Long Beach City Council
August 16, 2022

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
in Long Beach is consumed in the community, and that 100 percent of the oil extracted in Long Beach is consumed within California. Of the total oil and gas lifecycle emissions, 76 percent occur downstream (i.e., transport to consumers and end use of fuel), 14 percent occur midstream (i.e., oil refining), and 5 percent occur upstream (i.e., extraction); the remaining 4 percent are lifecycle natural gas emissions.

Based on the OCI information for the Wilmington oil field, this analysis also assumes that the refining of Long Beach oil results in the creation of petcoke as a byproduct, which is likely exported for combustion outside of the United States because it has limited permitted uses within the United States. This byproduct contributes importantly to downstream emissions from Long Beach oil.

Understanding the lifecycle emissions sources help to define the City’s opportunities for meaningful intervention. Upstream emissions occur at the oil fields within the city boundary. The City issues well permits for petroleum operations, and has relatively more direct control over these emissions.

Opportunities to reduce upstream emissions primarily include energy efficiency improvements in the extraction process and increased leak monitoring and detection. Oil refining occurs outside the City’s jurisdiction, where opportunities to reduce midstream emissions are limited to advocacy efforts for more stringent requirements from CARB, the Southern California Air Quality Management District, or other relevant permitting entities. Oil extracted in Long Beach is refined into various end products, which are consumed inside and outside the city boundary. Through its Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), the City is pursuing actions that would reduce local consumption of fossil fuels from building energy efficiency improvements, reduced vehicular travel, and expansion of electric vehicle technology.

As with the midstream emissions, the City’s ability to influence use of Long Beach oil products outside of the city is primarily limited to advocacy for greater local action in those jurisdictions to limit fossil fuel use or for more stringent regulation (e.g., state, federal) of fossil fuel consuming uses (e.g., vehicle efficiency standards).

The City’s long-term strategy to address oil and gas lifecycle emissions should be multi-pronged and include a goal to replace fossil fuel consumption in Long Beach with clean electricity and other renewable energy sources, support efforts to minimize global demand for oil and gas resources, phase- out local oil and gas extraction, and invest in carbon capture technology.

1. Summary of Oil and Gas Footprint
AECOM estimated the lifecycle footprint of oil and gas produced in Long Beach. Based on guidance from staff at CARB, this analysis combined information from OCI and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Regulation to develop a lifecycle emissions factor for crude oil that approximates emissions for the Long Beach oil fields. Additional information was collected to estimate emissions from the production and use of natural gas occurring as a byproduct of oil production. The following sections describe these various inputs before presenting the lifecycle emissions estimates.

Emissions Factors

OIL-CLIMATE INDEX
OCI is an analytic tool that estimates the total lifecycle GHG emissions of individual oils and compares them among a global sample pool of 75 different oil fields. The lifecycle emissions include upstream extraction, midstream refining, and downstream end use. The database “was developed to alert public and private stakeholders to the full array of oils’ climate impacts from various perspectives”,2 and can support a more holistic understanding of what public policies can address oil-related emissions.

OCI uses three different models to develop its emissions factors:

1. Oil Production Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimator (OPGEE) for upstream production data 2 Oil-Climate Index. Available: <https://oci.carnegieendowment.org/#about>

APPENDIX G
G
CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020 Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20

2. Petroleum Refinery Life-Cycle Inventory Model (PRELIM) for midstream refining data

3. Oil Products Emission Module (OPEM) for calculating GHG emissions associated with transporting petroleum products from the refinery outlet to the end-use destination, including end-use combustion
Each of the global oils included in the database has an individual emissions footprint, based on their unique chemical composition, extraction and refining technologies, and other factors. These differences add up to high variability in lifecycle emissions from oil produced at different oil fields, and a better understanding of these differences can inform policy making designed to achieve climate goals and protect local air quality. According to Deborah Gordon, the former director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Energy and Climate Program (an OCI funding partner):
“California today stands at two ends of a spectrum: the nation’s climate policy leader is also the country’sthird largest oil-producing state and the state with the third largest oil-refining capacity in the nation. Despite ambitious goals to reduce carbon emissions, some California oils are as high-emitting as Canadian oil sands and other difficult-to-extract heavy oils. This poses critical global climate risks and calls for immediate policy attention.”
3 CRUDE OIL EMISSIONS FACTORS
OCI provides emissions factors specific to each of the lifecycle phases (i.e., upstream, midstream, downstream) expressed as kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (kg CO2e) per barrel of crude oil.4 OCI does not have emissions factors specific to the Long Beach oil fields; the Wilmington oil field is the closest option geographically. AECOM consulted with CARB staff about using Wilmington as a proxy for the Long Beach fields, and were informed that the LCFS Regulation does include upstream emissions factors specific to the Long Beach fields, which could be combined with midstream and downstream factors from OCI to develop a more nuanced and locally-specific emissions factor. CARB staff suggested that OCI’s midstream and downstream emissions factors for Wilmington might be a good proxy for Long Beach in lieu of more specific analysis. AECOM staff contacted a co-developer of the OCI database to discuss this question further and understand if Long Beach oil field-specific factors are available, but did not receive a response prior to developing this memo. Therefore, the lifecycle emissions factor for oil production used in this analysis is based on the best available data and consists of the components shown in Table 1.

Table 1 – Crude Oil Lifecycle Emissions Factors
Sector kg CO2e/barrel of crude Source
Upstream Emissions1 32.6 CARB
Midstream Emissions2 90.0
OCI - Wilmington
Heat 27.0
Electricity 5.0
Steam 6.0
Hydrogen (via steam methane reformer) 47.0
Catalyst Regeneration (fluid catalytic fracking) 5.0
Downstream Emissions2 478.0
OCI - WilmingtonTransport to Consumers 12.0
Gasoline 213.0
3 Gordon, Deborah and Samuel Wojcicki. Need to Know: The Case for Oil Transparency in California. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. March 15, 2017. Available: <https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/03/15/need-to-know-case-for-oil- transparency-in-california-pub-68166>
4 The emissions factors from OCI do not account for natural gas extraction, distribution, or use, so additional lifecycle emissions estimates were developed to analyze this emissions source from production in Long Beach.

APPENDIX G
G

APPENDIX G
Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
Sector kg CO2e/barrel of crude Source
Jet Fuel 43.0
Diesel 137.0
Petroleum Coke 40.0
Residual Fuels 17.0
LPG 16.0
Total 600.6 Calculated value
1 California Air Resources Board Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation, Unofficial Electronic Version provided to AECOM via email April 2019. Table 9 - Carbon Intensity Lookup Table for Crude Oil Production and Transport. Conversion from g CO2e/MJ to kg CO2e/barrel of crude provided to AECOM via email by CARB staff. 2 Oil-Climate Index, "U.S. California Wilmington" Created 2015. Accessed 4/12/2019. Available:
<https://oci.carnegieendowment.org/?toggle-carbon=on&carbon-tax=20&ratio-select=perBarrel&step-select=ghgTotal&sort- select=true#oil/u.s.-california-wilmington>
The total lifecycle emissions factor developed for this analysis is approximately 601 kg CO2e per barrel of oil. Of this total, 5 percent of emissions occur upstream (e.g., extraction), 15 percent occur midstream (e.g., refining), and 80 percent of the emissions occur downstream from transport to consumers and final product use (e.g., gasoline, diesel, jet fuel).

NATURAL GAS EMISSIONS FACTORS
The OCI emissions factors do not include emissions occurring from natural gas that is produced as a byproduct of the oil extraction process. To account for these emissions in Long Beach, the total natural gas production volume in the city was estimated and then organized according to its final end use to determine the applicable emissions factors. Of the natural gas produced in Long Beach, approximately 99 percent is combusted, either for auxiliary energy use at oil facilities or in building appliances and systems, like hot water heaters and stoves. The remaining 1 percent is fugitive emissions, lost to the atmosphere through leakage in the natural gas supply chain.

EPA emissions factors for stationary combustion of natural gas were applied to the volume of combusted natural gas. Table 2 summarizes these natural gas emissions factors.

Table 2 – Natural Gas Combustion Emissions Factor
Value Unit Source

0.05444 kg CO2 per scf
U.S. EPA emissions factors10.00103 g CH4 per scf

0.0001 g N2O per scf

0.054 Total kg CO2e per scf Calculated value 2
1 U.S. EPA. Last modified 9 March, 2018. Available: <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018- 03/documents/emission-factors_mar_2018_0.pdf>
2 Global warming potential factors for CH4 and N2O were used to convert to carbon dioxide equivalent; the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report values were used for consistency with the city’s production-based GHG inventory. Available:
<https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf> Fugitive emissions were estimated based on the amount of methane in the volume of lost natural gas, combined with its relative global warming potential (GWP) factor from the International Panel on Climate

APPENDIX G
G
CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020 Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 4AR).5 Use of these GWP values provides consistency with the city’s production-based inventory, which also uses 4AR 100-year GWP factors.

Total Emissions
The emissions factors presented above were combined with oil and natural gas production information from the City Energy Resources Department. Oil production data was provided in barrels per quarter from 2001-2017; 2015 values were used in this analysis for consistency with the city’s production-based inventory. The City does not directly track natural gas production, and instead provided a factor to estimate total natural gas produced as a result of total oil produced. However, the Thums oil facility does report oil and natural gas production volumes to the EPA. This data was combined with the natural gas production factor provided by the City to estimate total natural gas production in Long Beach. Oil and gas production volumes for 2015 are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 – 2015 Oil and Natural Gas Production
2015 Production Volume Unit Source
Crude Oil
Total Oil Production 13,321,018 barrels City of Long Beach Energy Resources Department Natural Gas
Thums Gas
Production 3,450,425 Mcf EPA GHG Reporting Protocol
Thums Oil Production 8,936,765 barrels EPA GHG Reporting Protocol Remaining Oil
Production in Long
Beach 4,384,253 Barrels Calculated as (Total oil production) – (Thums oil production) Gas Production
Factor 0.38 Mcf/barrel
Provided by staff from Long Beach Energy Resources
Department
Remaining Gas
Production 1,666,016 Mcf
Calculated as (Gas production factor) * (Remaining oil
production)
Total Natural Gas
Production 5,116,441 Mcf
Calculated as (Thums gas production) + (Remaining gas
production)
Based on the emissions factors and production volumes presented above, AECOM calculated total lifecycle emissions from the oil and gas produced in the city in 2015. As shown in Table 4, 96 percent of the emissions are attributed to oil and the remaining 4 percent are from natural gas. For comparison, the table also shows the city’s 2015 production-based inventory emissions that are addressed in the City’s draft CAAP. The lifecycle emissions from oil and gas produced in Long Beach are 2.7 times greater than the production-based inventory emissions generated as a result of activity in the community (e.g., residential energy use, on-road transportation, waste disposal).

It should be noted that the production-based inventory methodology used to calculate the communitywide emissions does not use a lifecycle emissions approach. Therefore, the comparison of these two emissions values shown in Table 4 is for informational purposes only, and the two values should not be summed to represent a total emissions inventory for Long Beach. Further, the lifecycle oil and gas emissions are approximately 1.2 times greater than the city’s’ consumption-based inventory as 5 International Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available: <https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-

1.pdf>

APPENDIX G
G

APPENDIX G
Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
well, but these two emissions sources are not directly comparable beyond demonstrating the relative volume of emissions resulting from different types of activities in Long Beach.

Table 4 – 2015 Emissions Summary from Long Beach Oil and Gas Production 2015 Emissions MT CO2e
Oil and Gas Lifecycle Emissions 8,329,292
Oil Production 8,000,604
Natural Gas Production 328,689
Community Inventory Emissions (production-based inventory) 3,100,468

2. Long Beach Carbon Intensity Compared to Other Areas
The carbon intensity of a barrel of crude oil is not homogenous across all oil fields. Various factors influence oil’s carbon intensity, including differences in physical characteristics, as well as in how the oil is extracted, processed, and ultimately used. Certain physical properties are used to characterize oil.

For example, “sweetness”is defined by the sulfur content of the crude - the lower the content, the sweeter the oil. “Heavy”oils are those which have a lower API gravity (equivalent to specific gravity expressed as weight per volume) and conversely, light oils are those with higher API gravity.

