LCP) remain uncertified,
development within the Boeing Specific Plan would require Coastal Development Permit
(CDP) approval from the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The CCC is required to
make findings that development of this site is in compliance with the goals and policies of the
California Coastal Act of 1976 ( "Coastal Act "). The CDP entitlement process with the CCC
would be initiated after the City of Seal Beach discretionary approvals have been granted
(i.e., General Plan Amendment, Zone Change Precise Plan A rp oval and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map).
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
E -1
trraia
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Page 3 -20 of the Draft EIR, second bullet paragraph, has been revised as follows in
the Final EIR:
0 FAR is defined as the ratio between the amount of gross floor area permitted to be
constructed on a legal building lot and the size of the lot. In computing gross floor
area of a building, the gross area confined within the exterior walls of the building
shall be considered as the floor area of
each floor of the building. This includes space devoted to hallways, stairwells,
elevator shafts, lobbies, light courts and basement storage. Gross floor area does
not include covered parking floor space with necessary interior driveways and
ramps thereto, space within a roof structure or penthouse for the housing of
equipment or machinery incidental to the operation of the building, and space for
loading and storage of helicopters.
Page 3 -22, Bullet 6 under the heading "Planning and Environmental Design" has
been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
0 Provide for wetland restoration and water quality treatment of urban runoff for new
development by creating wetland habitat on the terraces along each side of Drainage
Ditches A and B as well as within the water guality treatment basins at the site
Page 3 -23 of the Draft EIR, Paragraph 2 of Subsection 3.5, Phasing, has been
revised in the Final EIR as follows:
Rough site grading, demolition, and construction of the public roadway and required public
infrastructure improvements to serve Planning Areas 2 and 3 of the project are anticipated
to begin by the end of 2003 and be completed by mid -2004 in a single phase. Building
construction may commence by early 2004 for the portion of Planning Area 3 located
adjacent to Westminster Avenue and continue in a southerly progression. Building
construction in Planning Area 4 may also commence by early 2005. It is currently
anticipated that all buildings /lots would be constructed by BRC and /or sold to individual lot
purchasers who would be responsible for the construction of the buildings in accordance
with the approved development plans. Occupancy is anticipated to occur as early as mid -
2004, with full occupancy expected by the end of 2006.
111ML v MrKIL tuna E -2 Errata
j ,
0
U
Fj
U.
l.�
.1
C
D
I ':
i
P ,}
V
I
i
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Page 3 -23, Subsection 3.6, Agreements, Permits and Approvals, has been revised
as follows in the Final EIR under the heading "City of Seal Beach ":
City of Seal Beach
0 Certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
0 General Plan Amendments — Land Use, Circulation
♦ Specific Plan approval
♦ Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Final Map(s) approvals
0 Development Agreement (if utilized)
0 Any other approvals deemed necessary during the entitlement process
Precise Plan Approval
Page 3 -24, under the heading of "Other Agencies" has been revised in the Final EIR
as follows:
Other Agencies
California Coastal Commission
- Coastal Development Permit Approval
California Department of Fish and Game
- 1603 Permit
♦ Regional Water Quality Control Board
- Section 402 NPDES Permit
- Waste Discharge Permit
® Federal Aviation Administration
- Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration Form
Any other approvals deemed necessary during the entitlement process
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
E -3
Errata
O
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Table 4 -1 has been revised for the Final EIR to read as follows:
Table 4 -1*
Approved and Pending Cumulative Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Site
Key
Map
-Project Name
Description
Location
Status
70 Single - family residential units
West of Seal Beach
1
Hellman Specific Plan
and a 20,000 square foot
Boulevard, southerly
of The Seal Beach
Approved
visitor /recreation /community
Police Department
commercial center
Facility, Seal Beach
Center rehabilitation and addition
Seal Beach
2
Rossmoor Center
of Kohl Store for a total of 77,503
Boulevard /Saint
Under
sq. ft.
Cloud Drive, Seal
construction
Beach
Northeast comer of
Plans
3
Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan
Vacant floor area of Bixby Old
Seal Beach
Boulevard and the I-
approved and
Ranch Master Plan (Area A)
405/22 Freeway,
tzuilt - indAF
Seal Beach
seastrastn
Northeast corner of
Plans
3
Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan
Vacant floor area of Bixby Old
Seal Beach
Boulevard and the I-
approved and
Ranch Master Plan (Area B)
405/22 Freeway,
under
Seal Beach
construction
Northeast corner of
Plans
3
Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan
Vacant floor area of Bixby Old
Seal Beach
Boulevard and the I-
approved and
Ranch Master Plan (Area C)
405/22 Freeway,
ilt - -ndeF
Seal Beach
eenstruetien
Northeast comer of
Plans
3
Bixby Old Ranch Master Plan
Vacant floor area of Bixby Old
Seal Beach
Boulevard and the I-
approved and
Ranch Master Plan (Area D)
405/22 Freeway,
bmLilt unde
Seal Beach
eeastfdGtien
4
Manna/1 Street Hotel
150 -Room hotel
1 Street, west of
Marina Drive, Seal
Allowable by
Beach
Specific Plan
North of Katella
5
Los Alamitos Medical Center
Development of 60,000 square
Avenue, between
Cherry Street and
Approved
foot medical office building
Kaylor Avenue, Los
Alamitos
6
10921 Cherry Street Medical
Development of 7,685 square
10921 Cherry Street,
Center Office Building
foot medical office building
Los Alamitos
Approved
7
Residential Development
52 Single - family residential units
301 Manila Ave,
Under
Long Beach
Construction
Entitlements
granted;
8
Commercial Development
19,500 Square foot commercial
190 Marina Drive,
pending
building
Long Beach
passage by
Coastal
Commission
LVot t the time of preparation of the Draft ER -the raiment information in Este.
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 E -4 Errata
t�
r►
I
iJ•
�
r�
J
�J
4�
U
L i
i
iJ
U
C o� ( :3ea��e=A
BOEIN ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Page 5.1 -4, T box below the Land Use Element subheading for Project
Consistency, has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
Consistent: As indicated in Table 5 -1 of the Specific Plan, Boeing Specific Plan Permitted Land Uses, various
light industrial uses would be permitted in the Specific Plan area. Thus, should the City of Seal Beach approve the
proposed General Plan Amendment. ' Specific Plan's Development Standards and permitted
uses, the proposed Project would satisfy the General Plan's designation and ultimate intended use of the subject
site ., light industFial use in the foFm of an "industFial paFk").
Page 5.1 -31 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows (Impact
Statements also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary):
SCAG's REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE
51 -4 The proposed Project would not conflict with relevant s
Reg ional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Analysis has concluded that the_
pro osed project is considered consistent with relevant and ap�nl►cabla policies.
The consistency analysis of the proposed Project with relevant and ap i ab a olicies of
SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCEG) is provided in Table 5.1 -3.
SCAG Policy Con sistency Analysis As detailed in Table 5 1 - 3 the proposed Proiect is
considered consistent with relevant and applicable policies of the KEG.
CUMULATIVE
5.14,5 The proposed Project, combined with other future development, could increase
the intensity of land uses in the area. Analysis has concluded that impacts are
less than significant and no mitigation is recommended. Projects are evaluated
on a project -by- project basis in accordance with the criteria set forth within the
jurisdiction in which the cumulative project is located.
► Page 5.1 -32 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows (also
revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of Mitigation
Measures, and Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program):
SCAB' REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE
51 -4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the anal provided
above. the proposed Proiect would not result in si nificant impacts in this reg ard.
CUMULATIVE
5.1-4 No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided
above, with the incorporation of the Project features, the proposed Project would
not result in significant land use impacts.
FINAL ® APRIL 2003
E -5
Errata
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Table 5.1 -2 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
Table 5.1 -2
California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis
Applicable Coastal Act GoallObjective ( Project Consistency Discussion
Section 30210. In carrying out the requirement of
Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution,
maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted,
and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all
the people consistent with public safety needs and the
need to protect public rights, rights of private property
owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.
Section 30211. Development shall not interfere with the
public's right of access to the sea where acquired
through use or legislative authorization, including, but not
limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches
to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
Section 30212. (a) Public access from the nearest public
roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be
provided in new development projects except where (1) it
is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs,
or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2)
adequate access exists nearby, or (3) agriculture would
be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not
be required to be opened to public use until a public
agency or private association agrees to accept
responsibility for maintenance and liability of the
accessway.
Consistent Due to the sensitive nature of existing uses
and concerns about security, access to the site has been
restricted since the 1960s. The site has been developed
with buildings and associated facilities suitable for light
industrial uses and has been used as such for decades.
The Specific Plan area is zoned and currently used for
industrial and manufacturing purposes. The Specific
Plan area is one of only two sites in the City of Seal
Beach that is zoned for such uses. Because of security
concerns (particularly since September 11), the need to
protect the confidentiality of the existing on -site
operations, and the limited availability of manufacturing
and industrial sites within the City, public access through
the Specific Plan area would not be appropriate.
However, the Specific Plan would maximize access by
improving Adolfo Lopez Drive, thereby providing a
connection to potential access trails that may be located
within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area directly
south of the Specific Plan area.
Consistent Refer to Response to Section 30210. Also,
a significant portion (approximately 58 %) of the Specific
Plan area is currently used as the headquarters site for
Boeing Space and Communications Operations. The
public has neither acquired nor claimed any right of
access through use or legislative authorization over any
portion of the area covered by the Specific Plan. This
Chapter 3 policy, which expressly applies to the public's
right of access where acquired through use or legislative
authorization, does not apply to the Specific Plan as
proposed. Due to the nature of the proposed uses and
the location of the Project site, Project development
would not interfere with the public's right of access to the
sea.
Consistent The nearest public roadway to the
shoreline is two miles south of the Specific Plan area.
The Specific Plan area is not located between this public
roadway and the shore, therefore this Chapter 3 policy,
which expressly applies to maximizing access from the
nearest public roadway to the shoreline, does not apply
to the Specific Plan as proposed. Nevertheless, the
Specific Plan would maximize access from the Specific
Plan area to the shoreline by improving Adolfo Lopez
Drive, thereby providing a connection to potential access
trails that might be located on the Hellman Ranch
property directly south of the Specific Plan area. Refer to
Response to Section 30210.
public faci' ties �cludin areas or facilities. shall
be di tri We thr about an ar amigo as to mitigate
deemed s havin the potential for overcrowding or
overuse with regard to public facilities. No such impacts
would occur.
J
17
i?
ll
U
U
D
J
ll
U
ll
U
0
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 E -6 Errata 0
r �•
1 t `
H
f
U
U
�i
1,U
f �
i
U
I'
�t
L'
L
of � "'C <;�Wpe-'A
BOEINGS ECI FIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Table 5.1 -3, SCAG Policy Consistency Analysis, of the Draft EIR has been added to
the Final EIR at the end of Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning.
Table 5.1 -3
SLAG Policy Consistency Analysis
I SCAG RCPG Policies " • "I" " " " Consistency Statement
Growth Management Chapter
The population housing, and iobs forecasts.
which are adopted by SCAG's Regional
Council and that reflect local plans and
Consistent The most current SCAG forecasts are reflected in
Section 6.3. Growth - Inducing Impacts As discussed in Section
the proposed Proiect is consistent with local and regional
population, housing. and employment _proiectons.
3.0 The timing, financing, and location of public
facilities, utility systems, and transportation
systems _ shall be used by SCAG to
implement the region's growth policies.
Core Regional Transportation Plan
build -out of the Specific Plan area. Initial street construction and
future phased construction or reconstruction would be completed
in advance of occupancy of new facility- phased construction
Further, the Proiect would extend utilities /infrastructure from
existing facilities that exist adiacent to the Proiect site. All future
development projects would be subject to review by the City and
Transportation investments shall be based Consistent The proposed circulation system would accommodate
on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance build -out of the Specific Plan area Initial street construction and
Indicators. future phased construction or reconstruction would be completed
in advance of occupancy of new facility- phased construction The
proposed transportation improvements are considered consistent
4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate
environmental impacts to an acceptable
lev I.
4.04 Transportation Control Measures snail De a
4�C1 Maintaining and operating the existing
transportation system will be a priority over
expanding capacity.
Consistent As indicated in Section 5.3. Tragic and Circulation.
where feasible recommended mitigation measures would reduce
potential traffic and circulation impacts to less than significant
levels It is noted that the feasibility of mitigation at the Seal Beach
Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection and the Seal Beach
Boulevard overcrossing is uncertain as discussed in Section 5.3 of
Consistent. The Project does not propose to expand the capacity
of the existing transportation system (i.e.. Westmmster Avenue
w... Seal Beach Boulevard) The Project does however. propose
two roadways to facilitate access into the Project area: Saturn
Way and Apollo Court Further Apollo Drive may be extended to
connect Westminster Avenue with Seal Beach Boulevard.
Additionally, improvements to Adolfo Lopez Drive are proposed
adiacent to the Project site. Refer to Section 5.3. Traffic and
GMC Policies Related to the RCPG Goal to Improve the Regional Standard of Ljving
.0 Encourage patterns of urban development Consistent Refer to consistency analysis for SCAG Policies 3.13
and land use which reduce costs on na d 4.16•
infrastructure construction and make better
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
E -7
Errata
c w s�
BOEING�SECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
SCAG RCPG Policies
Consistency Statement
3.09
Suppo local jurisdictions' actions to
Consistent. Refer to consistency analysis for SCAG Policies 3.13
minimize the cost of infrastructure and public
and 4.16.
service delivery. and efforts to seek new
sources of funding for development and the_
r vision of services.