OCI Lifecycle Emissions
The physical properties for a sample of six global oils from the OCI are shown in Table 5, including the Wilmington oil field that was used to estimate the midstream and downstream emission factors for Long Beach as referenced in Table 1. The selected oils also include the most carbon intensive in the OCI (Canada Athabasca DC SCO), the least carbon intensive (U.S. Texas Eagle Ford Volatile Oil Zone), the largest producer by volume (Saudi Arabia Ghawar), and the two other California oils surveyed in the OCI.

Table 5 – Physical Properties of Various Crude Oils
Oil Name Oil Type Classification API Sweet or
Sour
Sulfur
Content
U.S. Texas Eagle Ford Volatile Oil Zone Condensate Ultra-light 50 Sweet 0.13% Saudi Arabia Ghawar Light Light 33 Sour 1.63%
U.S. California Wilmington Oil Depleted Heavy 19 Sour 1.56% U.S. California Midway Sunset Depleted Medium to extra- heavy 23 Sour 1.19%
U.S. California South Belridge Depleted Heavy to extra- heavy 15 Sweet 0.25% Canada Athabasca DC SCO Extra-heavy Extra-heavy 33 Sweet 0.16% Source: Oil-Climate Index; adapted by AECOM 2019
Wilmington oil is characterized as heavy and sour. The use of pumps to extract a watery, depleted crude from the Wilmington reservoir generate most of its upstream GHG emissions. As noted above, this analysis uses an upstream emissions factor specific to the Long Beach crudes. Per input from CARB staff, Long Beach crudes inject less water than in Wilmington to produce the same amount of oil.

Long Beach crudes also have a higher API than Wilmington crudes. These two factors result in lower upstream emissions from Long Beach crudes than Wilmington. This analysis uses Wilmington emissions factors for the midstream and downstream lifecycle phases. When Wilmington crude is

APPENDIX G
G
CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020 Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
refined, petcoke (or petroleum coke) is produced. This product has a high carbon and low hydrogen content that, when exported and combusted, contributes significantly to Wilmington’s downstream GHG emissions.6
Heavy oils like Wilmington’s or extra heavy oils like Canada Athabasca DC SCO (Athabasca) or the other U.S. California oils require more energy resources to extract and to separate out the usable fractions. Wilmington has higher midstream emissions than many other OCI oils because of the amount of hydrogen and heat used to transport and store the oil. Crudes like those found at Texas Eagle Ford Volatile Oil Zone (Texas Eagle) are considered ultra-light, sweet and relatively easy to extract from their source material. However, oil production in Eagle Ford uses hydraulic fracturing which is more energy and water intensive. The City does not use this well stimulation method. Sour oils such as Wilmington also have higher sulfur content (1.56 percent sulfur) than sweet oils and therefore require greater desulfurization at the midstream refining level.

Table 6 shows the emissions by lifecycle phase (e.g., upstream) for the same six global oils presented in Table 5, along with the approximated Long Beach oil emissions factor, ranked from lowest lifecycle emissions to highest. Texas Eagle has the lowest overall carbon intensity of all 75 oils surveyed in the OCI, and Athabasca has the highest. Lifecycle emissions from Long Beach and Athabasca oils are 1.3 and 1.6 times greater than those extracted from Texas Eagle, respectively.

Table 6 – Oil Emissions by Field7
Oil-Climate Index Model kg CO2e/barrel of oil
Oil Name Upstream Midstream Downstream Total
U.S. Texas Eagle Ford Volatile Oil Zone 33 23 403 458
Saudi Arabia Ghawar 34 28 430 491
Long Beach Oil1 33 90 478 601
U.S. California Wilmington Oil 56 90 478 625
U.S. California South Belridge 103 98 489 690
U.S. California Midway Sunset 180 81 464 725
Canada Athabasca DC SCO 163 13 560 736
1 Rounded to nearest whole number; see Table 1 for emissions inputs for Long Beach Oil; Total values for OCI survey oils may not sum to total shown
As represented in the OCI, Wilmington oil has a standard emissions factor of 625 kg CO2e per barrel, ranking it as tenth most carbon intensive of all 75 global oil types surveyed in the OCI. The approximated Long Beach oil emissions factor presented in Section 1 is 601 kg CO2e/barrel oil, and would rank as the 14th most carbon intensive global oil in the OCI. Of the 75 global oils surveyed in the OCI, the median lifecycle emissions are 514 kg CO2e per barrel; all three of the California oils in the OCI exceed the median value.

As shown in Table 6, Athabasca oils have the highest carbon footprint in the OCI at 736 kg CO 2e/barrel oil. Its high carbon footprint is largely attributable to the unconventional nature of the tar from which the oil must be separated in order to have a usable product; 22 percent of the total emissions occur from upstream processes alone for Athabasca. That compares to Texas Eagle (with the lowest total emissions in the OCI) at 458 kg CO 2e/barrel where 7 percent of emissions come from upstream operations.

Upstream emissions from Long Beach oil (33 kg CO2e/barrel oil), as informed by CARB’s LCFS research, 6 Carnegie Endowment, Oil-Climate Index. Available <https://oci.carnegieendowment.org/?toggle-carbon=on&carbon- tax=20&ratio-select=perBarrel&step-select=ghgTotal&sort-select=true#oil/u.s.-california-wilmington> 7 Carnegie Endowment, Oil-Climate Index. Available: <https://oci.carnegieendowment.org>

APPENDIX G
G

APPENDIX G
Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
ranks among the lowest of those surveyed in the OCI; the lowest upstream emissions in the OCI are from U.S Wyoming WC at 21 kg CO2e/barrel oil. The majority of Long Beach emissions come from downstream processes, comprising 80 percent of the total emissions profile, based on the assumption that Wilmington oils are a suitable proxy for Long Beach for midstream and downstream emissions.

CARB Crude Oil Upstream Carbon Intensity
The California Air Resources Board estimates the upstream and transport-related emissions for more than 100 California crude oil sources in its role of implementing the state’s low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). The objective of the LCFS is to reduce the fuel-cycle carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in California. For this analysis, CARB staff provided a link to the Unofficial Electronic Version of the 2019 LCFS Regulation for reference, and recommended that the Long Beach-specific upstream carbon intensity factor included therein could be used to replace the Wilmington upstream emissions factor from the OCI.

The information provided by CARB includes carbon intensity values for 157 California oil fields, expressed as gCO
2e/MJ. The lowest carbon intensity factor is from the Olive oil field (1.82 gCO2e/MJ), the highest carbon intensity is from the Chico-Martinez oil field (48.13 gCO2e/MJ), and the median carbon intensity is 4.94 gCO2e/MJ. The Long Beach oil field carbon intensity is 5.48 gCO2e/MJ; 94th out of 157 when ranked lowest to highest. For comparison, the Wilmington oil field carbon intensity listed in the LCFS is 8.31 gCO2e/MJ, or 118th out of 157. This suggests that even among other California oil fields, the majority have a lower carbon intensity value than Long Beach and Wilmington oil.8

3. What Happens to Oil and Gas Extracted in Long Beach
This section briefly outlines the assumed final destination of oil and gas produced in Long Beach. The primary takeaway is that there is imperfect tracking of the oil and gas produced in Long Beach and elsewhere in the state, so inferences have been made based on various sources of information to estimate where the city’s oil and gas production might go.

Oil
It is assumed that all oil produced in Long Beach is eventually consumed within the state. In 2018, 31.1 percent of the crude oil supply for California refineries was produced in-state, 11.4 percent was imported from Alaska, and 57.5 percent was imported from abroad. Foreign sources of crude oil imports came from more than 10 countries in 2018, with the largest imports from Saudi Arabia (37 percent), Ecuador (14 percent), and Colombia (13 percent).9 According to the EIA, “California is the second largest consumer of petroleum products in the nation and the largest consumer of motor gasoline and jet fuel.”
10 On a statewide average, 66 percent of crude oil product from California refineries is motor gasolines, 13 percent is distillate fuel, 12 percent is aviation fuel, and 9 percent is residual fuel.11 This information suggests that California consumes all of its domestic oil production, including that from Long Beach, and needs additional imports to satisfy in-state demand.

As a caveat to this assumption, it is possible that petcoke is produced as a byproduct of refining Long Beach oil; petcoke combustion is a contributor to downstream emissions from Wilmington oils in the 8 This considers emissions resulting from fuel transport, however it is important to note that this assessment does not include risk of spills from overseas transport.
9 California Energy Commission. Oil Supply Sources to California Refineries. Available:
<https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/petroleum_data/statistics/crude_oil_receipts.html> 10 EIA. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. Last updated November 15, 2018. Available:
<https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA>
11 California Energy Commission. California’s Oil Refineries. Available:
<https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/petroleum_data/refineries.html>

APPENDIX G
G
CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020 Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
OCI, and the same emissions factors were used as a proxy for Long Beach oil given the oils’similar characteristics. Strict state and federal regulations make combustion of petcoke difficult in the U.S., which limits the domestic market. According to a 2013 CBS report, “California exports 128,000 barrels of petroleum coke a day. Most of it goes to China, where it’s burned to generate electricity, and where it emits five to 10 percent more carbon dioxide than coal.”12 The Port of Long Beach website also lists petroleum coke as a top export item.

Natural Gas
The City of Long Beach operates one of the largest municipally owned natural gas utilities in the U.S., and is one of only three such operations in California. According to the 2016 California Gas Report prepared by the California Gas and Electric Utilities:
“Long Beach receives a small amount of its gas supply directly into its pipeline system from local production fields that are located within Long Beach's service territory, as well as offshore. Currently, Long Beach receives approximately 5 percent of its gas supply from local production. The majority of Long Beach supplies are purchased at the California border, primarily from the Southwestern United States. Long Beach, as a wholesale customer, receives intrastate transmission service for this gas from SoCalGas.”
13 As presented in Table 3, this analysis estimated that Long Beach produced 5.1 million Mcf of natural gas in 2015. It is further assumed that 100 percent of the natural gas produced in Long Beach is consumed within the city as well. Of the total gas production volume, approximately 1.4 million Mcf is assumed to be distributed as natural gas for local consumption, while the remainder is primarily combusted on-site during oil production or to generate auxiliary energy at the oil fields; a fraction (1.44 percent) is also assumed for total leak loss from the natural gas supply chain. Based on the city’s total natural gas production estimate, approximately 3.1 percent of natural gas consumed in the city (as represented in the production-based inventory) is produced locally.

Implications of Oil and Gas Use from Long Beach
As was described in the previous sections, oil emissions account for 96 percent of total lifecycle emissions from oil and gas extracted in Long Beach. Further, while the upstream emissions of local oil extraction are relatively low when compared to global oils in the OCI, the total lifecycle emissions from Long Beach oil are relatively much higher than other sources. This suggests that as the city and other global actors (e.g., cities, countries) strive to reduce fossil fuel use over the long-term, there are lower carbon-intensive oil options available that could be used in the interim as economies shift away from fossil fuels.

4. State Regulations of Gas and Oil Operations
This section gives a generalized overview of the state regulatory framework applicable to the oil and gas industry.

California Air Resources Board
In March 2017, CARB adopted its “Methane Regulations”,which impose emission controls for on- and offshore oil production and processing facilities, as well as natural gas distribution facilities. The intent of the regulations is to help the state to achieve its GHG reduction targets codified in Assembly Bill 32 and 12 CBS SF Bay Area. Dirty Substance from California’s Oil Refineries Burned Overseas. October 1, 2013. Available:
<https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/10/01/dirty-substance-from-californias-oil-refineries-burned-overseas/> 13 2016 California Gas Report. Page 101. Available:
<file:///C:/Users/lathanj1/Downloads/TN212364_20160720T111050_2016_California_Gas_Report.pdf>

APPENDIX G
G

APPENDIX G
Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
Senate Bill 32 through the oil and gas industry. The regulation is designed to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas operations, which account for approximately 4 percent of methane emissions in the state.14 The regulations include stringent best management practices for vapor collection and flow rate measurements from well casing vents, among other things. The regulations also include plans to implement advanced Leak Detection and Reporting programs (LDAR) that exceed the current industry practice.15 The anticipated impact of the regulations includes average methane reductions of 1.4 million MT CO2e/year (based on a 20-year GWP value), reductions of over 3,600 MT/year in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) statewide, and reductions of more than 100 MT/year in toxic air contaminants.16

CALIFORNIA CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM
In 2006, California took steps to develop a long-term response to the challenges of climate change through adoption of Assembly Bill 32, which includes California’s Cap-and-Trade regulation as one of 70 separate measures used to reduce GHG emissions in the state.17 The Cap-and-Trade program established a declining cap on carbon emissions and a framework in which companies can trade emission allowances to achieve statewide GHG reduction objectives. Organizations registered in the program account for 80 percent of California’s overall GHG emissions.

The Cap-and-Trade program mandates that companies account for GHG emissions by acquiring credits (allowances) and retiring them with the state. Companies are also permitted to purchase a limited number of offsets to achieve compliance. According to CARB, emissions from oil and gas production decreased slightly (by 0.9 percent) from 2016 to 2017 partially as a result of the Cap-and-Trade program.18 The City’s oil operations fund approximately $3.5 million per year to the State’s Cap-and- Trade program which helps reduce the State’s GHG emissions.

The California Resources Corporation (CRC), which operates the THUMS Long Beach Company and the Tidelines Oil Production Company (both within the city boundary), is subject to California’s Cap-and- Trade program requirements. From 2013-2017, CRC has spent $148 million to purchase GHG allowances at auction and purchase sustainable forestry offsets.19 South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the air pollution control agency for a southern California region that includes Long Beach and nearly half of the state’s population.

SCAQMD’s primary role is to control stationary emissions sources, such as oil refineries, power plants, and gas stations, as well as consumer products like paint and solvents. Other relevant emissions sources regulated by SCAQMD include oil and gas storage vessels, equipment leaks at gas processing plants, and fugitive emissions at wells. SCAQMD has an Air Quality Management Plan that outlines how the agency will comply with federal and state clean air standards through adoption of rules and regulations that manage stationary emitters. The agency has permitting authority, which helps to implement and monitor its air quality rules. SCAQMD also continuously monitors air quality to track overall progress toward the agency’s goals and notify the public of unhealthy conditions.Various 14 California Air Resources Board. Oil and Natural Gas Production, Processing, and Storage. Available:
<https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/oil-and-natural-gas-production-processing-and-storage/about> 15 Stoel Rives, LLP. California Environmental Law: ARB Adopts GHG Emission Standards for Oil and Gas Facilities; Operators Wary of Costs. Available: <https://www.californiaenvironmentallawblog.com/oil-and-gas/arb-adopts-ghg-emission-standards-for- oil-and-gas-facilities-operators-wary-of-costs/>
16 California Air Resources Board. Oil and Gas Methane Regulation, Standards and Implementation. Available:
<https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/oil-and-gas-methane-regulation> 17 Environmental Defense Fund. AB 32 Cap-and-Trade Rule Fact Sheet. Available: <https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/EDF- CA-CT-Fact-Sheet-August-2011.pdf>
18 California Air Resources Board. 100 Percent of Companies in Cap-and-Trade Program Meet 2015-2017 Compliance Requirements. Available: <https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/100-percent-companies-cap-and-trade-program-meet-2015-2017- compliance-requirements>
19 California Resources Corporation. Greenhouse Gases. Available: <http://www.crc.com/sustainability/energy-conservation- efficiency/greenhouse-gases>

APPENDIX G
G
CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020 Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
SCAQMD rules may apply to oil and gas operations, depending on the specific type of operation. For example, Regulation XI – Source Specific Standards includes several rules for oil and gas well operators with the purpose to reduce emissions from VOCs, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and total organic compounds (TOCs).

Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources
The Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) oversees drilling, operation, maintenance, and plugging/decommissioning of abandoned oil, natural gas, or geothermal wells. All statutes and regulations are codified in the California Department of Conservation, Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources document titled “Statues & Regulations – April 2019”.20 DOGGR maintains records on retired, existing, and active wells in the state. An important aspect of DOGGR’s work is oversight of well abandonment to ensure that idle wells (i.e., inactive for two or more years) are properly plugged to avoid oil and gas leaks into water supplies or to the surface. DOGGR also regulates infrastructure within oil fields from the wellheads to the sales meter. This oversight includes infrastructure like storage tanks, pumps and valves, compressors, and oil and gas production pipelines.

Case Study: Synergy Oil Wetlands Restoration and Oil Consolidation Project As part of this analysis, staff from Synergy Oil were interviewed to better understand specific reporting requirements to various agencies and to learn about their wetland restoration and operational efficiency improvement efforts. Synergy Oil has implemented a comprehensive wetlands restoration project, restoring a privately-owned oil field in Long Beach using a wetlands mitigation bank in order to reduce the overall GHG emissions impact. Synergy Oil restored a total of 150 acres of wetlands. An additional 33 acres owned by the City of Long Beach will be restored in the near future as well. Per the project’s environmental impact report (EIR), all of Synergy Oil’s operations will be concentrated andconsolidated from the Synergy Oil Field and Long Beach-owned property to two off-site properties (i.e., Los Cerritos Wetland Authority and Pumpkin Patch Site).21
According to the Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration and Oil Consolidation Draft EIR, the specific project objectives are to:

1. Restore the historic tidal connection to a greater portion of the degraded Los Cerritos Wetlands through establishing a wetlands mitigation bank that will result in restoration and creation of a self-sustaining 78-acre restored coastal wetlands habitat, including habitat for special-status plant and animal species.

2. Restore tidal salt marsh habitat and associated subtidal, intertidal, transitional, and upland habitats, taking into consideration potential sea level rise due to climate change.

3. Improve the efficiency of oil production operations through the eventual phase out of early-20th- century oil production equipment and replacement with more-efficient and modern equipment and operations that will utilize the latest technology and operational advancements related to safety, energy, and production efficiency and concentrate production on a smaller footprint.

4. Protect coastal-dependent energy development by optimizing oil and gas production from the oil reserves within the City’s jurisdiction that will help fund the costs of wetlands restoration,and continue to provide a source of revenue to the City of Long Beach, as well as short-term and long-term employment opportunities.

5. Help achieve statewide goals of sustainability by reducing reliance on foreign oil and inter-state natural gas pipelines by developing locally-sourced and consumed resources using energy- efficient technology.
20 California Department of Conservation - Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources. Statutes and Regulations, April 2019. Available:
<https://www.conservation.ca.gov/index/Documents/DOGGR-SR-1%20Web%20Copy.pdf> 21 City of Long Beach Planning Department. Environmental Reports. Available:
<http://www.lbds.info/planning/environmental_planning/environmental_reports.asp>

APPENDIX G
G

APPENDIX G
Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20

6. Reduce energy use environmental impacts, efficiently use project-sourced natural gas, and increase project reliability/safety with a microgrid that integrates multiple on-site energy sources with high-efficiency controls on energy-using equipment.22 Overall, the City has made a number of investments in its oil operations to reduce GHG and air pollutant emissions and address the environmental impacts of extraction activities. These investments include:
reducing the City’s flare hours and NOx emissions by over 60percent through an investment in connecting its Tidelands processing plants to the THUMS power plant in 2014; investing $2 million into the power plant to reduce its NOx emissions by 50 percent in the year 2024; using electric drilling rigs on the THUMS islands; and converting idle wells into energy storage devices.

5. Near-term Recommendations – Technological Interventions to Minimize Lifecycle Emissions
This section provides short-term strategy recommendations for reducing GHG emissions through emission control technology and mitigation actions. This list includes a set of recommendations that focus primarily on minimizing process and fugitive emissions associated with upstream petroleum and natural gas production as this is the primary process in the City’s control. Brief recommendations for midstream and downstream actions are summarized, as applicable.

The recommendations were developed to correspond closely to the sources of lifecycle emissions identified in the previous sections of this memo. The recommendations presented are high-level opportunities, and are not site-specific or based on an analysis of existing operations at the various oil production facilities in Long Beach. The recommendations are intended to represent opportunities to exceed the minimum compliance levels of current regulations. Several advocacy recommendations are also included for emissions sources or regulatory opportunities over which the City does not have direct control.

Upstream Emissions Reductions

1. Expand current emission control requirements to further capture greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S. EPA has a voluntary GHG reduction program for oil and gas operations called Natural Gas STAR that provides guidance on methane control technologies.23 Participants in the program have contributed to the development of a library of tools and technical resources that other oil and gas operators can incorporate into day-to-day operations to evaluate and implement emissions reduction actions. Based on Natural Gas STAR program recommendations, the following opportunity for emissions control technology could potentially be implemented at Long Beach oil facilities:
• Install vapor control technology that is adequately sized for the maximum amount of vapor on tanks. Under CARB, emission controls are only required for tanks with emissions greater than 10 metric tons of methane per year. Based on the “lessons learned”studies from the Natural Gas STAR program, vapor recovery unit systems should be sized to handle the maximum volume of vapors expected from storage tanks. As additional guidance, Noble Energy has developed a modeling guideline that can be used to determine the potential peak instantaneous vapor flow rate.24

2. Implement energy efficiency improvements at oil facilities to reduce the amount of energy required to produce each barrel of oil.
22 ESA. Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. Executive Summary.

July 2017. Available: <http://www.lbds.info/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6663> 23 U.S. EPA (2015a). EPA’s Natural Gas STAR Program. Available: <https://www.epa.gov/natural-gas-star-program/natural-gas- star-program>
24 Noble Energy, Inc. (2015, May 21). Noble Modeling Guideline, Well Site Tank System. Semi-Annual Report, Appendix B.

APPENDIX G
G
CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020 Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
CARB released the Energy Efficiency and Co-Benefits Assessment of Large Industrial Sources Refinery Sector Public Report (Oil Refinery Sector Report) on June 6, 2013.25 The report included an assessment of energy efficiency opportunities at California’s oil refineries, including opportunities for boiler equipment.

While boilers used at refineries tend to be substantially larger units than those used in oil production fields, boilers are likely a significant source of emissions at Long Beach oil facilities regulated under the Cap- and-Trade program. Therefore, boiler efficiency opportunities could reduce the upstream carbon intensity values of oil produced, while also minimizing the amount of carbon allowance purchases needed to maintain compliance with the Cap-and-Trade program. The findings in the report may be useful in lieu of an oil production sector-specific report.

3. Require oil producers to report natural gas production volumes and final destination of gas to the City.

The estimates of natural gas production and end of life use (e.g., combustion on-site, flaring, sales) in this analysis were developed from various sources with differing levels of quality. While lifecycle natural gas emissions only represent 4 percent of the total oil and gas emissions, the various assumptions required to develop that estimate provide room for inaccuracy. Better natural gas accounting would improve this segment of the lifecycle analysis and could help identify more impactful intervention opportunities. The City should collect information on the volumes of natural gas from Long Beach oil fields that are flared, combusted during oil production, combusted on-site for auxiliary energy use, and sold for distribution in the natural gas transmission system.

Upstream Emissions Detection
Under the CARB methane regulations, quarterly leak detection and repair (LDAR) inspections using Method 21 (M21) and daily audio visual inspections are required at upstream oil and gas facilities, including well sites and natural gas gathering plants at a threshold of 1,000 parts per million (ppm).

According to the EPA’s Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, M21 inspections conducted on a quarterly basis reduce fugitive emissions by an estimated 80 percent. 26 The
flame ionization detector used in M21 provides a concentration of VOCs and methane at the sampling point, but does not provide a visual of the leak source. This method has been used for over 20 years in downstream oil and gas operations. For upstream oil and gas operations, technological advances have been made that can better identify leaks. The recommendations below represent an advocacy approach where the City can demonstrate support for more stringent leak detection or the required use of newer technologies. The City may also be able to directly pursue these strategies through use of its oil facility permitting authority.