3 .1 0
Support local iurisdictions' actions to
Consistent. The proposed Boeing Specific Plan provides policies
minimize red tape and expedite th
and guidelines to expedite the permitting process.
permitting process to maintain economic
vitalily and competitiveness.
GMC Policies
Related to the RCPG Goal to Improve the
Regional Quality of Life
3.122
Encourage existing or proposed local
Consistent. The Project proposes development of business Dark
iurisdictions' programs aimed at designing
and hotel /commercial uses. The Specific Plan as proposed would
land uses which encourage the use of transit
enhance public access to the coast by providing hotelicommercial
and thus reduce the need for roadway
uses adjoining residential development that would minimize the
expansion, reduce the number
use of coastal access roads and provide adequate parking
and vehicle miles traveled. and create
facilities to serve the development. Adequate on -site parking
opportunities for residents to walk and bike,
would be required to meet projected demands. Public transit stops
(Orange County Transportafion Authority) are located along
Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. The Specific
Plan proposes to zone a portion of the site for commercial and
retail uses These uses would—be allowed in areas that are
d irectly across the street or near two existing residential
communities: Leisure World and Island Village. Additionally,
pedestrian sidewalks are proposed into the right -of -way for Apollo
Drive, Apollo Court and Saturn Way. Sidewalks are proposed to
best accommodate pedestrian needs adjacent to new
de velopment within the Specific Ela area.
313
Encourage local iurisdictions' plans that
Consistent Development exists north east south and northwest
maximize the use of existing urbanized areas
of the Project site. Further, vacant lands existing west of the
accessible to transit through infill and
Project site are utilized as flood control facilities and designated
redevelopment.
or conservation purposes. Thus. the Proiect proposes the
development of business park and hotellcommercial uses in an
existing urbanized area and on property currently zoned for light
industrial development since November. 1965. Public transit stops
(OCTA) are located along Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach
Boulevard, acloacent to the Pro'e site
3 .16
Encourage developments in and around
Consistent. Refer to consistency analysis for SCAG Policies 416
activily centers transportation corridors
and 3.13,
underutilized infrastructure systems and
a reas needing recycling nd redevelopm
3.18
Encourage planned development in locations
Consistent As indicated in Section 5.0. Description of
east likely to cause environmental impact.
E nvironmental Setting. Impacts. and Mitigation Measures
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would
reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. In addition
to the mitigation measures proposed in this EIR, the proposed
Specific Plan contains policies to protect environmental resources
and minimize adverse environmental effects
3.20
Support the protection of vital resources such
Consistent. Refer to Section 10 0. Effects Found Not to be
as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas
Significant. and to consistency analysis for SCAG Policy 3.18.
woodlands. production lands, and land
containing unique and endangered plant
and animals.
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 E -8 Errata U
l-�
r
� I
�J
4�
r
( r
U
L)
U
1�
I�
L
I
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
SCAG RCPG Policies
Consistencv'Statement
3.21
.22
Encourage the implementation of measures
Consistent As indicated in Section 5.7. Cultural Resources. the
aimed at the preservation and protection of
recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential
recorded and unrecorded cultural resources
impacts to cultural resources to less than significant levels.
Consistent The Project site does not contain areas of steep
slopes or high fire flood or seismic hazards. As indicated in
and archaeological sites.
Discourage development. or encourage the
use of special design requirements. in areas
with steep slopes high fire flood and
Section 5.8. Geology and Soils. and Section 5.9. Hydrology and
seismic hazards.
Drainage, implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures would reduce potential impacts associated with flood
and seismic hazards to less than sionificant levels.
3.23
Encourage mitigation measures that reduce
Consistent As indicated in Section 5.5, Noise. Section 5.6.
noise in certain locations. measures aimed at
Biolooical Resources. and Section 5.8. Geology and Soils.
preservation of biological and ecological
recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential
resources measures that would reduce
impacts associated with noise biological resources, and
exposure to seismic hazards. minimize
geologvlsoils to less than significant levels. respectively. As
earthquake damage, and to develop
discussed in Section 510 Public Health and Safety
emergency response and recovery plans.
implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than
significant impacts regarding emergency response and recovery
Imo. .
GMC Policies
3.27
Related to the RCPG Goal to Provide Social
Support local jurisdictions and other service
providers in their efforts to develop
Political. and Cultural Equity
Consistent. The Specific Plan proposes hotel and commercial
.uses adjoining residential development. These uses would be
sustainable communities and provide.
equally available to all members of the society.
equally to all members of society. accessible
and effective services such as: public
education housing, health care social
services recreational facilities. law
enforcement and fire Dro tection.
Air Quality
Chapter
Throuah the environmental document review Consistent This EIR addresses air quality land use and
process, ensure that plans at all levels of transportation impacts of the proposed Specific Plan and provides
government (regional, air basin. county. mitigation measures where feasible to reduce significant
subregional and local) consider air quality. environmental impacts to a less than significant level.
land use transportation_ and economic
relationships to ensure consistency and
minimize conflicts.
T
L FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 E -9 Errata
C,16� -0,c s�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
SCAG RCPG Policies .:
' Consistency Statement
Water Quality Chapter
11.07
E courage water reclamation throughout the
Consistent. The Specific Plan as proposed includes use of, and
region where it is cost - effective, feasible. and
enhancements to, existing facilities that would improve storm
appropriate to reduce reliance on imported
ater quality on the site. The Specific Plan proposes to
water and wastewater discharges. Current
implement a variety of structural and non - structural Best
administrative impediments to increased use
Management Practices and to establish certain maintenance
of wastewater should be addressed.
procedures and other management practices to prevent and /or
reduce the pollution of downstream receiving facilities (i.e.. the
Los Alamitos Retarding Basin). A conceptual Water Quality
Management Plan for the Specific Plan area has been prepared to
dress issues of water quality and the Specific Plan as proposed
incorporates existing and proposed site features into the water
qua lily Ian (refer to Appendix 15.8
9�0�
Min imize potentially h3z
Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis for SCAG Policy
developments in hillsides, canyons, areas
3.22.
susceptible to flooding. earthquakes, wildfire
and other known hazards. and areas with
limited access for emergency a ui men .
9_0_6
Minimize public expenditure for infrastructure
Consistent. Through General Plan goals. policies, and
and facilities to support urban type uses in
implementation programs: Specific Plans and zoning
areas where public health and safely could
requirements. the City provides for adequate infrastructure and
not be guaranteed.
f cilities as well as ensures the public's health and safety Public
e xpenditures are determined by the City Council as a part of the
C ity's annual budget process for the Capital Improvemen
Pr r m
9.08
Develop well - managed viable ecosystems or
onsistent The General Plan promotes the protection of viable
known habitats of rare. threatened and
ecosystems and habitats through the preservation and
en an ered s eci in I di w etlands.
n ncemen f - Qpen space uses.
Page 5.2 -2 of the Draft EIR, Paragraph 2, has been revised as follows in the Final U
EIR:
Planning Area 3 . Planning Area 3 consists of approximately 45 acres and is bordered by
Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2 to the east, Adolfo Lopez Drive to the south, a
drainage channel to the west and Westminster Avenue to the north. Building 97, the only
structure existing within the area, is located at the southern portion of Planning Area 3.
Building 97 is essentially a covered area used to protect equipment/materials. The
property's northern parking lots extend into the northeastern portion of Planning Area 3.
The remainder of Planning Area 3 consists of vacant land with limited improvements
including three man -made drainage ditches, and electrical transmission and distribution
facilities (refer to Exhibit 5.2 -3, Photographs Planning Area 3). The vacant land lacks any
topographical features. This undeveloped portion of Planning Area 3 is maintained on a
regular basis for fire control, weed abatement, and drainage purposes.
u
u
u
)i
0
FINAL ®APRIL 2003 E -10 Errata
0
r >
�J
U�
L
r.
r•
U
r�
u'
C
Co oC��e�
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Page 5.3 -1, Paragraph 1 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
This Section is based upon the project Traffic Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law &
Greenspan (LL &G), dated OGtob N- December 13. 2002, which is included as Appendix 15.2,
Traffic Study, of this document. The evaluation considers impacts to local roadways,
intersections, regional facilities and ingress /egress locations on -site. Mitigation measures are
recommended to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Page 5.3 -2, Table 5.3 -1 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
Table 5.3 -1
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Method Level of Service Definitions
Level of
'.
VC Ratio
Avg. DelayNehicle (sec.)
-
- Description (Assumes Uninterrupted Flow)
(ICU)
Service
Signalized :
Unsignalized
LOS "A"
Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of
...0-
000 -060
0 10.0
0.0 5.0
others in the traffic stream.
0 010 0
The traffic stream begins to be noticeable and freedom to
5A *9
LOS "B"
select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a
0.61 -0.70
10.1 - 20.0
101 15 0
slight decline in the freedom to maneuver.
The beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of
, "�
LOS "C"
individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions
0.71 -0.80
20.1 -35.0
15 -2 .0
with others in the traffic stream.
Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and
20.1
LOS "D"
the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and
0.81 -0.90
35.1 - 55.0
25.M-.
convenience.
All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniformed
30.1 45-8
LOS "E"
value. Small increases in flow will causes breakdowns in
.91 -1.00
55.1 -80.0
53 1 50 0
traffic movement.
This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic
Above 45.8
LOS "F"
approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse
Above 1.0
Above 80.0
the point. Queues form behind such locations.
► Page 5.3 -3, "Existing Roadway Circulation System ", Westminster Avenue fifth
sentence: Revise speed limit from "40 mph" to "50 mph" west of Seal Beach
Boulevard.
Westminster Avenue is an east -west oriented highway, which borders the Boeing Specific
Plan project site to the north. Westminster Avenue is designated as a Primary Arterial in the
County MPAH and the City's Circulation Element. It is currently a four -lane divided roadway
adjacent to the project site. Parking is not permitted along any section of this roadway in the
study area. The posted speed limit on Westminster Avenue is 48 W mph west of Seal
Beach Boulevard and 55 mph east of Seal Beach Boulevard. West of Studebaker Road, the
posted speed limit is 50 mph. Weekday daily traffic on Westminster Avenue ranges
r
U FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 E -11 Errata
0
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
between 23,204 vpd, west of Seal Beach Boulevard, and 24,137 vpd, west of Bolsa Chica
Road.
0
.3
Page 5.3 -12, under the heading "Key Intersection" of the Draft EIR, Intersection 10
has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
Page 5.3 -13, Table 5.3 -4 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
Table 5.3-4
Existing Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Key Intersection
ICU /LOS
ICU /LOS
1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd St/Westminster Avenue
0.931/E
1.000 /E
2. Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue
0.9371E
0.818/D
9. Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue
0.926/E
0.907 /E
10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Southbound Ramps
0.888/Dt=
0.972/E
11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405 Northbound Ramps
0.706/9
0.989/E
12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road
0.950 /E
0.769/C
Note: Bold ICU /LOS values indicate unacceptable service
levels.
23,066
Page 5.3 -13, Table 5.3 -4 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
Table 5.3-4
Existing Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 E -12 Errata
No. • of•,, -
- ; . MPAH
Existing,
Year 2002
Existin
Traffic
Daily—,
MIC
Roadway Segment .. , . •
Existing
-Arterial
Capacity..T
Lanes
Classification •
at LOS E; • -
: .
- Ratio °
LOS.
A
Westminster Avenue,
4D
Primary
37,500
23,066
0.615
B
e/o Studebaker Road
Arterial
B
Westminster Avenue,
4D
Primary
37,500
23,204
0.619
B
Between Apollo Drive /Road B
Arterial
C
Westminster Avenue,
4D
Primary
37,500
24,137
0.644
B
w/o Bolsa Chica Road
Arterial
D
Seal Beach Boulevard,
6D
Major
56,300
20,666
0.367
A
No Pacific Coast Highway
Arterial
E
Adolfo Lopez Drive,
2U
Local
12,500
1,389
0.111
A
w/o Seal Beach Boulevard
Collector
F
Seal Beach Boulevard,
6D
Major
56,300
26,975
0.479
A
Between Apollo Drive /Road C
Arterial
G
Seal Beach Boulevard,
6D
Major
56,300
33,790
0.600
A
Between St Andrews /Golden Rain
Arterial
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 E -12 Errata
I
N
L
U
Li
v
L
I
r;
d�
U
U
l•:J
, r
1
L
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Page 5.3 -27, Table 5.3 -6 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR to read
as follows:
Table 5.3 -6
*Related Project Traffic Generation Forecast
Related Projects Description
No. of
MPAH
Existing
Year 2002
Existing
Traffic
In
Out
Total
Roadway Segment ,
Existing"
Arterial
Capacity
Daily
VIC
80
84
Lanes
Classification
at LOS E
Volume
Ratio
LOS
26
Seal Beach Boulevard, between 1 -405
38
Major
3
Area B — Lampson Center (10,348 square feet of Vacant
GLA,112 Room Hotel, 155 unit Assisted Living Facility)
2,102
64
H.