4. Advocate for development of a process to approve and incorporate alternative technologies for use in CARB compliance.

The largest emissions are often episodic;
27 requiring continuous emission monitoring would support quicker corrective action and better emission source characterization. Recently, there have been major advancements in continuous monitoring technologies.28 However, there is currently no path to request approval to use these technologies as an alternative inspection method from CARB or SCAQMD. The 25 California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division. Energy Efficiency and Co-benefits Assessment of Large Industrial Sources, Refinery Sector Public Report. June 6, 2013. <https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/energyaudits/eeareports/refinery.pdf> 26 U.S. EPA (2016). Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. Page 9-20 and 9-21. Available:
<https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/2016-ctg-oil-and-gas.pdf> 27 Alvarez, Ramón & Zavala-Araiza, Daniel & R. Lyon, David & T. Allen, David & R. Barkley, Zachary & Brandt, Adam & Davis, Kenneth & C. Herndon, Scott & J. Jacob, Daniel & Karion, Anna & A. Kort, Eric & Lamb, Brian & Lauvaux, Thomas & D.

Maasakkers, Joannes & J. Marchese, Anthony & Omara, Mark & W. Pacala, Stephen & Peischl, Jeff & L. Robinson, Allen & Hamburg, Steven. (2018). Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain. Science. 361. eaar7204.

10.1126/science.aar7204.
28 https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=program-projects/MONITOR

APPENDIX G
G

APPENDIX G
Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
City can advocate for a process that allows companies to have new leak detection technologies approved for use in regulation compliance.

5. Advocate for CARB to implement a quarterly pneumatic LDAR protocol.

Current CARB regulations require annual measurement of low-bleed and intermittent pneumatic devices, with no specific guidance on the measurement method. A recent study on gathering station emissions found that 42 percent of measured pneumatic devices had abnormal emission patterns,29 and abnormal emissions from intermittent controllers were found to be over five times higher than those operating normally. Under the current M21 requirement for LDAR, it is difficult to assess if a device was operating properly in a quarterly leak inspection because of the nature of a concentration-only device used during inspections. Allowing for optical gas imaging as an alternative approach for LDAR survey would support accurate identification of the leak source and a visualization of the emission pattern of the device. Implementing an LDAR protocol specific for pneumatics on a quarterly basis would further reduce lifecycle emissions. Guidance documents on including pneumatics in an LDAR protocol are expected to be available in the near future from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Colorado Air Pollution Division.

Midstream and Downstream Emissions Reduction

6. Increase utility sector leak detection.

Studies have found that current assumptions may be underestimating distribution and end-of-use emissions in the natural gas supply chain.30 The EPA National Emission Inventory natural gas distribution emissions were used, in part, to derive the city’snatural gas lifecycle emissions in this analysis. This approach estimated that 0.2 percent of natural gas production is lost in the lifecycle of this sector. However, regional studies have estimated that this value could be as much as 3.5 percent of production.31 A study that analyzed downstream emissions in Boston, showed that as much as 2.7 percent of natural gas in the end user utility sector was lost due to leaks.32,33 Although downstream and end user emissions are estimated to be a minor source of lifecycle GHG emissions in Long Beach, there is potentially an opportunity to reduce these emissions by locating end-user leaks through additional detection around meters and at pumps and compressors.

7. Dis-incentivize petcoke production and use.

Refining heavy crude oils, like those produced in Long Beach, can result in petcoke generation when a coking unit is used at the refinery. In general, extra-heavy oils generate 22 percent petcoke by volume, heavy oils generate 7 percent petcoke, and light or extra-light oils generate no petcoke.34 Petcoke is a relatively inexpensive fuel source that can be used as a substitute for coal, but it has higher GHG emissions than coal or natural gas and can contribute to poor air quality due to its high sulfur content. 29 Multiday Measurements of Pneumatic Controller Emissions Reveal the Frequency of Abnormal Emissions Behavior at Natural Gas Gathering Stations Luck et al Environmental Science & Technology Letters Article ASAP DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00158 30 Alvarez, Ramón & Zavala-Araiza, Daniel & R. Lyon, David & T. Allen, David & R. Barkley, Zachary & Brandt, Adam & Davis, Kenneth & C. Herndon, Scott & J. Jacob, Daniel & Karion, Anna & A. Kort, Eric & Lamb, Brian & Lauvaux, Thomas & D.

Maasakkers, Joannes & J. Marchese, Anthony & Omara, Mark & W. Pacala, Stephen & Peischl, Jeff & L. Robinson, Allen & Hamburg, Steven. (2018). Assessment of Methane Emissions from the U.S. Oil and Gas Supply Chain. Science. 361. eaar7204.

10.1126/science.aar7204.
31 Brandt, Adam & Heath, Garvin & A Kort, E & O'Sullivan, F & Petron, Gabrielle & Jordaan, Sarah & Tans, P & Wilcox, Jennifer & M Gopstein, A & Arent, Doug & Wofsy, Steven & J Brown, N & Bradley, R & D Stucky, G & Eardley, D & Harriss, Robert. (2014).

Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems. Science (New York, N.Y.). 343. 733-5. 10.1126/science.1247045. 32 ibid
33 Kathryn McKain, Adrian Down, Steve M. Raciti, John Budney, Lucy R. Hutyra, Cody Floerchinger, Scott C. Herndon, Thomas Nehrkorn, Mark S. Zahniser, Robert B. Jackson, Nathan Phillips, Steven C. Wofsy. Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Infrastructure and Use in the Urban Region of Boston, Massachusetts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2015, 112 (7) 1941-1946; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1416261112
34 Tao, Wang. Managing China’s Petcoke Problem. Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy. May 2015. Available:
<https://carnegieendowment.org/files/petcoke.pdf>

APPENDIX G
G
CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020 Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
Petcoke can also be used in certain industrial processes, such as cement production and manufacturing aluminum or other metals. As refineries in the U.S. continue to process heavy oils from Canada, Venezuela, and elsewhere, stockpiles of petcoke have grown substantially. According to a Carnegie- Tsinghua Center for Global Policy report, “faced with a substance that is produced in large volumes and costly to store, U.S. oil firms have become eager to sell petcoke to energy-hungry developing countries…”
35 As with many other recommendations in this memo, direct control of the petcoke challenge is outside the City’s control (with the exception of implementing a moratorium on oil extraction). The City could potentially advocate for long-term storage solutions for petcoke produced at U.S. refineries to dis-incentivize exports of the material. It could also advocate for investments in or greater regulation of U.S. refineries that process heavy crude oils to require installation of systems that support residue fuel hydrogenation to reduce the amount of petcoke produced.

6. Long-term Recommendations – Transition from Oil and Gas Activity
This section provides high-level, longer-term strategy recommendations to reduce lifecycle emissions from oil and gas production in Long Beach. It is important to note that based on the definition of lifecycle emissions used in this analysis, which includes emissions from extraction, refining and processing, and final consumption by end users, there are very few actions that could reduce these emissions entirely.

Most of these actions would only result in reducing upstream and midstream emissions and shifting where the downstream emissions occur.

Upstream extraction emissions can be reduced through efficiency improvements that reduce the amount of energy required to produce each barrel of oil and through minimization of methane leaks, as described in Section 5. Similarly, midstream refining and processing emissions can be reduced through efficiency improvements as well. However, more than 75 percent of the City’s oil and gas lifecycle emissions are assumed to occur downstream where efficiency improvements do not help to avoid these emissions. For example, national vehicle efficiency requirements could significantly improve car fuel economy. The result would be that oil produced in Long Beach and refined into vehicle gasoline would be consumed with greater efficiency by vehicles, but would ultimately be combusted for power at which point the downstream emissions would still occur. Even if the City prohibited use of fossil fuels within its boundary, the oil and gas produced at City wells would be sold on the global energy market and consumed somewhere else to produce the downstream emissions component of the lifecycle emissions.

The City’s long-term approach to manage oil and gas lifecycle emissions should be multi-pronged to include the:

1. gradual phase-out of fossil fuel consumption in the city,

2. advocacy and support for other jurisdictions to take the same bold action (domestically and abroad) resulting in decreased global demand for oil and gas produced in Long Beach,

3. gradual reduction in local oil and gas production, and

4. investment in carbon capture technology to offset lifecycle emissions from remaining local oil extraction activity.

Decrease Local Oil and Gas Consumption
The following recommendations primarily reduce the emissions accounted in the city’s production-based inventory. If local oil and gas consumption is reduced, the energy resources produced in Long Beach would likely still be exported for use elsewhere, at which point the downstream emissions would occur. 35 ibid

APPENDIX G
G

APPENDIX G
Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20

1. Increase renewable natural gas supply with an organic waste-to-anaerobic digestion program. (Draft CAAP action)
As previously described, it is assumed that 100 percent of the natural gas produced in Long Beach is consumed in the city and natural gas imports are used to meet the remaining local demand. If the City’s Energy Resources Department can procure renewable natural gas (RNG) for local use, this would help to further reduce the City’s energy sector emissions in the production-based inventory. The draft CAAP includes actions to develop a robust organic waste collection program and identify opportunities for beneficial reuse of the waste stream, including anaerobic digestion at a regional facility that could potentially produce RNG. This action would help to decrease landfill emissions that occur from the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste materials and could also reduce building energy natural gas emissions.

2. Electrify public and passenger vehicle transportation. (Draft CAAP action) Electric vehicles (EVs) have become more popular in recent years, in public transit fleets and for private passenger vehicles. The City can facilitate an increase in local use of EVs to reduce its reliance on vehicle fossil fuels. The draft CAAP includes actions to expand EV charging infrastructure communitywide in new construction and retrofits to existing buildings and properties, and to promote available financial incentives or rebate programs for EVs and associated charging equipment. The draft CAAP also includes a set of actions designed to increase non-vehicular trips in the community from walking, biking, or shared mobility options (e.g., electric scooters), and to minimize single occupancy trips through a transportation demand management program. These actions would also serve to reduce the community’s vehicle fuel consumption.

3. Reduce building energy use through energy efficiency upgrades and electrification of end- use appliances. (Draft CAAP action)
Natural gas is consumed in homes and businesses in Long Beach for space and water heating, cooking, and producing on-site energy. Building energy efficiency improvements, like commercial retro- commissioning or hot water heater insulation, can reduce the amount of natural gas consumed in the community’s buildings and facilities, which will reduce energy sector emissions in the production-based inventory. The draft CAAP includes several actions to increase building energy efficiency through a home energy audit program, improved access to technical assistance and financial resources or other incentives, and a public building energy audit and improvement program. Incentivizing building energy fuel switch opportunities, like converting from a gas boiler to an air source heat pump, will also support long-term GHG reduction goals in the community and is further enhanced as the share of renewables in the electricity grid increases.

4. Advocate for regional, state, and national oil and gas consumption reductions.

The above actions indicate what the City can do locally to reduce emissions from oil and gas consumption. However, if the energy resources produced locally are not consumed locally, they will find new users through the global energy market. Further, it is possible that all or most of the oil produced in Long Beach is consumed outside the city boundary, where the City has no jurisdictional control over the final end users. Long Beach can join other interested cities and organizations to advocate at the state and national level for action that results in further reductions in fossil fuel use. For example, more stringent vehicle fuel economy standards, improved regional and national public transit networks, enhanced EV incentive programs, stricter building energy codes, and improved access to financial resources for energy efficiency improvements. These actions would enable the City to indirectly support fossil fuel reductions on a larger scale through expanded implementation in other communities.

APPENDIX G
G
CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020 Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
Decrease Local Oil and Gas Extraction

5. Phase-out local oil and gas extraction.

One of the most direct ways to reduce the city’s oil and gas lifecycle emissions is to halt or severely curtail local fossil fuel extraction in the first place. Oil extracted in Long Beach oil fields has relatively higher carbon intensity per barrel than other global oils based on the oils surveyed in the OCI (i.e., 14th most carbon intensive overall). As noted elsewhere, this is due in part to the production of petcoke as a byproduct of the oil refining process, which contributes to downstream emissions when combusted to generate energy. Lower carbon-intensive oil sources are available to replace the supply produced in Long Beach, which would result in lower global oil emissions in general. For example, if Long Beach were to cease oil extraction operations altogether, it would be less carbon intensive to import oil from lower intensity areas like the Texas Ford Eagle field.

This strategy should be combined with actions to reduce fossil fuel use locally (see long-term recommendations 1-3 above), and advocacy efforts to reduce fossil fuel demand outside of Long Beach as well (see long-term recommendation 4 above). This recommendation is based solely on the relative emissions intensity of global oil sources, and does not consider the revenues generated to the City and other benefits of local oil production. Further, this recommendation does not consider local public health impacts or other potentially important factors like domestic energy security, wealth transfers to oil producing countries with poor human rights records, or other socio-political factors.

Support Carbon Capture Technology

6. Invest in direct air capture technology or other leading-edge technologies to reduce the global emissions impact from continued fossil fuel combustion.

The City may determine that economic, social, and environmental factors make local oil and gas extraction a preferable strategy over the long-term. Carbon capture technologies are being developed and implemented today, and the market for similar interventions will likely mature over time to become an important pathway to achieving the climate goals outlined in the 2016 Paris Agreement. Systems like direct air capture plants are envisioned as location-independent strategies that can be deployed to remove carbon from the atmosphere at an industrial scale. The goal is that these plants could also produce ultra-low carbon intensity transportation fuels from the captured CO

2. The plants could also be
located at oil fields for use in enhanced oil recovery, which uses CO2 to extract additional oil, and can then permanently store the CO2 within the oil field reservoir. In the future, the City could dedicate a portion of its oil and gas revenue to help fund development of carbon capture facilities or to implement other carbon capture technology.

Increase Access to Information

7. Require oil field operators to report oil assays to CARB.

The City could advocate for CARB to require oil assays from operators within the state, and make the information publicly available to provide better understanding of the relative midstream and downstream emissions from California’s oil fields. Per the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “California’s oil ranks among some of the highest- and lowest-emitting worldwide.”36 Without accurate information on each oil field’s oil composition, it is difficult to accurately estimate midstream refining emissions; “…this 36 Gordon, Deborah and Samuel Wojcicki. Need to Know: The Case for Oil Transparency in California. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. March 15, 2017. Available: <https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/03/15/need-to-know-case-for-oil- transparency-in-california-pub-68166>

APPENDIX G
G

APPENDIX G
Memorandum
November 23, 2020

First Released: 5/31/19; Revised: 7/24/20 and 11/23/20
likely introduces error to estimated refining emissions on the order of plus or minus 50 percent.”37 Alternatively, the City could consider requiring assays as a permitting requirement for new and/or continued oil field operation. This oil field-specific information would help to better inform the City’s opportunities to reduce its oil lifecycle emissions.

8. Consider including oil and gas lifecycle emissions in future Long Beach GHG target-setting and analysis.

To further support a more holistic understanding of the community’s GHG emissions sources and reduction opportunities, the City can incorporate this type of oil and gas lifecycle emissions analysis in future CAAP updates. At that time, additional Long Beach-specific information may be available to further refine the initial analysis provided in this memo, including midstream and downstream emissions factors specific to the Long Beach oil field, verified natural gas production volumes, and greater detail on the final destination of oil and gas extracted in the city. 37 ibid

APPENDIX G
G
Long Beach Development Services
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor
Long Beach, CA 9 0802
Visit us at longbeach.gov/lbds
Email us at [email protected]
2020
@LongBeachBuilds
r10.LBDS Brand Style Guide

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
22 PART II – 2030 REDUCTION TARGET PATHWAY
The CAAP evaluated a 2030 GHG target that was established to demonstrate consistency with the state’s adopted 2030 GHG target (i.e., 40% below 1990 levels by 2030), and CAAP actions were defined to demonstrate a feasibly reduction pathway toward target achievement. While the CAAP does also include a 2045 carbon neutrality goal and high-level estimates of the City’s potential progress toward that the goal, this appendix focuses on describing the assumptions and calculation methodology used to demonstrate 2030 target achievement in the CAAP.

Table 18 summarizes the GHG reductions by action that provide the City’s pathway to 2030 target achievement. The remainder of this section provides quantification details for each action listed below to document assumptions related to action implementation and sources of information to support future CAAP monitoring and updates. GHG reductions have been rounded to the nearest tens value and the green highlighted values within each action section correspond to the GHG reductions shown in the table below. The CAAP reflects the sector-level reductions total shown here.

Table 18 – Quantified CAAP Actions
CAAP Action 2030 GHG Reductions
(MT CO2e/yr)
BUILDING + ENERGY ACTIONS 247,700
BE-1 Provide access to renewably generated electricity 188,960 BE-2 Increase use of solar power 3,880
BE-6 Perform municipal energy and water audits 13,120
BE-8 Implement short-term measures to reduce emissions related to oil and gas extraction
41,740
TRANSPORTATION ACTIONS 30,480
T-1 Increase the frequency, speed, connectivity and safety of transit options 5,230 T-4 Implement the Port of Long Beach Clean Trucks Program 25,250 WASTE ACTIONS 116,680
W-1 Ensure compliance with state law requirements for multifamily and commercial property recycling programs
45,340
W-3 Partner with private waste haulers to expand organic waste collection community-wide
39,730
W-4 Identify organic waste management options 31,610
TOTAL CAAP REDUCTIONS 394,860
Some action quantification methodologies refer to the demographic forecasts used to estimate the city’s BAU emissions scenario. The relevant demographic information is documented in Table 19.

ATTACHMENT C: This is the 2030 GHG Reduction Pathway, excerpted from the larger Appendix A which can be found in plan appendices (Attachment B).

CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
23 Table 19 – City of Long Beach Demographic Forecasts
2012 2015 2016 2020 2030 2035
Population 466,255 468,911 469,796 478,346 480,424 481,463 Employment 153,154 155,402 156,900 1 165,800 172,297 175,546 Service Population 619,409 624,312 626,696 644,146 652,721 657,009 Notes:

Service population = population + employment
Values for 2012, 2016, 2020, and 2035 provided to AECOM by City of Long Beach, Table LU-8:

Population, Household and Employment Growth
Values for 2015 and 2030 interpolated
1 Employment data is for 2017

CLEAN ELECTRICITY GRID OPTIONS
The general quantification approach used to evaluate emissions reductions from actions that would reduce electricity use or offset it with carbon-free energy sources is presented in the section below.

Overarching Methodology
The CAAP evaluated the GHG reduction potential that would result from implementation of SCE’s commitment to provide 80% carbon-free energy by 2030, as well as the additional net emissions reductions that would occur from voluntary participation in SCE’s Green Rate program.

Potential emissions reductions were estimated according to the following equation:

Emissions Reduction = (Business-as-Usual Emissions) – (Mitigated Scenario Emissions) The primary inputs supporting calculations for the above equation include activity data (e.g., MWh of electricity use) and emissions factors (e.g., MT CO2e/MWh). Each component of the equation is described below.

BUSINESS-AS-USUAL (BAU) EMISSIONS SCENARIO
Activity Data
BAU emissions were calculated based on the 2030 electricity activity data forecasts that underpin the CAAP’s GHG emissions forecasts. These were developed for three subsectors: residential, commercial, and industrial electricity accounts. 2030 forecasts were calculated using growth indicators to estimate how the 2015 base year inventory might change by the CAAP’s 2030 target year. Residential activity data was projected using city population forecasts and the commercial and industrial activity data was projected using city employment forecasts. Population and employment forecast information was collected form the SCAG 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy and provided to AECOM by the City of Long Beach in August 2018 (see Table 19). CAAP action BE-6 separately estimates the GHG reduction potential from a City commitment to purchase renewable electricity for all municipal accounts by 2030. The community inventory did not separately evaluate municipal GHG emissions, however the City did prepare a 2015 municipal operations inventory from which municipal electricity activity data was collected for purposes of evaluating GHG reduction potential. This activity data was subtracted from the communitywide electricity data for commercial accounts provided by SCE in order to avoid double counting emissions reduction potential. Table 20 presents the city’s 2015 and 2030 electricity activity data.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
24 Table 20 – Electricity Activity Data
Energy Sub-sector 2015
(MWh)
2030
(MWh)
Residential 813,346 833,316
Commercial 678,407 872,200
Municipal 108,264 108,264
Industrial 1,409,718 1,562,987
Note: Values are rounded; for purposes of community emissions planning, no activity data growth was assumed for municipal electricity accounts from 2015-2030.

Emissions Factor
In the CAAP forecasts, BAU emissions were calculated using an estimated SCE 2030 electricity emissions factor that assumes compliance with the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires SCE to procure 60% RPS-eligible sources by 2030. In the CAAP 2015 base year, SCE’s electricity came from the energy source mix shown in Table 21. The project team estimated a 2030 mix that assumes compliance with the RPS requirements (i.e., 60% eligible renewable sources), with the remainder of energy provided by unspecified sources of power. This scenario represents a conservative estimate based on the 2015 energy mix by allocating the full 40% of non-RPS energy to the potentially highest emissions option in use in the 2015 base year. It is a conservative approach in that it results in an estimated emissions factor that is greater (i.e., more carbon intensive) than other scenarios could provide. For example, if SCE maintains its large hydroelectric and nuclear power sources through 2030 and provides 60% RPS-eligible energy sources, then only 32% of energy would need to come from unspecified sources.

Table 21 – SCE Electricity Mix
Energy Source 2015 SCE Power Mix
(Actual)1
2030 SCE Power Mix
(Estimated)2
Eligible Renewable 25% 60%
Coal - -
Large Hydroelectric 2% -
Natural Gas 26% -
Nuclear 6% -
Other - -
Unspecified Sources of Power 41% 40%
Total 100% 100%
Source:
1 California Energy Commission. 2015 SCE Power Content Label. 2 Estimated by AECOM.

At the time of emissions forecast analysis, an unspecified energy source emissions factor of 0.428 MT CO2e/MWh was collected from the California Air Resources Board42 to evaluate the estimated 2030 SCE emissions factor. When applied to the estimated energy mix shown above, the resulting weighted emissions factor for SCE’s estimated 2030 electricity portfolio is 0.1712 MT CO2e/MWh, as shown in Table 22.
42 CARB Unofficial Electronic Version of the Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/regulation/mrr-2018-unofficial-2019-4-

3.pdf?_ga=2.85289563.330032031.1594773045-55257910.1560365597

CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
25 Table 22 – 2030 Estimated Electricity Emissions Factor Energy Sources 2030 Energy Mix Emissions Factor
(MT CO2e/MWh)
MT CO2e/MWh
Eligible Renewable 60% 0 0
Unspecified Sources of
Power
40% 0.428 0.1712
Total 100% - 0.1712
The estimated 2030 emissions factor was combined with the estimated 2030 activity data to calculate the BAU electricity emissions scenario (see Table 23).

Table 23 – 2030 BAU Electricity Emissions Scenario
Energy Sub-sector 2030
(MWh)
2030 Emissions
Factor
(MT CO2e/MWh)
2030 BAU Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Residential 833,316 0.1712 142,664
Commercial 763,936 0.1712 130,786
Municipal 108,264 0.1712 18,535
Industrial 1,562,987 0.1712 267,583
Subtotal 3,268,504 559,568

MITIGATED EMISSIONS SCENARIO
The mitigated scenario was developed with participation estimates and/or goals for the different electricity focused CAAP actions to calculate what amount of future electricity demand would be achieved in a manner that differs from the BAU scenario. The calculations and assumptions are presented below.

BE-1 PROVIDE ACCESS TO RENEWABLY GENERATED ELECTRICITY
SCE-Provided 2030 Electricity Emissions Factor
In September 2020, SCE provided City staff with its estimated 2030 electricity emissions factor that aligns with the utility company’s long-term carbon free energy source commitments. The 2030 factor provided by SCE has a lower emissions intensity (i.e., MT CO 2e/MWh) than the 2030 emissions factor
used in the BAU emissions forecast analysis presented in the previous section. The result is that if SCE does achieve its proposed 2030 electricity factor, the City will experience even greater electricity emissions reductions than currently estimated in the BAU scenario. The net additional reductions from use of this new 2030 emissions factor were calculated based on the difference between the 2030 BAU forecast scenario and one in which SCE does achieve its proposed 2030 emissions factor.

PARTICIPATION ASSUMPTIONS
Because this scenario was analyzed as an alternative to the current BAU emissions forecast scenario, this action was quantified to assume that all Long Beach SCE customers would receive electricity with the provided 2030 emissions factor, unless they participate in the SCE Green Rate program or a solar PV installation program. Therefore, participation in this action is assumed to be 100%.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
26 EMISSIONS FACTORS
SCE provided City staff with a proposed replacement 2030 electricity emissions factor of 0.1192 MT CO2e/MWh, which is referenced throughout the remainder of this section.