NB Ramps and 1 -405 SB Ramps
5D
Arterial
46,875
42,411
0.905
9 E
14
Overcrossin
24
20
27
47
5
Area D — Old Ranch Residential (31 unoccupied dwelling
units)
1
Pacific Coast Highway, north of Main
4D
Primary
37,500
44,684
1.192
F
Heilman Specific Plan
StreetlBolsa Avenue
38
Arterial
92
91
65
156
7.
Pacific Coast Highway, north of Seal
4D
Primary
37,500
45,422
1.211
F
92
Beach Boulevard
Los Alamitos Medical Center (60,000 square feet)
Arterial
116
30
146
60
K
Pacific Coast Highway, south of Seal
4D
Primary
37,500
41,920
4-.W
F
8
Beach Boulevard
29
Arterial
1 10,731
346
225
571
D = Divided, U = Undivided
Page 5.3 -27, Table 5.3 -6 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR to read
as follows:
Table 5.3 -6
*Related Project Traffic Generation Forecast
Related Projects Description
Daily
2 -Wa y "
" AMPeak Hour "
PM Peak Hour
.. In' .
Out' "
Total
In
Out
Total
1.
Rossmoor Center (77,503 square feet shopping center)
1,691
26
17
43
80
84
164
2
Area A - Old Ranch Town Center Net Entitled Trips (36,106
square feet of Vacant GLA)
779
16
10
26
38
38
76
3
Area B — Lampson Center (10,348 square feet of Vacant
GLA,112 Room Hotel, 155 unit Assisted Living Facility)
2,102
64
49
113
141
122
263
4.
Area C — Public Golf Driving Range (37 Tees)
463
14
10
24
20
27
47
5
Area D — Old Ranch Residential (31 unoccupied dwelling
units)
296
6
18
24
20
11
31
6.
Heilman Specific Plan
1,710
38
54
92
91
65
156
7.
Marinallst Street Hotel (150 Rooms)
1,240
51
33
84
48
44
92
8.
Los Alamitos Medical Center (60,000 square feet)
2,170
116
30
146
60
160
220
9.
10921 Cherry Street (7,685 square feet)
280
15
4
19
8
21
29
TOTAL RELATED PROJECT TRIPS
1 10,731
346
225
571
506
572
1,078
*Note: At the time of preparation of the Draft EIR the current information in the Table was accurate.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
E -13
Errata
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Page 5.3 -34, under the heading "Key Intersection" of the Draft EIR, the AM Peak
hour ICU /LOS for Intersection 11 has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
Page 5.3 -36, Table 5.3 -8 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
Table 5.3 -8
Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Key Intersection
ICU /LOS
ICU /LOS
1.
Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd St/Westminster Ave
1.0111F
1.0911F
2.
Studebaker Road at Westminster Avenue
1.0111F
0.887/1)
9.
Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue
1.0151F
1.0121F
10.
Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 Southbound Ramps
0.9841E
1.1001F
11.
Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 Northbound Ramps
A a4S 0.794/
1.140/F
12.
Westminster Avenue at Bolsa Chica Road
1.0291F
0.836/1)
Note: Bold ICU /LOS values indicate unacceptable service levels and project impact is considered significant.
Page 5.3 -36, Table 5.3 -8 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
Table 5.3 -8
Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 E -14 Errata
2002 Existing
Year 2006
Year 2006 Plus...
: Year 2006
-
Key Intersections
Time
- . Traffic
Background
,Traffic
Project Traffic "
With
Significant `.
g
Period
Conditions
Conditions'
Conditions
`
Improvements
ICU
LOS
ICU.
'LOS'
ICU
L'dS
ICU*
LOS
; ICU
LOS
1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2 nd
AM
0.931
E
1.011
F
1.067
F
0.056
Y
0.910
E
Street/WestminsterAvenue
PM
1.000
E
1.091
F
1.099
F
0.008
N
0.989
E
2. Studebaker Road at
AM
0.937
E
1.011
E
1.046
F
0.035
Y
0.990
E
Westminster Avenue
PM
1 0.818
D
0.887
D
0.961
E
0.074
Y
0.874
D
3. Studebaker Road at SR -22 EB
AM
0.415
A
0.442
A
0.480
A
0.038
N
-
Ramps
PM
0.695
B
0.747
C
0.757
C
0.010
N
-
-
4. Studebaker Road at SR -22 WB
AM
0.484
A
0.517
A
0.560
A
0.043
N
-
Ramps
PM
0.830
D
0.892
D
0.904
D
0.012
N
-
-
5. Pacific Coast Highway at Main
AM
0.624
B
0.682
B
0.713
C
0.031
N
-
-
Street/Bolsa Avenue
PM
0.724
C
0.796
C
0.799
C
0.003
N
-
-
6. Pacific Coast Highway at Seal
AM
0.771
C
0.845
D
0.851
D
0.006
N
-
-
Beach Boulevard
PM
0.769
C
0.836
D
0.873
D
0.037
N
-
-
7. Seal Beach Boulevard at Bolsa
AM
0.340
A
0.371
A
0.425
A
0.054
N
-
-
Avenue /Anchor Way
PM
0.394
A
0.438
A
0.484
A
0.046
N
-
-
8. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.26 s/v
A
0.334
A
0.371
A
0.037
N
-
-
Adolfo Lopez Drive
PM
0.58 s/v
A
0.357
A
0.424
A
0.067
N
-
-
9. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.926
E
1.015
F
1.112
F
0.097
Y
0.866
D
Westminster Avenue
PM
0.907
E
1.012
F
1.226
F
0.214
Y
0.837
D
10. Seal Beach Boulevard at I-
AM
0.888
D
0.984
E
1.049
F
0.065
Y
0.742
C
405 Southbound Rams
PM
0.972
E
1.100
F
1.190
F
0.090
Y
0.810
D
11. Seal Beach Boulevard at I-
AM
0.706
C
0.794
C
0.929
E
0.135
Y
0.811
D
405 Northbound Rams
PM
0.989
E
1.140
F
1.160
F
0.020
Y
0.960
E
12. Bolsa Chica Road at
AM
0.950
E
1.029
F
1.117
F
0.088
Y
1.005
F
Westminster Avenue
PM
0.769
C
0.836
D
0.935
E
0.099
Y
0.819
D
13. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.281
A
0.308
A
0.418
A
0.110
N
0.405
Al
Road A (Apollo Drive
PM
0.310
A
0.364
A
0.607
A
0.243
N
0.497
A
14. Road A (Apollo Drive at
AM
0.442
A 1
0.479
A
0.705
B
0.226
N
0.700
B?
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 E -14 Errata
�-a
�
U
e
I
r�
1 .
V
+ s�
U
(
�.J
L.�
1.
l�
` r
l�
L
L
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT E IR
Page 5.3 -37, Paragraph 5 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows in the Final
EIR:
The phased approach was pursued because of the uncertaint of future freeway_
im provements impactin the bridgee durin tq he process and lack of funding for reconstructin
the bridge required to accommodate the bridge widening for three lanes in each direction.
Recent correspondence from OCTA has indicated that impacts to the facility would not
h ap p en until 2020. If the widenin were constructed now. this would give the facilit�ess
than an approximately 15 -year life since the future project would again need to rep lace the
bridge The current cost to accommodate both the widening and the lengthening for the
future HOV oroiect is estimated at 14 Q0 It is still the intent of the City to widen the
bridge to three lanes in each direction even if there is no freeway project or traffic conditions
warrant it sooner. They intends to-gap-ply for the next reauthorization of the Federal TEA
Prog as have many other agencies along the 1 -405 corridor for similar bridge�t
widenin projects.
Avenue, Seal geaGhll-495 Southbound ramps, as WA- ;- thA_ Seal 13eaGhil-405 NeFthbouRd-
Famps to provide two additional thmugh IaRes, auxiliwy ramp merge lanes, a divided-
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
E -15
Errata
(2)
(4),
S
2002 Existing
-
Year 2006 Plus
P
Year 2006
Key Intersections
Time
-period
. Traffic
Conditions
Background
Traffic
Project Traffic
Conditions
With
Improvements
Significant
Conditions
Impacts
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
ICU ,
LOS
ICU- I
LOS
ICU
LOS
Westminster Avenue
PM
0.469
A
0.512
A
0.691
B
0.179
N
0.691
B
15. Island Village Drive at
AM
0.512
A
0.550
A
0.565
A
0.015
N
-
-
Westminster Avenue
PM
0.528
A
0.573
A
0.646
B
0.073
N
-
-
16. Road B at Westminster
AM
0.457
A
0.495
A
0.598
A
0.103
N
-
-
Avenue
PM
0.509
A
0.555
A
0.730
C
0.175
N
-
-
17. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.276
A
0.302
A
0.459
A
0.157
N
-
-
Road C
PM
0.311
A
0.349
A
0.516
A
0.167
N
-
-
18. Springdale Street at
AM
0.492
A
0.530
A
0.576
A
0.046
N
-
-
Westminster Avenue
PM
1 0.710
C
0.771
C
0.817
D
0.046
N
-
-
19. Rancho Road /Hamon Place
AM
0.296
A
0.319
A
0.390
A
0.071
N
-
at Westminster Avenue
PM
0.432
A
0.470
A
0.564
A
0.094
N
-
-
20.1.405 Southbound On Ramp
AM
0.56 s/v
A
0.60 SN
A
0.56 SN
A
-
N
-
at Westminster Avenue
PM
0.95 s/v
A
1.24 SN
A
2.00 SN
A
-
N
-
-
21. Pacific Coast Highway at
AM
0.817
D
0.881
D
0.888
D
0.007
N
-
-
Lo nes Drive
PM
0.818
D
0.881
1 D
0.887
D
0.006
N
-
-
* Inc = Incremental ICU
Notes: Bold HCMILOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City of Seal Beach, City of Westminster and City of Long Beach LOS
standards.
1 To minimize the required green time for the eastbound left -turn phase, a second eastbound left -tum lane will be installed. As a result, the green
time for through traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard may be maintained and /or maximized.
2 To minimize the required green time for the northbound left -tum phase, a second northbound left4urn lane will be installed. As a result, the
green time for through traffic on Westminster Avenue may be maintained and/or maximized.
Page 5.3 -37, Paragraph 5 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows in the Final
EIR:
The phased approach was pursued because of the uncertaint of future freeway_
im provements impactin the bridgee durin tq he process and lack of funding for reconstructin
the bridge required to accommodate the bridge widening for three lanes in each direction.
Recent correspondence from OCTA has indicated that impacts to the facility would not
h ap p en until 2020. If the widenin were constructed now. this would give the facilit�ess
than an approximately 15 -year life since the future project would again need to rep lace the
bridge The current cost to accommodate both the widening and the lengthening for the
future HOV oroiect is estimated at 14 Q0 It is still the intent of the City to widen the
bridge to three lanes in each direction even if there is no freeway project or traffic conditions
warrant it sooner. They intends to-gap-ply for the next reauthorization of the Federal TEA
Prog as have many other agencies along the 1 -405 corridor for similar bridge�t
widenin projects.
Avenue, Seal geaGhll-495 Southbound ramps, as WA- ;- thA_ Seal 13eaGhil-405 NeFthbouRd-
Famps to provide two additional thmugh IaRes, auxiliwy ramp merge lanes, a divided-
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
E -15
Errata
�J
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
► Page 5.3 -39, Table 5.3 -9 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows: n
Table 5.3 -9 U
Traffic Impact Sensitivity Analysis
as % �PSk. >:K''�# >:�r.''e".x"+��'3` g.. ';;'°�•:
" ';sc.
°f. .�..tw.
~
=tk•if' =$•
' 'Total
.r. •
(4)
A x° '
° Level of Boeing 5pecrfic Plan
�F
_:» >.
Total .;
•x,„ %x,.
Background'"*
,�= ;
Traffic ,r:. E
. Project Impact) <
° '
Future Conditions
< Background
Occupancy /Key:lnte "rsectforis
� T11r` e "!
: Tnrie
.
° 1' Traffic` _<
.<'
j
With Pro ect ^
` <:: ; Significance•
Wllmprovements�
Peniod.
'
�r U
:IC
+L'OS •
ICU
LOSS x
`ICU Inc:: ',
' YIN
ICU
LOS
.