SCE Green Rate Program
For purposes of the CAAP analysis, a scenario was evaluated in which the City of Long Beach encourages voluntary participation in the existing SCE 100% Green Rate program through which residential and commercial electricity customers fund solar energy development with 100% of their energy use. Participation in this program would provide a net GHG reduction beyond implementation of SCE’s 80% carbon-free commitment described above.

PARTICIPATION ASSUMPTIONS
A review of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s (SMUD) 2017 Annual Report43 shows that 74,000 customers participated in the Greenergy program that provides 100% renewable electricity (comparable to SCE’s 100% Green Rate program). The report notes that SMUD had 628,952 customer contracts in 2017 and 1,500,000 total customers. The report is unclear if the Greenergy participation reference to 74,000 customers uses that term in the same way as the total customer metric is reported, or if it more closely reflects the number of customer accounts. The different interpretations result in a Greenergy participation rate in 2017 that ranges from 4.9% to 11.8%.

For purposes of the CAAP, voluntary participation in the SCE Green Rate program was assumed to reach 10% by 2030 for residential and commercial customers (industrial customers were not included in this assumption). This could either be viewed as an approximate doubling of participation in SMUD’s comparable program from 2017 (which would provide a decade of CAAP implementation to achieve that participation rate) or achieving slightly less participation than SMUD experienced in its comparable program in 2017.

Based on the stated participation assumptions above, Table 24 shows the resulting 2030 electricity demand by sub-sector and SCE rate program option.

Table 24 – Energy Demand Estimate by SCE Rate Option
Energy Sub-
sector
2030
(MWh)
SCE Green
Rate
Participation
SCE Green Rate
Energy Demand
(MWh)
SCE Non-Green
Rate Energy
Demand (MWh)
Residential 833,316 10% 83,332 749,985
Commercial 763,936 10% 76,394 687,543
Municipal 108,264 0% - 108,264
Industrial 1,562,987 0% - 1,562,987

EMISSIONS FACTORS
As described above, the assumption is that participation would be in the 100% Green Rate program, which has an emissions factor of 0.0 MT CO
2e/MWh. The portion of electricity demand that is not
covered by the 100% Green Rate program (as shown in Table 24) would be provided by SCE at its committed 2030 electricity rate of 0.1192 MT CO
2e/MWh.
43 SMUD, 2017 SMUD Annual Report. Available online: https://www.smud.org/-/media/About-Us/Reports-and-Statements/2017- Annual-Report/2017-Annual-Report.ashx

CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
27 MITIGATED SCENARIO EMISSIONS
The combination of activity data shown in Table 24 with the emissions factors described above result in the mitigated scenario emissions shown in Table 25.

Table 25 – Mitigated Scenario Electricity Emissions
Energy Sub-
sector
SCE Green
Rate Energy
Demand
(MWh)
SCE 100%
Green Rate
Emissions
Factor
(MT CO2e/yr)
SCE Non-
Green Rate
Energy
Demand
(MWh)
SCE Non-
Green Rate
Emissions
Factor
(MT CO2e/yr)
Total
Emissions
(MT CO2e/yr)
Residential 83,332 0.0 749,985 0.1192 89,408
Commercial 76,394 0.0 687,543 0.1192 81,964
Municipal - 0.0 108,264 0.1192 12,906
Industrial - 0.0 1,562,987 0.1192 186,328
Subtotal 159,725 - 3,108,779 - 370,605
The estimated reduction resulting from implementation of this action is calculated based on the difference between the BAU and mitigated scenarios and total approximately 188,960 MT CO2e/yr (see Table 26).

Table 26 – Emissions Reduction
Energy Sub-sector BAU Scenario
Emissions
(MT CO2e/yr)
Mitigated Scenario
Emissions
(MT CO2e/yr)
Emissions Reductions
(MT CO2e/yr)
Residential 142,664 89,408 53,256
Commercial 130,786 81,964 48,822
Municipal 18,535 12,906 5,628
Industrial 267,583 186,328 81,256
Total 559,568 370,605 188,960
Note: Total reduction value has been rounded for use in the CAAP.

BE-2 Increase Use of Solar Power

PARTICIPATION ASSUMPTIONS
Based on a review of Google’s Project Sunroof dashboard, the City of Long Beach currently has 1,469 roofs with solar PV installations and a maximum coverage potential of 91,992 roofs (see Table 27).

Therefore, approximately 2% of candidate roofs currently have solar. Project Sunroof also estimates that the average system size in Long Beach is 6.8 kW DC with 476 square feet of coverage, producing 10,400 kWh AC per year.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
28 Table 27 – Long Beach Solar PV Data
Value Unit
Maximum Coverage Potential 91,992 Roofs
Existing Coverage 1,469 Roofs
% Current Coverage 2% % of candidate roofs
Per Roof Estimates 6.8 kW DC
Average System Size 476 sq ft
Average Electricity Generation 10,400 kWh AC per year
Source: Google Project Sunroof for City of Long Beach, accessed February 2020 This action assumes that 5% of Long Beach’s candidate roofs will have solar installations by 2030; or approximately double the current coverage. This means that more than 3,100 new solar systems would be installed, generating approximately 32,500 MWh of carbon-free electricity (see Table 28). To avoid double counting emissions reductions, this value of carbon-free electricity can be compared to the amount of electricity demand estimated in 2030 that will not be provided through the SCE Green Rate program (see Table 25). The net additional carbon-free energy provided through action BE-2 is approximately 1% of that total remaining energy demand.

Table 28 – Solar Action Implementation Assumptions
Value Unit
Roof Coverage by 2030 5% %
New Installations 3,131 New Roofs
Generation per roof 10,400 kWh AC per year
Total Generation per year 32,562,400 kWh AC per year
Total Generation per year 32,562.40 MWh
BAU Scenario Electricity EF 0.11921 MT CO2e/MWh
Mitigated Electricity EF 0 MT CO2e/MWh
1 This emissions factor corresponds to the SCE 2030 commitment to provide 80% carbon-free electricity; see Action BE-1 description for further information.

EMISSIONS FACTORS
The electricity generated from solar PV systems is a carbon-free energy source for community CAAP planning purposes. The energy provided by these systems would offset purchases of SCE electricity. As shown above, Action BE-1 already estimates the GHG reductions associated with implementation of SCE’s 80% carbon-free commitment by 2030. Therefore, this action is calculated to show the net marginal GHG reductions that result from avoiding using of SCE’s 2030 electricity.

MITIGATED SCENARIO EMISSIONS
This action would provide net GHG reductions totaling 3,880 MT CO2e/yr, as shown in Table 29.

Table 29 – Emissions Reduction
Action Electricity
Generation
(MWh)
BAU Scenario
Emissions
(MT CO2e/yr)
Mitigated Scenario
Emissions
(MT CO2e/yr)
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e/yr)
32,562 3,880 - 3,880

CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
29 BE-6 Perform municipal energy and water audits

PARTICIPATION ASSUMPTIONS
Energy Efficiency
The City regularly takes action to implement energy efficiency improvements as part of standard business operations. The Public Works Department provided information on the primary electricity savings from efficiency improvement programs implemented since 2015, which were quantified for inclusion in the CAAP GHG reduction estimates:
► Street and park light retrofits – 1,538,927 kWh/yr
► Houghton Community Center window upgrades – 295 kWh/yr The Public Works Department also committed to a reduction in natural gas use within City buildings and facilities of 5% below 2015 base year levels by 2030.

Renewable Energy Development
Public Works staff also provided information on the City’s solar PV development programs, including use of power purchase agreements to implement additional solar installations. Table 30 shows the solar installation capacities evaluated in this CAAP action; this table also includes a 1 MW commercial solar program planned for installation by the Energy Department at Pier A West.

Table 30 – Municipal Solar Development Projects
Solar Location kW Size
ECOC 238.5
Main Health Dept. Building 656
Public Works Yard 668
East Division Police Sub-Station 176
LBGO Headquarters 851
Airport Parking Garage (Lot B) 736
City Place Lot A 216
City Place Lot B 280
City Place Lot C 150
Pike Parking Structure 539
Aquarium Parking Structure 524
Convention Center 2,800
Pier A West 1,000
Total 8,834.5
The project team used the PV Watts calculator estimate the approximate electricity generation potential of the City’s solar projects shown above. The calculation was performed using the default assumptions within the calculator based on the Long Beach Airport Garage location. Based on these assumptions, the City’s 8,834.5 MW of solar development could generate 14,50,584 kWh/yr.

In addition to the solar development projects listed above, the Public Works Department is implementing two battery storage projects totaling 1,685 MWh of storage, and the Energy Department is evaluating

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
30 and piloting gravity well potential energy storage systems at wellbore sites within the City’s oil fields.

Neither of these additional actions were included within this action evaluation but could demonstrate additional GHG reduction potential in future CAAP updates. 100% Carbon-Free Electricity
In CAAP action BE-1, the City has committed to purchasing 100% renewable electricity for all municipal accounts by 2030. The GHG quantification shown here assumes that all remaining municipal electricity demand following energy efficiency programs and solar development projects will be offset through participation in the SCE Green Rate program. Note that the action BE-1 quantification inputs above do not include municipal participation in the Green Rate program. GHG reductions related to 100% renewable municipal electricity are included here to illustrate all municipal energy reductions together.

Table 31 summarizes the BAU and mitigated scenario inputs for this action. The municipal energy demand is based on the City’s 2015 municipal operations GHG inventory and assumes for CAAP action planning purposes that municipal energy demand does not increase in the future; municipal emissions are represented in inventory sector I.2, as described in Part I of this appendix, and therefore their potential emissions growth was included within the commercial sector energy growth forecasts.

Table 31 – BAU and Mitigated Scenario Inputs
BAU Scenario Energy Demand
Value Units
Emissions
Factor Unit MT CO2e
Electricity 108,264 MWh 0.1192 MT CO2e/MWh 12,906
Natural Gas 787,878 therms 0.00532 MT CO2e/therm 4,190
Subtotal - - - - 17,097
Mitigated Scenario - Energy Savings
Value Units Emissions Factor MT CO2eBAU Mitigated
Solar Development 14,508 MWh/yr 0.1192 - 1,729
Energy Efficiency - electricity 1,539 MWh/yr 0.1192 - 183 Energy Efficiency - natural gas 39,394 therms 0.0053 - 210 Renewable Electricity Purchase 92,217 MWh/yr 0.1192 - 10,993 Subtotal 13,116

EMISSIONS FACTORS
To avoid double counting with GHG reductions estimated in action BE-1, the electricity savings and solar development potential were multiplied by the SCE 2030 emissions factor that corresponds to its 80% carbon-free energy commitment. The natural gas emissions factor was derived from the 2015 municipal operations GHG inventory, dividing natural gas emissions by reported therms consumption.

MITIGATED SCENARIO EMISSIONS
Table 32 shows the mitigated scenario emissions and allocates the GHG reductions to energy efficiency, solar energy development, and carbon-free electricity purchases.

CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
31 Table 32 – Mitigated Scenario Emissions by Source
Reductions Source MT CO2e
Energy Efficiency 393
Solar PV Development 1,729
Carbon-free Electricity Purchase 10,993
Subtotal 13,116
BE-8 Implement short-term measures to reduce emissions related to oil and gas extraction

PARTICIPATION ASSUMPTIONS
The Long Beach Energy Department committed to decrease oil production 20% below 2018 production volumes by 2030. In 2018, 11,158,706 barrels of oil (bbl) were produced in the city. This commitment would result in a 2030 production volume of 8,926,965 bbl. The CAAP emissions forecasts had assumed that 2018 production levels would remain constant based on year-over-year production declines. This was a conservative approach in that production has already been decreasing, but the forecasts did not assume continued declines beyond the last year for which empirical data was available at the time of analysis (i.e., 2018).

EMISSIONS FACTORS
To estimate GHG reductions associated with decreased oil production, the project team calculated a per barrel emissions factor based on the 2015 GHG inventory oil industry emissions divided by the 2015 production volume. The emissions sub-sectors included in this analysis include I.4.1 and I.8.1 (see Part I of this appendix for further information).

MITIGATED SCENARIO EMISSIONS
Table 33 shows the inputs used to quantify this action.