Year 2004 ( Phase 1)
1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2 n d
AM
0.977
E
0.998
E
0.021
Y
0.860
D
St/Westminster Ave
PM
1.055
F
1.059
F
0.004
N
0.953
E
2. Studebaker Road at Westminster
AM
0.977
E
0.989
E
0.012
N
-
-
Avenue
PM
0.859
D
0.895
D
0.036
N
-
-
9. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.980
E
1.015
F
0.035
Y
0.803
C
Westminster Avenue
PM
0.977
E
1.097
F
0.120
Y
0.759
C
10. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1-405
AM
0.950
E
0.983
E
0.033
Y
0.690
B
Southbound Rams
PM
1.064
F
1.110
F
0.046
Y
0.754
C
11. Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405
AM
0.769
C
0.844
D
0.075
N
0.731
C
Northbound Rams
PM
1.103
F
1.114
F
0.011
Y
0.923
E
12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa
AM
0.992
E
1.037
F
0.045
Y
0.940
E
Chic@ Road
PM
0.807
D
0.861
D
0.054
N
0.762
C
Year 2005 ( Phase 1 & 2 )
1. Pacific Coast Highway at 2 n d
AM
0.994
E
1.026
F
0.032
Y
0.881
12
St/Westminster Ave
PM
1.073
F
1.080
F
0.007
N
0.973
E
2. Studebaker Road at Westminster
AM
0.994
E
1.014
F
0.020
Y
0.960
E
Avenue
PM
0.873
D
0.919
E
0.046
Y
0.849
D
9. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.997
E
1.057
F
0.060
Y
0.828
D
Westminster Avenue
PM
0.995
E
1.136
F
0.141
Y
0.785
C
10. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.967
E
1.010
F
0.043
Y
0.709
C
1405 Southbound Ramps
PM
1.083
F
1.142
F
0.059
Y
0.778
C
11. Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
0.781
C
0.863
D
0.082
N
0.747
0
1 -405 Northbound Rams
PM
1.122
F
1.135
F
0.013
Y
0.941
E
12. Westminster Avenue at Bolsa
AM
1.011
F
1.068
F
0.057
Y
0.966
E
Chica Road
PM
0.822
D
0.885
D
0.063
N
0.787
C
Notes: Bold ICU/LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards.
1 Improvements recommended are required to mitigate future non - project (ambienVcumulative) traffic and /or project traffic.
► Page 5.3 -40 of the Draft EIR, Paragraph 5, has been revised as follows for the Final
EIR: u
Review of Columns 2 and 3 of Table 5.3 -10, shows that traffic associated with the Boeing
Specific Plan project would have a significant impact at three of the eleven study roadway
links when compared to the City's standards and significant impact criteria defined earlier.
The se-veR roadway segments are projOGted to op A-rate at 1 - G-8- G a-.r -better an a da bas
u
J
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 E -16 Errata
u
L
L
t
r,
U
f�
r
f '
Li
v
L
C„ o� �jea.Q���c�.
BOEINGS I PLAN PROJECT EIR
Page 5.3 -41, Table 5.3 -10 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
Table 5.3 -10
Year 2002 Existing Plus Project Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
E -17
Errata
(
Year 2002 Plus
(3)
No. of
MPAH Arterial
Existing
- Year 2002 Existing Traffic - ,
` . Pro'ect Traffic
Project impact
Roadway Segment
Existing
Classification
Capacity
;
Lanes
of LOS E
Daily
VIC
LOS
Daily
VIC
LOS
VIC
Sign.
Volume
Ratio
Volume
Ratio
Increase
YIN'
A. Westminster
Avenue, elo
4D
Primary Arterial
37,500
23,066
0.615
B
26,271
0.701
B
0.086
N
Studebaker Road
B. Westminster
Avenue, between
4D
Primary Arterial
37,500
23,204
0.619
B
28,882
0.770
C
0.151
N
Apollo Drive /Road B
C. Westminster
Avenue, w/p Bolsa
4D
Primary Arterial
37,500
24,137
0.644
B
28,830
0.769
C
0.125
N
Chica Road
D. Seal Beach
Boulevard, n/o Pacific
6D
Major Arterial
56,300
20,666
0.367
A
22,096
0.392
A
0.025
N
Coast Highway
E. Adolfo Lopez Drive,
w/o Seal Beach
2U
Local Collector
12,500
1,389
0.111
A
1,744
0.140
A
0.029
N
Boulevard
F. Seal Beach
Boulevard, between
6D
Major Arterial
56,300
26,975
0.479
A
31,241
0.555
A
0.076
N
Apollo Drive /Road C
G. Seal Beach
Boulevard, between
6D
Major Arterial
56,300
33,790
0.600
A
38,923
0.691
B
0.091
N
St. Andrews /Golden
Rain
H. Seal Beach
5D
Major Arterial
46,875
0.905
E
0.972
E
0.067
Y
Boulevard, between I
42,411
45,542
�a9' -�
��
946
9
A�93
R
A:047
N
405 NB and SB
Ramps
7D I2]
Arterial
;
0.753
0.810
1Z
4.4;ZZ
I. Pacific Coast
Highway, north of Main
4D
Primary Arterial
37,500
44,684
1.192
F
45,210
1.206
F
0.014
Y
Street/Bolsa Avenue
J. Pacific Coast
Highway, north of Seal
4D
Primary Arterial
37,500
45,422
1.211
F
45,422
1.211
F
0.000
N
Beach Boulevard
K. Pacific Coast
Highway, south of Seal
4D
Primary Arterial
37,500
41,920
1.118
F
43,350
1.156
F
0.038
Y
Beach Boulevard
Notes:
1 Projected Impact considered 'significant" if Columns (2) minus (1) is 0.01 or greater and "LOS" (2) is "E" or "F".
L OS and Project Impact after implementation of planned and/or recommended roa_dwav improvement.
2 Represents anticipated
6D = 6 -lane divided arterial 4D = 4 -lane divided arterial 21.1 = 2 -lane undivided arterial
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
E -17
Errata
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
► Page 5.3-42, Table 5.3-11 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
Table 5.3-11
Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary
FINAL + APRIL 2003 E-18 Errata
I
No. of
Mp 1�
i0ft Existini
Backgmpnd,'L*-'!�,',,4'
,, "jw 6a
Roadway Sa
'
lanes
C=e=on '�i
of LOS E
Daily 4
1 It
Z'
-Daily
" Daily
V161
11
Vokne'
16
' LDS
of
pj�o
Los.
incre so
41N
A. Westminster
Primary
Avenue, e/o
Q
Arterial
37,500
23,066
0.615
B
25,389
0.677
B
28,594
0.763
C
0.086
N
Studebaker Road
B. Westminster
Primary
Avenue,between
4D
Arterial
37,500
23,204
0.619
B
25,538
0.681
B
31,216
0.832
D
0.151
N
Apollo Drive/Road B
I
I
C. Westminster
Primary
Avenue, w/p Bolsa
41)
Arterial
37,500
24,137
0.644
B
26,698
0.416
C
31,391
0.837
D
0.125
N
Chica Road
D. Sea[ Beach
Boulevard, n/o Pacific
6D
Major Arterial
56,300
20,666
0.367
A
23,401
0.120
A
24,831
0.441
A
0.025
N
Coast Highway
E. Adolfo Lopez Drive,
w/o Seal Beach
21.1
Local Collector
12,500
1,389
0.111
A
1,500
0.543
A
1,855
0.148
A
0.028
N
Boulevard
F. Seal Beach
Bou evard, between
6D
Major Arterial
56,300
26,975
0.479
A
30,554
0.555
A
34,820
0.618
B
0.075
N
Apollo Drive/Road C
G. Seal Beach
Boulevard, between St.
6D
Major Arterial
56,300
33,790
0.600
A
38.080
0.676
B
43.213
0.768
C
0.092
N
Andrews/Golden Rain
I
I
I
I
I
H. Seal Beach
51)
Maior Arterial
46,875
0.905
E
1.032
F
1.099
F
0.067
1 y
71) [2]
Wary Major
66683
0" .
a
0.43Z
G
=
N
Boulevard, between 1-
42,411
48,377
51,508
405 NB and 88 Ramps
Arterial
ff).0
010
C
am
0
E
0.09
I. Pacific Coast
Primary
Highway, north of Main
Q
Arterial
37,500
44,684
1.192
F
49,317
1.315
F
49,843
1.329
F
0.014
y
StreetfBolsa Avenue
I
I
I
J. Pacific Coast
Primary
Highway, north of Said
4D
Arterial
37,500
45,422
1.211
F
50,079
1.335
F
50,079
1.335
F
0.000
N
Beach Boulevard
K. Pacific Coast
Primary
Highway, south of Seal
AID
Arterial
37,500
41,920
1.118
F
45,938
1.225
F
47,368
1.263
F
0.038
y
Beach Boulevard
Notes:
I Projected Impact considered 'significanr if Columns (2) minus (1) is 0.01 or greater and 'LOS"(2) is'E"or'F'.
2-ftregAnts antor.0patprl I OS and Promact Impact after emplAmAntat'nn of dannpd and/or recommended roadway imomvement
6D = 64ane divided arterial
4D = 44ane divided arterial
211= 2-lane undivided arterial
FINAL + APRIL 2003 E-18 Errata
i
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
► Page 5.3 -43, Paragraph 7 of the Draft EIR, has been revised as follows in the Final
EIR:
r
t
i
4
I (
4-�
U
r� r
I
lJ
L
1
rIt
Li
® Seal Beach Boulevard at 1 -405 Southbound Ramps — Widen Seal Beach Boulevard
Overcrossing to provide a third northbound and southbound through lane, plu-a
northho-md uxiliaFy lane on the bridge, and a second southbound left -turn lane.
Modify traffic signal accordingly.
Page 5.3 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
0 Seal Beach Boulevard at Westminster Avenue — Widen Seal Beach Boulevard to
provide a northbound right -turn lane and widen Westminster Avenue to maintain the
existing westbound right -turn lane. These lanes are not a part of the ultimate current
planned improvements for this intersection, but ma r�b_e
considered for future construction by the City of Seal Beach. As previously stated,
improvements at the Seal Beach Boulevard/Westminster Avenue intersection are
concluded as remaining significant due to the uncertainty of acquiring right -of -way from
the Navy by the 2006 horizon year condition.
Page 5.3 -51 of the Draft EIR has been revised. The impact statement following the
subheading "Alternative Access Evaluation," has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows (also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary):
ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EVALUATION
5.3 -2 Development of the proposed Project with the extension of Apollo Drive. would
eeulel-result in similar impacts when compared to the proposed Droi a- hazard
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
E -19
Errata
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
► Page 5.3 -55, Table 5.3 -16 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
Table 5.3 -16
Year 2006 Roadway Link Levels of Service Summary With Apollo Drive Connection
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 E -20 Errata
(1) • 2 • '
(2)'Year 2006 Plus
(3) Project knpact
. (4)
No. of
Existing
Year 2002 Existing Traffic
, Background Traffic
Project knpact
Roadway Segment
Existing •
MPAN Arterial
Classification
Capacity
Lanes .
of LOS E
Daily
V1C
LOS
Daily
YIC
LOS
Daily
VIC
LOS
VIC
Sign.
:•Volume •
Ratio
Volume=
Ratio
Volume
Ratio
Increase
YIN'
A. Westminster
Primary
Avenue, elo
4D
Arterial
37,500
23,066
0.615
B
25,389
0.677
B
28,594
0.763
C
0.086
N
Studebaker Road
B. Westminster
Avenue, between
4D
Primary
37,500
23,204
0.619
B
25,538
0.681
B
31,216
0.832
D
0.151
N
Apollo Drive/Road
Arterial
B
C. Westminster
Primary
Avenue, w/p
4D
Arterial
37,500
24,137
0.644
B
26,698
0.416
C
31,391
0.837
D
0.125
N
Bolsa Chica Road
D. Seal Beach
Boulevard, n/o
6D
Major
56,300
20,666
0.367
A
23,401
0.120
A
24,831
0.441
A
0.025
N
Pacific Coast
Arterial
Highwa
E. Adolfo Lopez
Local
Drive, w/o Seal
21.1
Collector
12.500
1,389
0.111
A
1,500
0.543
A
1,855
0.148
A
0.028
N
Beach Boulevard
F. Seal Beach
Boulevard,
6D
Major
56,300
26,975
0.479
A
30,554
0.555
A
34,820
0.618
B
0.075
N
between Apollo
Arterial
Drive/Road C
G. Seal Beach
Boulevard,
Major
between St.
6D
Arterial
56,300
33,790
0.600
A
38.080
0.676
B
43,213
0.768
C
0.092
N
Andrews/Golden
Rain
H. Seal Beach
51)
Major
46,875
0.905
E
1.032
F
1.091
F
0.059
Y
Boulevard,
Arterial
between 1.405 NB
42,411
48,377
51,161
Rrimary
and SB Ramps
7D [2]
is
U
0 Z
12
�
E
�
N
A
1. Pacific Coast
Highway, north of
41)
Primary
37,500
44,684
1.192
F
49,317
1.315
F
49,841
1.329
F
0.014
Y
Seal Beach
Arterial
Boulevard
J. Pacific Coast
Highway, north of
4D
Primary
37,500
45,422
1.211
F
50,079
1.335
F
50,079
1.335
F
0.000
N
Seal Beach
Arterial
Boulevard
K. Pacific Coast
Highway, south of
4D
Primary
37,500
41,920
1.118
F
45,938
1.225
F
47,214
1.259
F
0.034
Y
Seal Beach
Arterial
Boulevard
Note&
I mpact considered 'significant" if Column (3) minus (2) is 0.01 or greater and 'LOS' 131 is 'E' or 'E
Represents anticipated LOS and Proiect Impact after implementation of planned and/or recommended roadway improvement
6D = 6 -lane divided arterial 4D = 44ane divided arterial 2U = 2 -lane undivided arterial
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 E -20 Errata
t
r�,
v
U
e
e
U r •
C
b
U
U
l r
U
p
U
r1
U
U
c
U
BOEINGS EC IFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Page 5.3 -50, Table 5.3 -14 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
Table 5.3 -14
Year 2006 Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary HCM /LOS Method of Analysis
Page 5.3 -56 of the Draft EIR, under Mitigation Measure 5.3-1c, the following
bullet/text has been added to the Final EIR (also revised in Section 2.0, Executive
Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of Mitigation Measures, and Section 13.0,
Mitigation Monitoring Program):
Seal Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive - Seal Beach at Adolfo Lopez Drivels
currentlytly unsignalized An analysis _of this intersection indicates that the
p ermissive" turnin movements onto Seal Beach Boulevard from Adolfo Lopez
Drive experience delays indicative of LOS E/F conditions with the addition of project
traffic (see HCM /LOS calculations sheets in Appendix B of the Traffic Stu y_,
contained as Appendix 15.2 of this EIR . This can b ex pec given the high
volume of traffic that exists on Seal Beach Boulevard and the lack of sufficient ga
in the continuous north -south traffic during the PM peak commute hour. It is
recommended that a three - phased traffic si with a separate right turn lane be
installed at this location This improvement shall be the sole responsibility of the
Boeing Specific Plan proiect. Appendix C of the Traffic Studv�ontained as
Appendix 15.2 of this EIR. contains the traffic sianal warrant worksheet for this key
study intersection.
FINAL. APRIL 2003
E -21
Errata
2002 Existing
(2)
Year 2006
1(
Year 2006
(
Project
(5)
Year 2 (5)
With
Key Intersections " "
Time
' Traffic Conditions '
Background
Traffic Conditions "'
Plus Project
Traffic Conditions
Impact/
Significance
Improvements
Period
Delay
(seciveh)
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh) .
. LOS
Delay
(sectveh)
LOS
Yes/No
Delay
(seciveh)
LOS
1.
Pacific Coast Highway at
AM
48.8
D
57.6
E
67.3
E
Yes
47.5
D
2 °d St/Westminster Ave
PM
59.4
E
78.8
E
81.2
F
Yes
55.3
E
3.
Studebaker Road at
AM
6.9
A
7.0
A
7.1
A
No
-
-
SR -22 EB Ramps
PM
8.1
A
8.9
A
9.1
A
No
-
-
4.
Studebaker Road at
AM
11.7
B
11.8
B
12.6
B
No
-
-
SR -22 WB Ramps
PM
17.5
B
19.2
B
19.6
B
No
-
-
5.
Pacific Coast Highway at
AM
18.9
B
18.1
B
18.1
B
No
-
-
Main Street/Bolsa Avenue
PM
24.4
C
25.1
C
26.9
C
No
-
-
6.
Pacific Coast Highway at
AM
33.8
C
41.3
D
42.4
D
No
-
-
Seal Beach Boulevard
PM
39.5
D
47.5
D
52.1
D
No
-
-
10.
Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
59.2
E
83.2
F
102.4
F
Yes
33.1
C
1 -405 Southbound Ramps
PM
61.6
E
93.6
F
122.4
F
Yes
37.5
D
11.
Seal Beach Boulevard at
AM
23.2
27.4
35.5
11
Yes
26.3
C
1 -405 Northbound Ramps
PM
73.5
E
117.0
F
115.8
F
Yes
53.4
D
20.
1.405 Southbound On
AM
0.6
A
0.6
A
0.6
A
No
-
-
Ramp at Westminster Ave
PM
1.0
A
1.3
A
2.0
A
No
-
-
21.
Pacific Coast Highway at
AM
22.4
C
23.6
C
23.6
C
No
-
-
Loynes Drive
PM
35.3
D
39.7
D
38.8
D
No
-
-
Notes: Bold ICU /LOS values indicate adverse service levels based on City LOS standards.
Page 5.3 -56 of the Draft EIR, under Mitigation Measure 5.3-1c, the following
bullet/text has been added to the Final EIR (also revised in Section 2.0, Executive
Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of Mitigation Measures, and Section 13.0,
Mitigation Monitoring Program):
Seal Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive - Seal Beach at Adolfo Lopez Drivels
currentlytly unsignalized An analysis _of this intersection indicates that the
p ermissive" turnin movements onto Seal Beach Boulevard from Adolfo Lopez
Drive experience delays indicative of LOS E/F conditions with the addition of project
traffic (see HCM /LOS calculations sheets in Appendix B of the Traffic Stu y_,
contained as Appendix 15.2 of this EIR . This can b ex pec given the high
volume of traffic that exists on Seal Beach Boulevard and the lack of sufficient ga
in the continuous north -south traffic during the PM peak commute hour. It is
recommended that a three - phased traffic si with a separate right turn lane be
installed at this location This improvement shall be the sole responsibility of the
Boeing Specific Plan proiect. Appendix C of the Traffic Studv�ontained as
Appendix 15.2 of this EIR. contains the traffic sianal warrant worksheet for this key
study intersection.
FINAL. APRIL 2003
E -21
Errata
C, o �� IC PLA A
BOEINGS ECIFN PROJECT EIR
0
Page 5.3 -56, "Mitigation Measure 5.3 -1c ", of the Draft EIR has been revised in the
Final EIR to read as follows (also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary,
Section 8.0, Inventory of Mitigation Measures, and Section 13.0, Mitigation
Monitoring Program):
5.3 -1c In order to ensure that adequate access and egress to the project site is
provided and impacts to through traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard and
Westminster Avenue are minimized, the project applicant shall be required to
implement the following improvements /intersection enhancements:
0 Seal Beach Boulevard at Road A (Apollo Drive) — As part of the proposed
intersection reconstruction project, construct raised median on Seal Beach
Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot northbound left -turn lane. Widen Seal
Beach Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot southbound right -turn lane with a 90-
foot transition. The eastbound leg of Apollo Drive at Seal Beach Boulevard
shall be designed to provide two eastbound left -turn lanes and one
eastbound right -turn lane, and one inbound (westbound) lane. Modify and
upgrade -u ate the existing traffic signal asserdingly as required by
Engineer
Westminster Avenue at Road A (Apollo Drive) — Modify /reconstruct existing
median on Westminster Avenue to provide a 150 -foot westbound left -turn
lane with a 90 -foot transition. Widen Westminster Avenue to provide a 150 -
foot eastbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition. The northbound leg
of Apollo Drive at Westminster Avenue shall be designed to provide two
northbound left -turn lanes and one northbound right -turn lane, and one
inbound (southbound) lane. Modify and upgrade update the existing traffic
signal asserdingly as required by the City Engineer
0 Proposed Planning Area 3 "Right -turn only' Driveway at Westminster
Avenue — Widen Westminster Avenue to provide a 150 -foot eastbound
right -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition.
0 Seal Beach Boulevard at Adolfo Lopez Drive — Seal Beach Boulevard at
Adolfo Lopez Drive is currently unsignalized. An analysis of this
intersection indicates that the "permissive" turning movements onto Seal
Beach Boulevard from Adolfo Lopez Drive experience delays indicative of
LOS E/F conditions with the addition of project traffic (see HCM /LOS
calculations sheets in Appendix B of the Traffic Study, contained as
Appendix 15.2 of this EIR). This can be expected given the high volume of
traffic that exists on Seal Beach Boulevard and the lack of sufficient gaps in
the continuous north -south traffic during the PM peak commute hour. 44s
FOGOMMandad that A_ three - phased traffic signal
lane shall be installed at this location along with a raised median on Seal
Beach Boulevard from this intersection to tie into the raised median at
Ap ollo Drive. Widen Seal Beach Boulevard to provide a 150 -foot
southbound right -turn lane with a 90 -foot transition This improvement shall
be the sole responsibility of the Boeing Specific Plan project. Appendix C of
the Traffic Study, contained as Appendix 15.2 of this EIR, contains the
traffic signal warrant worksheet for this key study intersection.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 E -22 Errata
{
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
► Page 5.3 -57, Mitigation Measure 5.3 -2 of the Draft EIR, has been moved to the Trip
Generation, Distribution and Assignment subsection and has been moved to
Mitigation Measure 5.3-1d. The revised mitigation measure statement for 5.3 -2 and
revised Mitigation Measure 5.3 -1d are as follows in the Final EIR (also revised in
Section 2.0, Executive Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of Mitigation Measures, and
�j Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program):
L'
r - �.
U
b
L.
E
L.
C
L
ALTERNATIVE ACCESS EVALUATION
5.3 -2 Mitigation
Measures 5.3-1a
through 5 3 -1 d
apply to the Alternative Access
Scenario
FequiFed up
No additional mitigation
measures
are recommended. pre}est
be
FerPGRAU0
Std. Exceeded
gFdeF to
1997
5.3 -1d The project applicant shall be responsible for all sidewalk and landscapin
improvements /replacements necessary as a result of rjght- of -wav acquisition/
dedications required in order to jmplement improvements.
Page 5.4-4, Table 5.4 -1 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
Table 5.4 -1
Local Air Quality Levels
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003
E -23
Errata
California
Federal
Primary
Year.
Maximum2
Days (Samples)
StatelFederal
Pollutant
Standard. '"
Standard
Concentfation
Std. Exceeded
1997
9 0
0/0
1998
8.1
010
20 ppm
35 ppm
1999
7.5
010
for 1 hour
for 1 hour
2000
9:7 L2
010
2001
6.0
0/0
Carbon Monoxide
1997
6.6
010
1998
6.5
010
9 ppm
g ppm
1999
5.5
010
for 8 hour
for 8 hour
2000
5.7
010
2001
4.7
010
1997
" 0.095
1/0
1998
4.4.2 O t16
2/0
Ozone
0.09 ppm
0.12 ppm
1999
043 OA
23/1
for 1 hour
for 1 hour
2000
A.4-2 LM
310
2001
"g
4 0/0
1997
0.20
010
1998
0.16
010
Nitrogen Dioxide
0.25 ppm
0.053 ppm
1999
0.15
010
for 1 hour
annual average
2000
0.14
0/0
2001
0.12
1 010
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003
E -23
Errata
cliko'c s�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Page 5.4 -10, Paragraph 3, has been revised as follows in the Final EIR:
The proposed project site is within the corporate limits of the City of Seal Beach and is
located westerly of the Seal Beach Boulevard - Westminster Avenue intersection. Properties
to the north, across Westminster Avenue, are General Plan designated and zoned for
Service Commercial, General Commercial and Residential High Density Planned
Development uses. The Residential High- Density Planned Development area comprises
the Seal Beach Leisure World retirement community, consisting of approximately 6,500
housing units within 525 acres.
site: To the south is the future planned Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, which among other
uses includes 14.7 acres for a maximum of 70 single - family residential homes. To the west,
across a flood control channel, and adjacent to Westminster Avenue, is the Island Village
residential community within the City of Long Beach.
Page 5.4 -17 of the Draft EIR, Impact Statement 5.4 -3, has been revised as follows
for the Final EIR (also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary):
5.4 -3 The project mad - would conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
Analysis has concluded that the proposed project is inconsistent with the AQMP
criteria. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
U
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 E -24 Errata LJ
California
Federal
Maximum=
Da (Samples)
Pollutant
Standard
Primary
Year
C
Concentration-
StatelFederal
Standard ,
Std. Exceeded
1997
0:04 D Qll
0/0
0.25 ppm
0.14 ppm for 24 hours or
1998
0:084 QM4
0/0
Sulfur Dioxide
for 1 hour
80 µg /m ppm)
1999
0450,D -U
0/0
annual average
2000
04 0M
0/0
2001
045 DD,Q
0/0
1997
87.0
10/0
PM�o34
5 24
1998
1999
69.0
79.0
6/0
13/0
for 24 h
for hours
2000
105.0
4-3-
2001
7" au
44
1997
N/M
N/A
65 µg /m3
1998
N/M
N/A
PM2.5 a
N/A
for 24 hours
1999
66.9
N /A/1
2000
744
N /A/3 4
2001
72.9 1
N /A/1
ppm = parts per million PM,o = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less N/M = not measured
µg /m = micrograms per cubic meter PW.s = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
NOTES:
1. Data is based on measurements taken at the North Long Beach monitoring station located at 3848 North Long Beach Boulevard, Long Beach, Califomia.
2. Maximum concentration is measured over the same period as the Califomia Standard.
3. PM,o exceedances are based on state thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20, 2002.
4. PM,o and P%s exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded, not days.
Source: Data obtained from the California Air Resources Board ADAM Data Summaries Website, www .arb.ca.gov /adamANelcome.hbnl.
Page 5.4 -10, Paragraph 3, has been revised as follows in the Final EIR:
The proposed project site is within the corporate limits of the City of Seal Beach and is
located westerly of the Seal Beach Boulevard - Westminster Avenue intersection. Properties
to the north, across Westminster Avenue, are General Plan designated and zoned for
Service Commercial, General Commercial and Residential High Density Planned
Development uses. The Residential High- Density Planned Development area comprises
the Seal Beach Leisure World retirement community, consisting of approximately 6,500
housing units within 525 acres.
site: To the south is the future planned Hellman Ranch Specific Plan, which among other
uses includes 14.7 acres for a maximum of 70 single - family residential homes. To the west,
across a flood control channel, and adjacent to Westminster Avenue, is the Island Village
residential community within the City of Long Beach.