Table 33 – Oil and Gas Emissions per Barrell
Value Unit
2015 Oil Production 13,321,018 bbl
2015 Oil-related Emissions 249,139 MT CO2e/yr
2015 Emissions per Barrel 0.019 MT CO2e/bbl
2030 Oil Production – BAU 11,158,706 bbl
2030 Oil Production – Mitigated 8,926,965 bbl
2030 Oil Production Reduction 2,231,741 bbl
2030 GHG Reductions 41,740 MT CO2e/yr
T-1 Increase the frequency, speed, connectivity and safety of transit options

PARTICIPATION ASSUMPTIONS
This action assumes that implementation of transit system and ridership improvements will result in a 1% VMT reduction below 2030 BAU levels for light duty vehicles (gas and diesel).

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
32 EMISSIONS FACTORS
Reductions from this action were calculated using the same methodology used to estimate GHG emissions for sub-sector II.1 On-Road Transportation. The project team re-ran the emissions forecast calculations based on VMT values that included a 1% reduction in gas and diesel VMT for light duty vehicles. Refer to Part I of this appendix for further detail on the on-road emissions quantification methodology.

MITIGATED SCENARIO EMISSIONS
As with the electricity actions described above, GHG reductions from this action were calculated as:

Emissions Reduction = (Business-as-Usual Emissions) – (Mitigated Scenario Emissions) See Table 34 for outputs from this on-road emissions model analysis. This action is estimated to result in reductions of approximately 5,230 MT CO2e/yr.

Table 34 – Action Quantification Inputs
Value Unit
VMT Reduction – LDV – gas and diesel 1 1%
2030 BAU – LDV Gasoline 2,390,410,729 VMT/yr
2030 BAU – LDV Diesel 25,468,434 VMT/yr
2030 BAU – LDV Gasoline and Diesel 522,835 MT CO2e/yr
2030 Mitigated – LDV Gasoline 2,366,506,622 VMT/yr
2030 Mitigated – LDV Diesel 25,213,750 VMT/yr
2030 Mitigated – LDV Gasoline and Diesel 517,607 MT CO2e/yr Reduction 5,228 MT CO2e/yr
T-4 Implement the Port of Long Beach Clean Trucks Program

PARTICIPATION ASSUMPTIONS
This action is based on implementation results for the Port of Long Beach Clean Trucks Program. The Clean Air Action Plan estimates GHG reductions from this action could range from 10-46% in 2031. The project team conservatively estimated the low-end of this range for use in quantifying GHG reductions.

The 2015 CAAP inventory did not have granular enough information from the on-road travel model to isolate VMT associated with Port truck activity. The project team used the diesel heavy-duty vehicle (HDV) on-road category as a proxy for Port trucking activity. The ratio of HDV VMT from the Port’s 2015 Air Emissions Inventory was compared to the CAAP on-road VMT data to help scale the emissions reduction estimates. As shown in Table 35, the comparison of HDV VMT in these two inventories shows the Port value is approximately 8.2% lower than that assumed based on the community-wide on-road inventory. Since this action is quantified as a reduction in future GHG emissions, the community-wide diesel HDV emission were extracted from the on-road emissions inventory and normalized by multiplying by -8.2%. A 10% reduction in the 2030 diesel HDV emissions was then calculated to estimate the reduction potential of this action.

CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
33 EMISSIONS FACTORS
The calculations were based on the emissions from the CAAP GHG inventory and forecasts. See Part I of this appendix for further information on how on-road emissions were calculated.

Table 35 – Action Quantification Inputs
VMT
MT CO2e/yr
2015 2030
Port Inventory - Diesel HDV on-road emissions 151,857,117 256,283 - Community Inventory - Diesel HDV on-road emissions 164,234,998 230,181 274,876 Ratio (Port/Community Inventory) -8.2% - -8.2%
Scaled Diesel Emissions (Estimate of Port's diesel HDV
emissions in community inventory)
- -
252,471
Clean Trucks Program – GHG Reduction Potential - - 10%
GHG Reductions - - 25,250

ADDITIONAL PORT EMISSIONS CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the Clean Trucks Program quantified above, the Port of Long Beach has committed to achieve 100% emissions-free cargo handling equipment (CHE) by the year 2030. The city’s 2015 GHG inventory estimated off-road vehicle and equipment emissions based on ARB’s OFFROAD model (the most up to date program at the time), which did not include emissions associated with CHE. ARB’s current offroad emissions model, Orion, does include CHE emissions, so future GHG inventories can accurately reflect this emissions source. The Port’s 2015 Air Emissions Inventory estimated that CHE emissions totaled nearly 127,000 MT CO
2e/yr. The Port’s ongoing GHG reduction actions will serve to fully reduce this emissions source by the 2030 CAAP target year.

The Port will also implement ARB’s Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth Regulation that will result in reduced fuel use by certain vessel types when at-berth in the Port of Long Beach. ARB has estimated that implementation of this regulation will result in emissions reduction totaling approximately 100,500 MT CO2e/yr at the Port of Long Beach
Neither of these GHG reduction values is included in the CAAP’s target achievement pathway because they both represent emissions sources that are not included in the city’s jurisdictional production inventory. However, both actions demonstrate the ongoing commitment of the Port of Long Beach to identify and implement programs and actions that will reduce GHG emissions and improve local air quality.

T-5 Develop an Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Master Plan Long Beach Airport is implementing programs to increase use of electric ground service equipment (GSE) to reduce emissions from gasoline- and diesel-powered equipment. Sufficient data was unavailable during CAAP development to estimate potential future reductions from these efforts.

However, the Airport’s 2031 BAU Emissions Inventory report estimates emissions from GSE will total approximately 2,559 MT CO
2e/yr. Future CAAP updates will monitor implementation of vehicle and equipment electrification programs citywide to understand if additional GHG reductions are occurring beyond those currently estimated within this appendix.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
34 SOLID WASTE CALCULATIONS
The solid waste actions are calculated based on the methane commitment methodology equations described in the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC), and replicated in Part I of this appendix. Specifically, the calculations follow Equation 8.3, and use the same default factors as described in Part I. The methodological descriptions of the actions included below describe the process for calculating other inputs needed in the GPC equation. Please refer to Part I of this appendix for a full description of the methane commitment method and its corresponding equations and default assumptions.

The solid waste disposal data from 2015 was used to estimate landfill disposal amounts by facility in 2030 (see Table 36). AECOM used the 2015 disposal data shown in Table 14 and converted from short tons to metric tons for use in the preceding equations. The rate of disposal, expressed as metric tons per service population (MT/SP), where service population is residents plus employees, was calculated based on 2015 values, and held constant to estimate future disposal values in the emissions forecasts.

Table 36 – Landfill Waste Disposal Forecasts
Year Short Tons
(ST)
Metric Tons
(MT)
Service Population
(SP) 3 MT/SP 4
2015 409,258 1 371,273 2 624,312 0.595
2030 - 388,167 5 652,721 0.595
Source: AECOM 2018
Notes: Service population (SP) = population and jobs
1 See Table 13, landfill plus ADC volume
2 1.0 short ton = 0.9072 metric tons
3 See Table 19 for demographic data sources
4 Calculated for 2015 as MT/SP, and held constant for 2030 5 Calculated as SP * (MT/SP)
For CAAP action planning purposes, the volume of waste disposal was further disaggregated into single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and ADC. Table 37 shows the breakdown by land use type and treatment destination. The project team used the CalRecycle Waste Characterization Web Tool – Residential Waste Stream Data Export tool to evaluate the contribution of single-family and multi-family waste in Long Beach (values shown in Table 37). Single-family residential waste collected in the city is sent to SERRF for incineration; multi-family residential waste is sent to regional landfills as shown in Table 13. The project team then derived the commercial portion of the waste stream by subtracting the multi-family residential value from the total volume sent to landfills in 2015.

Table 37 – Landfill Waste by Type and Destination
CalRecycle Land Use Splits Tons (ST) Tons (MT) Destination Landfill Waste
Ratio
Single-family Residential 71,963 65,284 SERRF -
Multi-family Residential 49,413 44,827 landfill 12%
Commercial 228,292 207,103 landfill 56%
ADC 131,553 119,343 landfill - ADC 32%
Total (non SFR city hauled) 409,258 371,273 - 100%

CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
35 The corresponding landfill waste ratio was applied to the total 2030 disposal forecast (see Table 36).

Table 38 shows the modeled 2030 disposal tonnage by land use and type for use in the CAAP action quantification.

Table 38 – 2030 Landfill Waste Estimates
Land Use Splits Disposal Value (landfill or ADC) Units
Multi-family Residential 46,867 tons (MT)
Commercial 216,527 tons (MT)
ADC 124,773 tons (MT)
Total 388,167 tons (MT)
W-1 Ensure compliance with state law requirements for multifamily and commercial property recycling programs

PARTICIPATION ASSUMPTIONS
This action would increase paper and cardboard recycling in the multi-family residential and commercial waste streams to reduce waste in these categories 75% below the 2030 estimated levels.

EMISSIONS FACTORS
To model emissions reductions, separate multi-family residential and commercial hypothetical landfill profiles were developed. This allowed each CAAP action to be applied differently based on land use type. The same methane commitment calculation inputs were used as described in Part I of this appendix. A weighted landfill methane collection factor was calculated based on the estimated 2030 waste disposal volume by landfill facility and the methane collection rates shown in Table 14. The resulting weighted methane collection rate was 77.61% for landfills that received Long Beach waste in 2015.

MITIGATED SCENARIO EMISSIONS
Tables 39 and 40 show the modeled 2030 multi-family and commercial landfill emissions by waste type based on the methane commitment methodology calculations described in Part I. The total landfill waste weight by composition correspond to the values shown in Table 38. This action would divert 75% of the paper/cardboard waste tonnage away from landfills, and therefore avoid 75% of these estimated future emissions. Reductions would total 7,461 MT CO
2e/yr from the multi-family sector, and 37,873 MT
CO2e/yr from the commercial sector; total reductions from this action are estimated to be approximately 45,340 MT CO2e/yr.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
36 Table 39 – 2030 Multi-family Residential Landfill Emissions Waste Type
Landfill Waste
Composition
(Weight)
DOC Content
in Waste
GHG Emission
(Methane)
GHG Emission
(MT CO2e)
Paper/Carboard 11,019 40.0% 355 9,949
Textiles 3,785 24.0% 73 2,050
Food 11,609 15.0% 140 3,931
Garden and Park 5,268 20.0% 85 2,378
Wood 2,228 43.0% 77 2,163
Rubber and Leather 0 39.0% 0 0
Plastics 5,162 0.0% 0 0
Metal 1,657 0.0% 0 0
Glass 1,402 0.0% 0 0
Other 4,736 0.0% 0 0
Total 46,867 731 20,470
W-1 Paper/Cardboard Reduction
75% 7,461
W-3 Food / Garden and Park / Wood Reduction
75% 6,354
Table 40 – 2030 Commercial Landfill Emissions
Waste Type
Landfill Waste
Composition
(Weight)
DOC Content
in Waste
GHG Emission
(Methane)
GHG Emission
(MT CO2e)
Paper/Carboard 55,930 40.0% 1,803 50,498
Textiles 9,751 24.0% 189 5,282
Food 53,648 15.0% 649 18,164
Garden and Park 25,225 20.0% 407 11,388
Wood 15,409 43.0% 534 14,956
Rubber and Leather 48 39.0% 2 42
Plastics 26,210 0.0% 0 0
Metal 7,662 0.0% 0 0
Glass 4,910 0.0% 0 0
Other 17,732 0.0% 0 0
Total 216,527 3,583 100,330
W-1 Paper/Cardboard Reduction
75% 37,873
W-3 Food / Garden and Park / Wood Reduction
75% 33,381
W-3 Partner with private waste haulers to expand organic waste collection community-wide

PARTICIPATION ASSUMPTIONS
This action would increase organic waste diversion in the multi-family residential and commercial waste streams to reduce waste in these categories 75% below the 2030 estimated levels.

Note that a similar action is included in the CAAP for single-family residential waste (action W-2).