Page 5.4 -17 of the Draft EIR, Impact Statement 5.4 -3, has been revised as follows
for the Final EIR (also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary):
5.4 -3 The project mad - would conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
Analysis has concluded that the proposed project is inconsistent with the AQMP
criteria. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
U
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 E -24 Errata LJ
G
L�
U
I
L"
1
L
G
U
C&Tof s�'
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Page 5.4 -17, Paragraph 3 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
The Project site is in an area where CO emissions have dramatically decreased and have
not exceeded the State and Federal standards over the past five years. Based upon the
€-RA's SCAQMD's recommendation,
the
highest CO concentration over the last five years of monitoring data was used Therefore,
the threshold would be 4:54 9_7 ppm, which was measured at the North Long Beach
monitoring station on December 19. 1997 This is well below the State
standard of 20 ppm and the Federal standard of 35 ppm. The measured levels of CO at this
monitoring station can be considered worst -case, since the monitoring station is located in a
more concentrated urbanized area and receives higher CO levels than the Boeing Specific
Plan site.
The following text changes have been made to Tables 5.4 -2, 5.4 -3, 5.4-4 and 5.4 -5
of the Final EIR:
Table 5.4 -2
Construction Emissions
Emissions::
Pollutant,(poundslday)'
ROG
NOX
'CO
PM10
Source
Unmitigated Emissions
4q-.462.Z
643-4 - ff3.1
94443,4
99- 1Q2 7
SCAQMD Threshold
75
100
550
150
Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation?
No
Yes
No
No
Mitigated Emissions
4&3- 6
553:9-
&6 ---
62-"
Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation?
No
Yes
No
No
ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides
CO = carbon monoxide PMio = fine particulate matter
NOTES:
' Emissions calculated using the URBEMIS 2001 Computer Model as recommended by the SCAQMD and Project specifi
construction data provided by the Project applicant.
2 Calculations include emissions from numerous sources including: site grading, construction worker trips, stationary equipment,
diesel and gas mobile equipment, off -site haul route import and asphalt off - gassing using a maximum amount of grading per
day of 5 acres for approximately 260 working days. Air quality modeling assumes that the roadway surface will be graded, and
that rough grading will occur for the proposed pad foundations. Results are based on the maximum amount of site grading,
construction and asphalt activity that would occur in one day. Refer to Appendix 15.3, Air Quality Data, for assumptions used in
this analysis, including quantified emissions reduction by mitigation measures. Emissionswould also exceed the SCAQMD
quarterly construction emissions for NOx.
3 The reduction /credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigations included in the UREBMIS 2001 computer
model and as typically required by the SCAQMD. The mitigations include the following: proper maintenance of mobile and other
construction equipment and speed limitation on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
E -25
Errata
cof � s�
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Table 5.4 -3
Mobile Source Emissions
Table 5.4-4
Area Source Emissions
Project
Pollutant (Pounds/Day) ,
Project
NOx; " "
ROG,
NOx
CO
PM10
(unmitigated)
• Area Source Emissions'
0.4
• Vehicle Emissions'
43" 14U
184.6
44,524-A 17 4_1
79.2
ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides
CO = carbon monoxide PMlo = fine particulate matter
NOTE:
1 — Based on UREBMIS 2001 modeling results, worst -case seasonal emissions for area and mobile emissions, and
trip rate data provided in the Project Traffic Study.
Table 5.4-4
Area Source Emissions
Project
''Pollutant (Pounds /Day) "
�. ,ROG
NOx; " "
CO
PM10
.`
(unmitigated)
(unmitigated)
• Area Source Emissions'
0.4
34-:3 zu
6 14
44 U.
ROG = reactive organic gases
NOx = nitrogen oxides
CO = carbon monoxide
PMlo = fine particulate matter
NOTE:
4 L&3
1 — Area Source emissions excludes the use of fireplaces and wood burning stoves.
Table 5.4 -5
Long -Term Project Emissions
Project:
Pollutant (Pounds /Day)
-'ROG
NOx
CO
PM10
(unmitigated)
• Area Source Emissions
0.4
344 2_83
6.3 6,4
4 : 4�9
• Vehicle Emissions
4 L&3
464:6 197.7
4�4.A
1704.1
79.2
Total Unmitigated Emissions
439:9 148.7
215.9 226.4
4530.3
1709, 3
904 BD 1
SCAQMD Threshold
55
55
550
150
Is Threshold Exceeded?
(Significant Impact ?)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides
CO = carbon monoxide PMlo = fine particulate matter
NOTE:
1 — Based on UREBMIS 2001 modeling results, worst -case seasonal emissions for area
and mobile emissions, and
trip rate data provided in the Project Traffic Study.
2 — Area Source emissions excludes the use of fireplaces and wood burning stoves.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 E -26 Errata
f'
C� dT J
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
► Mitigation Measure 5.4 -1a of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
(� follows (also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of
Mitigation Measures, and Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program):
U
U
J
0
L
5.4 -1 a During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive
fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust
preventive measures using the following procedures, as specified in the South
Coast Air Quality Management Districts Rules and Regulations.
♦ On -site vehicle speed will be limited to 15 miles per hour.
0 All on -site construction roads with vehicle traffic will be watered periodically.
0 Streets adjacent to the project reach will be swept as needed to remove silt
that may have accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
♦ All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust. Watering will occur at least twice daily with
complete coverage, preferable in the late morning and after work is done for
the day.
0 All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities will cease during
periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 35 miles per hour averaged over one
hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
0 All material transported on -site or off -site will be either sufficiently watered or
securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation
operations will be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
♦ These control techniques will be indicated on project grading plans.
Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic site inspections by
the City.
Visible dust beyond the . rr erty line emanating from the project will be
prevented to the maximum extent feasible.
► Page 5.4 -20 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 5.4 -1d, has been revised in the
Final EIR as follows (also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary, Section 8.0,
L� Inventory of Mitigation Measures, and Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program):
U
u
rI
U
5.4 -1d Durin overall site grading and public infrastructure
construction phases, construction equipment and supply staging areas shall be
located at least 400 feet from the nearest residence. During structure /building
construction, equi pment and supply staging areas shall be located at least 400
feet or as far as practical from the nearest residence. GomplianGG With this
L . FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 E -27 Errata
Ci of <; ce a eccA
BOEINGSPEC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Upon further review, Mitigation Measure 5.4 -2 reiterates Transportation Impact Fee
requirements set forth by the City of Seal Beach and provides no clear nexus to long-
term emission impacts which have been concluded to be significant and
unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 5.4 -2 has been revised in the Final EIR as follows
(also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of Mitigation
Measures, and Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program):
5.4 -2 No mitigation measures are recommended Based on the analysis provided.
combined mobile and area source emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds
for ROG, NOx and CO and PM cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less than
significant level.
the buildiRg
pwrnits for eaGh phase of development.
5.4 -2b Should a potential end -user be identified whose land use would cause a
particulate diesel index of 0.0003 u /m or increase the volume to capacity ratio
(also called the Intersection Capacijy Utilization) by 0.02 (2 percent) for any_
intersection with a LOS of D or worse a preliminary screening shall be
conducted per SCAQMD Rule 1401 and 212 to determine whether a Health Risk
Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared.
Page 5.5 -9, Table 5.5 -7 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows in the Final EIR:
Table 5.5 -7
Noise Measurements
(Based on Field Measurements)
Site
Location
Leq
Time
`TimelComments
No.
(dBA)
.. , ,.^,
1
Adolfo Lopez Drive Cul de Sac
49.0
10:05 a.m. -10:20 a.m.
Clear, sunny, no wind
2
Westminster Ave.
66.8
10:30 a.m. -10:45 a.m.
Clear, sunny, little wind
Just east of Del Taco
3
Seal Beach Blvd.
65.3
10:55 a.m. -11:10 a.m.
Clear, sunny, variable
South of future hotel site
winds
4
Westminster 8W—. vD.
69.0
11:20 a.m. - 40Z. 11Z a.m.
Clear, sunny, no winds
West area of project
Source: Noise Monitoring Survey conducted by RBF
Consulting, February 2002.
FINAL ® APRIL 2003 E -28 Errata
L oi� s�
. BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
�1
► The values provided in Table 5.5 -8 — Existing Traffic Noise Contour Levels, 5.5 -12 —
65 CNEL Contour Projections (Existing Plus Project) and Table 5.5 -13 — 65 CNEL
Contour Projections (Existing Plus Growth Plus Related projects Plus Project) in the
Draft EIR are revised in the Final EIR as follows:
J
U
U
f'
u
U
J
0
V
G
El
0
Table 5.5 -8
Existing Traffic Noise Contour Levels
(Based on Peak Hour Traffic Volumes)
Roadway Segment,
ADT " "
DBA @ 100 "Feet ..
"from Roadway
Centerline
" " Distance1rom•11oadway Centerline to: (Feet)
60 Lde CML Noise
contour ".
65 up CHFt
Noise Contour
170 LP CM
Noise Contour
Westminster Avenue:
Studebaker Road to Road A
23,066
63.6
197
92
42
Road A to Road B
23,204
63.6
198
92
43
Road B to Seal Beach Boulevard
23,204
63.6
198
92
43
Seal Beach Blvd. To Bolsa Chica Road
24,137
67.3
350
163
75
Adolfo Lopez Drive:
West of Seal Beach Boulevard
1,389
51.9
30
14
7
Seal Beach Boulevard:
Golden Rain Road to Saint Andrews
33,790
66.2
310
144
67
Saint Andrews to Westminster
33,790
66.2
310
144
67
Westminster Avenue to Road C
26,975
66.4
319
148
69
Road C to Road A
26,975
66.4
319
148
69
Road A to Pacific Coast Highway
20,666
62.8
1 183
85
40
Table 5.5 -12
65 CNEL Contour Projections (Existing Plus Project)
�1
U FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 E -29 Errata
Existing
Existing Plus Project
Distance from Roadway
Distance from Roadway Centerline
Y
„
Centerline to: (Feet)
""
•'
.to: (Feet)
Difference in
DBA 6100
=
DBA 100
DBA @100 "
60 Lie
65 Ldf►
70 Ldri,
• 60 L& .,
65 L
70 UR GNFJ.
Roadway Segment
ADT
Feet film'
Roadway ;
ADT
feet from
Roadway.
Feet from
Roadway
Centerline"
rNFi
ruc'
;
Centerline
CNEL
Noise
Noise
Noise•
Noise ,
.
Noise"
Noise
Contour
contour
Contour;
Contour.
contour
Contour
estminster Avenue:
Studebaker Rd. to Road A
23,066
63.6
197
92
42
26,271
64.1
215
100
46
0.5
Road A to Road B
23,204
63.6
198
92
43
28,882
64.6
229
106
49
1.0
Road B to Seal Beach Blvd.
23,204
63.6
198
92
43
29,718
64.7
234
108
50
1.1
Seal Beach Blvd. to Bolsa
24,137
67.3
350
163
75
28,830
68.1
394
183
85
0.8
Chica Rd.
dolfo Lopez Drive:
West of Seal Beach Blvd.
1,389
51.9
30
14
7
1,744
52.8
35
16
8
0.9
�1
U FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 E -29 Errata
cfi�,O,c s�
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
0
Existing
Existing Plus Project
V
Distance from Roadway
Distance from Roadway Centedine
Distance from Roadway • •
Centerline to: (Feet)
Distance from Roadway Centerline
to: (Feet)
Difference in
DBA @ 100
DBA 100
DBA @ 100
DBA 100
@100 Feet from
DBA @100
60 L&
65 L-4R
701:414
"
60 Ldn
65 Ldn
70 UP CHEL
Roadway Segment
ADT
Feet from
Roadway
ADT •
feet from
Roadway
Feet from
Roadway
Centerline
= CME
CKE
(:NFI
'
Centerline
CfIEL'
ChIEL
Noise
70 L-414 2a
Noise
_
Noise
Noise
Noise
Noise
Noise
Noise
Contour
Contour
contour •
:Contour •
Contour •
Contour
:.
contour
Contour
Contour
Seal Beach Boulevard:
Golden Rain Rd. to Saint
33,790
66.2
310
144
67
38,923
66.8
341
158
73
0.6
Andrews
Road A to Road B
25,538
64.0
211
98
45
31,216
64.9
242
112
Saint Andrews to
33,790
66.2
310
144
67
38,923
66.8
341
158
73
0.6
Westminster
1.0
Seal Beach Blvd. to Bolsa
26,698
67.7
374
174
81
31,391
68.5
417
194
Westminster Ave. to Road C
26,975
66.4
319
148
69
33,377
67.4
368
171
79
1.0
Road C to Road A
26,975
66.4
319
148
69
31,241
67.1
352
163
76
0.7
Road A to Pacific Coast
20,666
62.8
183
85
40
22,096
63.1
192
89
41
0.3
Highway
67.2
359
167
77
0.4
Andrews
Note: Noise level models computed for 2006 scenarios utilized existing 2000 roadway cross- section data.
J
J
J
Table 5.5 -13
65 CNEL Contour Projections �J
(Existing Plus Growth Plus Related Projects Plus Project)
(1
Existing + Future Growth + Related•Projects: ' ;:' =`
Existing + Future Growth + Related Projects + Project '
V
Distance from Roadway • •
Distance from Roadway Centerline
Difference in DBE
DBA @ 100
Centerline to: (Feet)
DBA @ 100
to::(Feet) •
@100 Feet from
Roadway Segment
ADT
Feet from
Roadway
ADT
feet from
Roadway
Roadway
601=414
65 L-4n
701.414
60 Un
65 UR
Centerline
CMEL
G
'
Centerline ,
- 0M
GNU
70 L-414 2a
Noise
_
Noise
Noise
Noise
-Noise
Noise
Contour
contour
Contour
Contour
contour
Contour
Westminster Avenue: _
Studebaker Rd. to Road A
25,389
64.0
210
98
45
28,594
64.5
228
106
49
0.5
Road A to Road B
25,538
64.0
211
98
45
31,216
64.9
242
112
52
0.9
Road B to Seal Beach Blvd.
25,538
64.0
211
98
45
32,052
65
246
114
53
1.0
Seal Beach Blvd. to Bolsa
26,698
67.7
374
174
81
31,391
68.5
417
194
90
0.8
Chica Rd.
A dolfo Lopez Drive:
West of Seal Beach Blvd.
1,500
52.2
32
15
7
1,855
53.1
37
17
8
0.9
r
Seal Beach Boulevard:
U
Golden Rain Rd. to Saint
38,080
66.8
336
156
72
42,213
67.2
359
167
77
0.4
Andrews
Saint Andrews to
38,080
66.8
336
156
72
42,213
67.2
359
167
77
0.4
I
Westminster
J
Westminster Ave. to Road C
30,554
67.0
347
161
75
39,956
68.1
415
193
89
1.1
Road C to Road A
30,554
67.0
347
161
75
34,820
67.5
379
176
82
1 0.5
Road A to Pacific Coast
23,401
63.4
199
92
43
24,831
63.6
207
96
45
0.2 U
Highwa
Note: Noise level models computed for 2006 scenarios utilized existing 2000 roadway cross - section data. f - -
�I
FINAL + APRIL 2003 E -30 Errata
L�
G
►
U
U
►
U
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Page 5.5 -10 of the Draft EIR, following Table 5.5 -8, Existing Traffic Noise Contour
Levels, the following paragraph has been added in the Final EIR.
In order to assess the potential for mobile source noise impacts, it is necessa�r i to determine
the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling throu the project area. Values
reflected in Table 5.5 -7 — Noise Measurements, are used to verify the accuracy of the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Prediction Model (CALVEN Curves). Note
that the values predicted by the model compare favorably with the model values—given in
Table 5.5 -8 — Exisfina Traffic Noise Contour Levels. This then verifies the accuracy of the
model.
Page 5.5 -13 of the Draft EIR, Table 5.5 -10, has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
Table 5.5 -10
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Type of Equipment °':.
Maximum Level, dB .(50 feety,Ahence)
Scrapers
88
Bulldozers
87
Heavy Trucks
88
Backhoe
85
Pneumatic Tools
85
Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," prepared by Cyril Harris, 1979.
Page 5.5 - 24, Paragraph 6, has been revised as follows:
Loading /Unloading Noise Noise from loading /unloading activities of 75 dBA Lmax would be
reduced by distance attenuation alone to 57 dBA Lmax (Building 97), 36 dBA Lmax
(Building 84), 61 dBA Lmax (Planning Area 3). and 63 dBA Lmax (Planning Area 4) at the
nearest residences in Leisure World and Island Village. Additionally, noise from the loading
areas would be blocked partially to the north and northwest by the walls surrounding Leisure
World, Island Village and the future planned Hellman Ranch project. Therefore, the
loading /unloading noise would not exceed the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) maximum noise
standard at the nearest residences.
► Mitigation Measure 5.5 -3a of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows (also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of
Mitigation Measures, and Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program):
L
U
L�
5.5 -3a Prior to Building Permit issuance .
rmeng DavAlopment Plan approval for Light
Ind IG a- rnmern-ii-al Planning Areas Of thO PFGjSGt area, subsequent noise
assessments shall be prepared, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services, which demonstrates the site placement of stationary
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
E -31
Errata
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
noise sources would not exceed criteria established in the City of Seal Beach
Noise Ordinance. The analysis shall verify that loading dock facilities, rooftop
equipment, trash compactors and other stationary noise sources are adequately
shielded and /or located at an adequate distance from residential areas in order
to comply with the City's noise standards.
Page 5.6 -1, Paragraph 1, has been revised as follows:
The purpose of this Section is to identify existing biological resources on -site and in the
vicinity, analyze potential project - related impacts to these resources (including sensitive
species) and recommend mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen the
significance of impacts that are identified. Information in this Section is based on the
Biological Technical Report prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) in October, 2001
and a jurisdictional delineation for three on -site man -made drainage ditches conducted by
Glenn Lukos Associates in June, 2001. The RBF team, conducted a peer review of the
Report. The Report is included in its entirety in Appendix 15.5, Biological Technical Report.
Information regarding mitigation through the wetlands restoration program is based upon the
Wetlands Restoration Plan, prepared by GLA in April, 2003, i ncluded in Appendix 15.5 This
Section describes the biological character of the site in terms of vegetation, flora, wildlife,
and wildlife habitats and analyzes the biological significance of the site in view of federal,
state and local laws and policies.
Mitigation Measure 5.6 -1a has been revised in the Final EIR as follows(also revised
in Section 2.0, Executive Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of Mitigation Measures,
and Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program):
5.6 -1 a In order to mitigate adverse impacts to 385 individual of southern tarplant, a
translocation program shall be has been developed,
, wactd- shall be translocated on-sjW to the terraces
adjacent to Drainage Ditches A and B. ,
On Page 5.7 -10 of the Draft EIR, a new paragraph has been added in the Final EIR
under the Subheading "Burial Sites" as follows:
Due to the discovery of human remains on the nearby Hellman Ranch properties, there is an
increased_ potential for the discovery of unknown locations for human remains on the subject
pr_o pertv. Mitigation have_been identified that would be required base on lba
compliance issues raised on the Hellman Ranch /John Laing Homes project to the south.
The procedures have been utilized at the Hellman Ranch site in consultation with the Most
Likely Descendent MLD) to mitigate the impacts to the discovea of any unknown human
remains. Mitigation involves a "Mitigation Plan." should a significant number of unknown
human remains be encountered during the test phase and construction gradin onitorin .
on the Boeinq_propertv_.
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 E -32 Errata
L o 6. s -fie=.
L ' BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
► In addition, Mitigation Measure 5.7 -3b has been incorporated into the Final EIR as
r ; follows (also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of
�j Mitigation Measures, and Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program):
I x
U
U
J
V
u
A
I
u
BURIAL SITES
5.7 -3 Should any human bone be encountered during any earth removal or disturbance
activities, all activity shall cease immediately and the city selected archaeologist
and Native American monitor shall be immediately contacted, who shall then
immediately notify the Director of Development Services. The Director of the
Department of Development Services shall contact the Coroner pursuant to
Section 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native
American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be
Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
5.7 -3b If more than one Native American burial is encountered during any earth removal
or disturbance activities. a "Mitigation Plan" shall be prepared and sub to
roval by the City of Seal Beach Community Development Department. The
Miti gation Plan shall include the following�rocedures:
Continued Native American Monitoring
ground disturbance in any portions of the project area with the Dotential to
contain human remains or other cultural material shall be monitored by a
Native American representative of the MLD. Activities to be monitored shall
include all construction grading controlled grading and hand excavation of
previousiv undisturbed deposit. with the exception of contexts that are clearl
within the ancient marine terrace that comprises most of LandingHill.
Exposure and removal of each burial shall be monitored by a Native
American. Where burials are clustered and immediately adjacent. one
monitor is sufficient for excavation of two adjoinin burials.
0 Excavation of test units shall be monitored. Simultaneous excavation of two
test units if less than 20 feet apart may be monitored by a single Native
American.
♦ If screenin of soil associated with burials or test units is done concurrently_
with and adjacent to the burial or test unit, the Native American res onsible for
that burial or test unit will also monitor the screening. If the screening is din _
at another location. a separate monitor shall be required.
0 All mechanical excavation conducted in deposits that may contain human
remains (i.e., all areas not completely within the marine terrace deposits) shall
be monitored by a Native American.
Notification Procedures for New Discoveries
♦ When possible burials are identified during monitoring of mechanical
excavation or excavation of test units, the excavation shall be temporarily_
halted while the find is assessed in consultation with the lead field
rcha a�eoloaist If the find is made during mechanical excavation, the
archaeologist or Native American monitoring the activity shall have the
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
E -33
Errata
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
excavation shall continue.
♦ If the find is determined to be a human burial, the lead archaeologist shall
immediately notify the Site Supervisor for the developer, as well as the
Principal Investigator. The Principal Investigator shall immediately notify the
MID and the Director of Development Services for the City of Seal Beach.
The City shall provide the Coastal Commission with weekly updates
describing the finds in writing.
Identification of Additional Burials
0 For all discovered human burials, attempts shall continue to be made to locate
additional burials nearby through hand excavation techniques. This shall be
done through the excavation of 1 x 1 m exp orat ry test units ETUs laced
along transacts extending radially from each identified burial or burial cluster.
The spacing of the ETUs shall be determined upon consultation with the
Project Archaeologist and the MILD. The radial transects shall be designed to
test areas within 50 feet (15 m) from the edge of each burial or burial cluster.
Excavation of these units shall be limited to areas containin intact cultural
deposit (i.e., areas that have not been graded to the underlying marine
terrace) and shall be excavated until the marine terrace deposits are
encountered, or to the excavation depth required for the approved grading
plan. The soil from the ETUs along the radial transects shall be screened only
if human remains are found in that unit.
♦ Controlled grading shall be conducted within these 50 -foot heightened
investigation areas with a wheeled motor grader. The motor grader shall use
a ang led blade that excavates 1 to 2 inches at a pass pushing .... the spoil to
the side to form a low windrow. Monitors shall follow about 20 feet behind the
motor grader, examining the ground for evidence of burials.
♦ When a burial is identified during controlled grading, the soil in windrows that
may contain fragments of bone from that burial shall - screened. At a
minimum this shall include the soil in the windrow within 50 feet of the burial in
the direction of the gElding
♦ If additional burials are found during controlled grading. additional ETus will
be hand excavated in the radial patterns described above.
Burial Removal and Stora e
♦ Consultation with the MILD shall occur regard the treatment of discovered
human burials. If the MLD determines it is ro riate to have discovered
human remains pedestaled for removal, that activity shall be conducted in a
method agreed to by the MILD.
♦ After pedestalin or other agreed upon burial removal program is completed
the top of a burial shall be covered with paper towels to act as a cushion. and
then a heavy _ply plastic will be placed over the top to retain surface moisture.
Duct tape shall be wrapped around the entire pedestal, securing the plastic
bag and supporting the pedestal. Labels shall be placed on the plastic
indicating the burial number and the direction of true north in relation to the
individual burial Sections of rebar shall be hammered across the bottom of
the pedestal and parallel to the ground. When a number of parallel rebar
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003 E -34 Errata
0
0
a
0
a
u
a
u
u
u
u
a
�J
iL
C
L
L'
J
1
i
U
U
U
u
Ll
U
Ill ml
I L�
u
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
pushed onto a thick plywood board and lifted onto a pallet. A forklift shall
ca yr the pallet to a secure storage area or secure storages containers located
on the subject ropera.
♦ if another agreed upon burial removal program is utilized, that method shall be
carried out in a manner agreed upon after consultation with the MLD.
Study of Burial Remains
♦ If the burials are removed in pedestal and are incompletely exposed,_
osteological studies are necessarily limited to determination (if possible) of
age, sex, position, orientation, and trauma or patholo After consultation
and only upon written agreement by the MLD, additional studies that are
destructive to the remains may be undertaken, including radiocarbon datin of
bone or DNA studies. If the MLD determines that only non - destructive
additional studies may be allowed, one shell may be removed from each
burial and submitted for radiocarbon dating. The assumption here is that the
shell would have been part of the fill for the burial pit and therefore would
provide a maximum age for the burial.
♦ The MLD ma indicate a willingness to consider some additional exp osure
and study of the skeletal material removed from the sites. Such study would
not involve removal of the remains from the project area but rather would be
undertaken near the storage area. To the extent allowed by the MLD, the
bones would be further exposed within the existing pedestals or other medium
containin the human remains and additional measurements taken.
Consultation with the MLD regarding the feasjbjlj of these additional studies
prior to reburial would occur.
Repatriation of Burials and Associated Artifacts
0 Once all portions of the project area have been graded to the underlying
culturally sterile marine terrace deposits, or to the excavation depth required
for the approved ;IE ding_plan, the repatriation process shall be initiated for all
recovered human remains and associated artifacts. Once a reburial site has
been identified and prepared, the remains and associated artifacts shall be
transported from the secure storage area to the site for reburial. App rroo riate
ceremony will be undertaken during this process at the discretion of the MLD.
Additional Studies
♦ Considerable additional data relating t regional research issues may be
uncovered if substantial numbers of human burials and other archaeolog
features are encountered during the construction monitorjng for the
development. If this occ urs. additional analysis be conducted. The analysis
shall be designed _ to more completely address the research issues discussed
in the approved "Research Design" and to provide additional miti of
impacts to the sites in fi ht of the new finds. The foll studies would
potent_ ially app licable:
Radiocarbon Dating. In considerin the implications of the burials in
interpreting site use and regional settlement. it is critical to assess the
time ran ere resente b y the interments. Do the corres and to the full
temporal range of site use or only a limited timeframe? AlthQugh direct
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
E -35
Errata
C• o.��e"� A
BOEINGS E IC � PLAN PROJECT EIR
shell from the interior of each burial for dating. Although this shall not
provide a direct date of the burial, assuming the shell was Dart of the
burial fill it should provide a maximum age (that is the burial should not
be older than the shell). In addition, an equivalent number of additional
samples from non - burial contexts would also be taken for comparative
purposes. These data would provide -a more secure measure of the
intensity of occupation during different periods.
Sediment Cores. Dating results obtained to date on the Hellman
Ranch /John Laing Homes properties may suggest a possible link between
the use of the sites within the project area and the productivity of the
adjacent lagoon and estuary systems. To assess this link usin
independent environmental data on the subject property. two sediment
cores will be taken from suitable locations of the - oper�yt . Sediments in
the cores shall be examined and described in the field bye geologist. and
samples collected for dating and pollen analysis. These data shall then
be used to help reconstruct the habitats present on the prod Burin
theperiods the sites were occupied. This analysis shall be included in the
final report documentin the testing. data recovery, and construction
monitoring phases of this investigation.
Comparative Studies. The substantial assemblage of artifacts recovered
during the monitoring on the Hellman Ranch /John Laing Homes
properties provides a basis for comparison with other sites and shall
contribute to an understanding of regional patterns. This analvsis shall be
included in the final re ort see below l.
- Animal Interments. Animal interments may be discovered within the
project area. Because these are not human remains, somewhat more
intensive study is possible. Because these features are uncommon and
represent very culture - specific religious practices, they are useful in
reconstructing cultural areas during certain times in prehistory. Analysis
of animal interments will include: U exposure to determine burial p sition;_
-photo documentation: (3) examination of skeleton for age /sex•
traumatic injury,_pathology butchering, or other cultural modification:_(41
radiocarbon dating: and (5) examination of grave dirt for evidence of
rave gods or stomach contents.
uration
0 Cultural materials recovered from the cultural resources monitoring and
miti ation program for the development shall be curated either at an
appropriate facility in Orange County, or, in consultation with the City at the
San Diego Archaeolo Center.
Preparation of Final Report
0 The final technical report shall be pM a[ ed and submitted to the C ty and
CCC within 12 months of the completion of the archeological field work. The
report shall conform to the guidelines developed by the California Office of
Historic Preservation for Archaeological Resource Management Reports
(ARMR). It will be prepared in sufficient quantity to distribute to interested
remc final researchers and Native American groups. It shall thoroughly_
document and synthesize all of the findings from all phase of the cultural
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003 E•36 Errata
U
U
0
0
0
a
0
u
v
u
L of T'0� s�
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
► Page 5.9 -33, Mitigation Measure 5.9 -2b has been revised in the Final EIR as follows
(also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of Mitigation
Measures, and Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program):
V
u
0
HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
5.9 -2 Standing water and drainage problems occurring at the frontage of Planning
Area 4 on Seal Beach Boulevard shall be corrected as part of the proposed
Project development for Planning Area 4. A detailed cross - section survey of
Seal Beach Boulevard extending about 1,000 feet north and south of the
existing double box culvert crossing shall be conducted. A storm drain system
shall be designed and connected to the double box culvert crossing. The
design shall evaluate the need for additional crossings of Seal Beach
Boulevard. Refer to the Master Plan of Drainage Section 6, Recommended
Improvements, for more information and detailed figures.
5. -2b A Finalized Hydrol and Retention Basin Study shall be s for re view
and app b y County of Orange in conformance with the Grang e Count
y rolo Manual (OCHM) and the Addendum No. 1 to the OCHM.
Hy drology_, hydraulic and retention basin studies shall be based on Ex ep cted
Value (EV) discharges for 2 -. 10 -, 25- and 100 -year storm frequencies for
existin and developed c n itions. Approv by the County of Orange of this
plan shall be received by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading_
ep rmit.
► In addition, Mitigation Measure 5.10 -1a has been revised in the Final EIR as follows
L (also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of Mitigation
Measures, and Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program):
C
L.
L
C
J
I
5.10 -1 a Soil characterization and sampling of PECA's in the redevelopment areas of
the Project site shall be conducted as needed to determine the presence or
absence of hazardous materials, prior to grading activities.
Page 5.10 -28, Mitigation Measure 5.10 -3b has been revised as follows (also revised
in Section 2.0, Executive Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of Mitigation Measures,
and Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program):
5.10 -3b If asbestos containing material are found, abatement of asbestos shall be
required before any demolition activities that would disturb asbestos containing
material or create an airborne asbestos hazard is permitted
FINAL 0 APRIL 2003
E -37
Errata
o ofs�
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
►
1
Page 5.11 -12, Paragraph 1 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows in the Final
EIR: 0
The existing 18 -inch water line in Westminster Avenue and 12 -inch water line in Seal Beach
Boulevard would be utilized to provide water services to Lots 1 -6 and 84-3 8 -10 and 12 -13
A proposed 12 -inch water main loop system would extend south on Apollo Way, turning
west on Apollo Court, and then turning south towards Saturn Way. From Saturn Way, the
line would travel east and connect to the existing 12 -inch line in Seal Beach Boulevard.
Planning Area 4 would be serviced from the existing public water mains in Westminster
Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. Lot 6 in Planning Area 1 would be serviced off the
existing 10 -inch main in Adolfo Lopez Drive, which would be looped with the new proposed
water system. Lots 1-4 and 844 Lots 10. 12 and 13 would be serviced off the 12 -inch main
in Apollo Court. Lots 5, 7, 42 8 and 43 9 would be serviced off of Saturn Way (refer to
Exhibit 5.11 -1, Water and Sewer Master Plan).
Page 5.11 -15, Paragraph 2 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows:
The Water and Sewer Master Plan indicates that an existing 6 -inch cast force main would
be replaced with a 12 -inch line which connects the City's Boeing Pump Station to the city
maintained 24 -inch gravity sewer line in Seal Beach Boulevard. The 24 -inch line provides
flows to the OCSD Seal Beach Pump Station at Westminster Avenue and Seal Beach
Boulevard. A proposed private gravity sewer line (Line "A ") serving Lots 1-4 and 8-44 0
12 and 13 would extend east along Apollo Court to connect to the City of Seal Beach
existing lift station at the northeast corner of the property. A proposed private gravity and
pressure sewer line (Line "B ") serving Lots 5 -7, 4-2 8 and 4-3 9, would extend east along
Saturn Way, from a new lift station, to the existing sewer line in Seal Beach Boulevard.
The private lift station would be built for a peak flow of 122 gpm and average flow of 47
gpm as shown on the proposed master plan developed by Tait & Associates. Proposed
development within Planning Area 4 would be serviced by the Boeing Pump Station (refer
to Exhibit 5.11 -1, Water and Sewer Master Plan).
During the submittal of improvement plans. the City Engineer will evaluate the need and
decide whether sewer_ water and other infrastructure would be maintained by the City for
public health and safely, It is onvis ioned that the Citv would onl accept facilities that are
located within public right -of -way except for water distribution mains which are ne e�ry
for operation of a looped system for the City.
Page 5.11 -15, Paragraph 4 of the Draft EIR, has been revised as follows in the Final
EIR:
Improvements in accordance with the Water and Sewer Master Plan, along with
replacement of the Boeing Pump Station and payment of the fa ansts fe
FeP of the Adolfo Lopez Pump-Station would reduce potential impacts to less than
Even though this new lift station is shown on the Master Sewer and Water Plan, as being in the Saturn �l
Way public ROW, it may end up being on private property and further discussions with the City will determine if the U
Saturn Way lift station will be public or private.
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 E -38 Errata
U
L C&T -of s�
BOEINGSPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
L
significant levels.
► Mitigation Measure 5.11 -1a of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows (also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of
Mitigation Measures, and Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program):
1
L I
0
5.11 -1a In order to ensure adequate service to the pFejest -site proposed subdivision and
the individual building structures, plans for the proposed public water and
wastewater systems shall be approved by the City Engineer of the City of Seal
Beach prior to the recordation of the final tract map. A condition on the tentative
map shall state that all public infrastructure improvement plans, including sewer.
water, streets traffic signals, and grading shall be approved by the City Engineer
prior to recordation of the tract map. This is in conformance with the subdivision
map act and approval authority of the City Engineer.
traet map.
► Mitigation Measure 5.11 -3b of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as
follows (also revised in Section 2.0, Executive Summary, Section 8.0, Inventory of
Mitigation Measures, and Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program):
Lit
U
U
L
L
r
v
L
5.11 -3b The project -gp plicant/individual project ap developer shall adhere to all
source reduction programs for the disposal of demolition and construction
materials and solid wasted required by the City of Seal Beach. Prior to
issuance of building permits. a source reduction program shall be prepared and
submitted to the Director of Development Services for demolition of any existing
structure over 5.000 square feet in area and for each future structure constructed
on the subject properties to achieve a minimum 60 percent reduction in waste
disposal rates, including green waste.
Page 6 -4 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
According to the California Department of Finance, the City of Seal Beach's population was
estimated at 25,098 persons in 1990 and estimated at 24,157 persons in 2000.
Department of Finance data is a typical reference /resource for population /housing data. As
of January 2002, the City's population was an estimated 24,675 persons. According
SCAG forecasts, the Citv's o ulation is p to increase to approximatel ,984
persons in 2020 The City's General Plan Land Use Element projects a population of
30,080 persons at General Plan buildout.
2 City and County 1990 Population and Housing: State of California, Department of Finance, City /County
Population and Housing Estimates, 1991 -2000, with 1990 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, May 2000.
3 City and County 2000 and 2002 Population and Housing: State of California, Department of Finance,
City /County Population and Housing Estimates, 2002, Revised 2001, with 2000 Census Counts. Sacramento,
California, May 2002.
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 E -39 Errata
O <� ezcA
BOEING S ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
Housing
The number of households in the OCCOG in 2000 was approximately 909.705. This
estimate is forecast to increase to approximately 1.1 million in 2020. The County of
Orange's housing supply totaled 875,105 housing units in 1990 and 969,484 housing units
in 2000.
Page 6-4 of the Draft EIR has been revised in the Final EIR as follows:
According to State Department of Finance estimates, between 1990 and 2000, the City of
Seal Beach's housing supply decreased from 14,407 housing units to 14,267 housing
units. As of January 2002, the City's housing supply was 14,325 units, representing an
increase of 0.41 percent (58 housing units) over the 2000 estimate. The vacancy rate in the
City as of January 2002 was 8.54 percent (1,224 vacant housing units). The City's vacancy
rate was over double the County's vacancy rate of 3.53. The number of persons per
household in the City was 1.86 (January 2002), or nearly 40 percent less than the County's
estimate of 3.04 persons per household. According to SCAG, the number of households in
the City is forecast to increase to approximately 11764 in 2020.
Employment
OCCOG's employment in 2000 was an estimated 1.5 million. Emp oyment in the subr egion
Forecast to increase to approximately 2.0 million in 2020. According to the 2000 Census,
the County's civilian labor force totaled approximately 1.4 million. An estimated five percent
(71,059 persons) of the County's civilian labor force was unemployed at the time of the
Census. The majority (approximately 38 percent) of the County's labor force was employed
in management/professional / related occupations. The County's labor force primarily filled
positions in the manufacturing and educational /health /social services industries,
representing approximately 17 percent and 16 percent, respectively.
The 2000 Census reported a total civilian labor force of approximately 9,922 in the City of
Seal Beach. Approximately 3.5 percent (344 persons) of the City's civilian labor force was
unemployed at the time of the Census. This unemployment rate was slightly lower than the
County's five percent unemployment rate. Over one -half (approximately 53 percent) of the
City's labor force was employed in management/professional /related occupations. As with
the County, management/professional / related occupations represented the largest group in
the City. The majority, an estimated 24.4 percent, of the City's labor force filled positions in
the educational/ health /social services industry. Accordin to S CAG the City's em loyment
is forecast to increase to approximately 13500 in 2020.
4 City of Seal Beach General Plan Land Use Element Summary Report, No Date, Page 1.
5 City and County 1990 Population and Housing: State of California, Department of Finance, City /County
Population and Housing Estimates, 1991 -2000, with 1990 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, May 2000.
6 City and County 2000 and 2002 Population and Housing: State of California, Department of Finance,
City /County Population and Housing Estimates, 2002, Revised 2001, with 2000 Census Counts. Sacramento,
California, May 2002.
FINAL 4 APRIL 2003 E -40 Errata
U
BOEINGS ECIFIC PLAN PROJECT EIR
► Page 10 -2, under the title of Hazards and Hazardous Materials, has been revised in
the Final EIR:
u
1
U
U
L11
v
No Impact. The Los Alamitos Armed Joint Forces Trainin Base
JFTB is located immediately north of the City of Seal Beach Corporate Limits,
approximately two miles to the northeast of the project site. Flight operations from the
JFTB generally include a take off pattern over the City of Seal Beach,
resulting in a potential for an emergency response, particularly in the event of an aircraft
accident. Determining the significance of impacts associated with the aviation related air
traffic is based upon the following standards:
♦ Location of structures within a Clear Zone (Civil Runway Protection Zone) as
described in FAR Part 77.2g.
♦ Location of incompatible land uses within the Clear Zones (CZs) or Accident
Potential Zones (APZs) defined and established in an applicable Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Study.
FINAL ♦ APRIL 2003
E -41
Errata