However, single-family waste is processed at SERRF and its corresponding GHG emissions are

CITY OF LONG BEACH PROPOSED CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN – NOV 2020

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
37 excluded from the CAAP for GHG target achievement purposes (see Part I of this appendix for further information on this). Therefore, GHG reductions are not estimated for W-2 since the corresponding emissions are not included in the jurisdictional production inventory.

EMISSIONS FACTORS
The same approach to action quantification as described in W-1 was taken for this action.

MITIGATED SCENARIO EMISSIONS
Tables 39 and 40 included above with action W-1 also highlight the reductions associated with this action. Each table shows a GHG reduction value from diverting 75% of the food, garden and park, and wood waste tonnages away from landfills, therefore avoiding 75% of these estimated future emissions.

Reductions would total 6,354 MT CO
2e/yr from the multi-family sector, and 33,381 MT CO2e/yr from the commercial sector; total reductions from this action are estimated to be approximately 39,730 MT CO
2e/yr.

W-4 Identify organic waste management options

PARTICIPATION ASSUMPTIONS
This action would ensure that 50% of ADC disposal volume by 2030 consists of non-green waste materials to avoid landfill emissions generation from organic material. It assumes the remainder of ADC waste would be composed of inert materials that would not generate landfill emissions.

EMISSIONS FACTORS
To model emissions reductions, a separate hypothetical ADC landfill profile was developed, as with action W-1 and W-3 described above. The same methane commitment calculation inputs were used as described in Part I of this appendix. A weighted landfill methane collection factor was calculated based on the estimated 2030 waste disposal volume by landfill facility and the methane collection rates shown in Table 14 for those facilities that received ADC waste in 2015. The resulting weighted methane collection rate was 74.87% for landfills that received Long Beach ADC waste in 2015.

As described in Part I of this appendix, the project team conservatively assumed that 100% of ADC waste disposed by the city was green waste and therefore allocated the tonnage to the garden and park material category and corresponding DOC factor. It is likely that some or all of the ADC waste was inert materials that would not decompose to generate landfill emissions, and therefore the city’s solid waste emissions could be lower than estimated in the inventory and forecasts. New ADC tracking data provided by CalRecycle that was unavailable during inventory preparation shows that a relatively minor portion of Long Beach’s ADC consists of green waste. Based on the 2018 CalRecycle Disposal Reporting System Green Material Alternative Daily Cover Tonnages by Jurisdiction report, only 13.37 tons of Long Beach ADC volume was identified as green waste. This represents 0.01% of the reported 2015 ADC volume from the city. Therefore, this action’s assumption that 50% of ADC waste would be non-green waste materials by 2030 is highly plausible and still a reflects a conservative estimation of the corresponding GHG reductions from this action (i.e., since nearly 100% ADC emissions reductions might be supported given the very low current use of green waste as an ADC material by the city).

MITIGATED SCENARIO EMISSIONS
Table 41 shows the modeled 2030 ADC landfill emissions by waste type based on the methane commitment methodology calculations described in Part I. The total landfill waste weight by composition correspond to the values shown in Table 38. This action would divert 50% of the garden and park waste

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A
A
Memorandum
November 23, 2020
38 tonnage away from landfills, and therefore avoid 50% of these estimated future emissions. Reductions would total approximately 31,610 MT CO2e/yr.

Table 41 – 2030 ADC Landfill Emissions
Waste Type Landfill Waste
Composition (Weight)
DOC
Content in
Waste
GHG Emission
(Methane)
GHG Emission
(MT CO2e)
Paper/Carboard 40.0% 0 0
Textiles 24.0% 0 0
Food 15.0% 0 0
Garden and Park 124,773 20.0% 2,258 63,217
Wood 43.0% 0 0
Rubber and Leather 39.0% 0 0
Plastics 0.0% 0 0
Metal 0.0% 0 0
Glass 0.0% 0 0
Other 0.0% 0 0
Total 124,773 2,258 63,217
W-4 Garden and Park Waste Reduction – ADC Green Waste
50% 31,609

VOLUME I

DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
STA
TE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2015051054
CLI

MATE ACTION AND A DAPTATION PLAN AND

SAFETY ELEMENT UPDAT E PROJECT
CIT

Y OF LONG BEACH
Su
bmitted to:

Cit
y of Long Beach
Development Services, Planning Bureau
411 West Ocean Boulevard, Third Floor
Long Beach, California 90802
Pre
pared by:

Marc
h 2022
Attachment C

This page intentionally left blank

VOLUME II

APPENDICES TO THE

DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

SCH NO. 2015051054

CLIMATE ACTION AND A DAPTATION PLAN AND

SAFETY ELEMENT UPDAT E PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH

Submitted to:

City of Long Beach
Development Services, Planning Bureau
411 West Ocean Boulevard, Third Floor
Long Beach, California 90802

Prepared by:

March 2022

Appendices are provided on Electronic Media and attached to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P L AN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «03/16/22» i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Summary of Location and Setting ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Summary of the Project Description and Background ...................................................... 1-2

1.4 Significant Unavoidable impacts ....................................................................................... 1-2

1.5 Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.6 Areas of Controversy ......................................................................................................... 1-3

1.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 1-4

2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 General background .......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Environmental Review Process ......................................................................................... 2-5

2.4 Scope of this Draft SEIR ..................................................................................................... 2-7

2.5 Effects Found not to be Significant ................................................................................... 2-8

2.6 Format of the EIR ............................................................................................................ 2-16

2.7 Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................................ 2-18

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Project Location and Setting ............................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Project History and Development of the CAAP ................................................................. 3-2

3.3 CAAP Relationship to FEDERAL, State, and Local Policies ................................................. 3-3

3.4 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................... 3-9

3.5 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................... 3-21

3.6 Discretionary Actions, Permits, and Other Approvals..................................................... 3-21

4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................... 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.3 Energy ............................................................................................................................. 4.3-1

4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 4.4-1

4.5 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.6 Noise............................................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.7 Population and Housing ................................................................................................. 4.7-1

4.8 Public Services ................................................................................................................ 4.8-1

4.9 Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.10 Transportation ............................................................................................................. 4.10-1

4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 4.11-1

4.12 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................ 4.12-1

5.0 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................... 5-2

D RAFT S UBSEQUE NT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «03/16/22» ii

5.3 Alternatives Analysis ......................................................................................................... 5-4

6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Significant Environmental Effects ..................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Energy Impacts ................................................................................................................. 6-2

6.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ............................................................................... 6-2

6.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ............................................................... 6-3

6.5 Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................................................. 6-3

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ................................................ 7-1

7.1 City of Long Beach ............................................................................................................ 7-1

7.2 Consultant Team ............................................................................................................... 7-1

7.3 Persons Consulted ............................................................................................................ 7-1

8.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 8-1

APPENDICES
A: NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND COMMENT LETTERS
B: DRAFT CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN (CAAP)
C: DRAFT SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE
D: CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW CHECKLIST AND TECHNICAL

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
E: CITY OF LONG BEACH CLIMATE ACTION AND ADA PTATION PLAN GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGET OPTIONS MEMO #3
F: NATIVE AMERICAN RECORDS OF CONSULTATION

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P L AN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «03/16/22» iii

FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURE
Figure 3-1: Project Location .............................................................................................................. 3-23 Figure 3-2: Production Inventory Emissions Summary ..................................................................... 3-25 Figure 3-3: Business-as-Usual Emissions Forecasts 2015–2050 and Emissions Targets ................... 3-27 Figure 3-4: 2030 Reduction Target .................................................................................................... 3-29 Figure 4.2-1: California Population, Gross State Product (GSP), Diesel Cancer Risk, and Diesel Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Regulatory Context ............................................................... 4.2-14

TABLES
Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance ................................................... 1-5 Table 3.A: State of California Greenhouse Gas Targets .................................................................... 3-14 Table 3.B: City of Long Beach GHG Reduction Targets ...................................................................... 3-14 Table 4.2.A: Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants ................................................................ 4.2-4 Table 4.2.B: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................ 4.2-7 Table 4.2.C: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ................................................................... 4.2-11 Table 4.2.D: Ambient Air Quality at the Long Beach Monitoring Stations ..................................... 4.2-13 Table 4.2.E: Ambient Air Quality at the Long Beach 2425 Webster Street Monitoring Station .... 4.2-14 Table 4.4.A: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases ......................................................... 4.4-3 Table 4.4.B: Potential Impacts of Global Warming and Expected Consequences for California .... 4.4-7 Table 4.4.C: Sea Level Rise Projections for Los Angeles, California .................................................. 4.4-8 Table 4.4.D: City of Long Beach 2015 Jurisdictional Production Emissions Inventory by Subsector ............................................................................................................................... 4.4-10 Table 4.4.E: Senate Bill 375 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets ................... 4.4-14 Table 4.5.A: PlaceType Densities, Intensities, and Heights .............................................................. 4.5-3 Table 4.6.A: Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria ..................................................... 4.6-6 Table 4.6.B: Community Noise Exposure Ldn or CNEL (dB) ............................................................... 4.6-7 Table 4.6.C: Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors ................................................. 4.6-17 Table 4.7.A: Population Forecasts for the City of Long Beach and the County of Los Angeles ....... 4.7-2 Table 4.7.B: Housing Forecasts for the City of Long Beach and the County of Los Angeles ........... 4.7-3 Table 4.7.C: Employment Forecasts for the City of Long Beach and the County of Los Angeles ..... 4.7-3 Table 4.9.A: City of Long Beach Parks and Recreation ..................................................................... 4.9-2 Table 5.1: Summary of Project and Alternatives ................................................................................. 5-8 Table 5.2: Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project to the No Project Alternative ................................................................................................................... 5-13

D RAFT S UBSEQUE NT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «03/16/22» iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degree Celsius
°F degree Fahrenheit
2008 RCP 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
AELUP Airport Environs Land Use Plan
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUP Airport Land Use Plan
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure
Basin South Coast Air Basin
BE Building and Energy
BMPs best management practices
CAAP Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Cal EMA California Emergency Management Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAT Climate Action Team
CCA California Coastal Act
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCC California Coastal Commission
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCSP Climate Change Science Program
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDP Coastal Development Permit
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFC California Fire Code

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P L AN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «03/16/22» v CH4 methane
City City of Long Beach
CNG compressed natural gas
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CPTED Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
DOC Department of Conservation
du dwelling unit
du/acre dwelling units per acre
du/lot dwelling unit per lot
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ETWU Estimated Total Water Usage
EO Executive Order
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR floor-to-area ratio
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
ft foot/feet
General Plan LUE/UDE
Project
General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements Project GHG greenhouse gas
GWP Global Warming Potential
HCP Habitat Conservation Plans
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
I-405 Interstate 405
I-605 Interstate 605
I-710 Interstate 710
IARC World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer IFC International Fire Code

D RAFT S UBSEQUE NT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «03/16/22» vi IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IS Initial Study
IS/NOP Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
JFTB Joint Forces Training Base
LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
LBFD Long Beach Fire Department
LBPD Long Beach Police Department
LBPL Long Beach Public Library
LBUSD Long Beach Unified School District
LCP Local Coastal Program
LEV low-emission vehicle
LID Low Impact Development
LOS level of service
LST Localized Significance Thresholds
LUE Land Use Element
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority MM Mitigation Measure
MMLOS Multimodal Level of Service
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
N/A not applicable
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plans
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen oxides
O3 ozone
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P L AN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «03/16/22» vii OPR Office of Planning and Research
Pb lead
PCH Pacific Coast Highway (also known as State Route 1 or SR-1) PDF Project Design Feature
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PMP (Port of Long Beach) Port Master Plan
PRC Public Resources Code
proposed project Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and Safety Element Update PTSD post-traumatic stress disorder
RCM Regulatory Compliance Measure
RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
ROG reactive organic gases
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEAs significant ecological areas
SEASP Southeast Area Specific Plan
SEIR Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
sf square foot/feet
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SR-1 State Route 1 (also known as PCH)

D RAFT S UBSEQUE NT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\Master TOC.docx «03/16/22» viii SR-22 State Route 22
SR-47 State Route 47
SR-91 State Route 91
SR-103 State Route 103
SRE Scenic Routes Element
SUSMP Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan
T Transportation
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TOD Transit Oriented Development
UDE Urban Design Element
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services
USGS United States Geological Survey
VHFHSZ very high fire hazard severity zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
W Waste

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that local government agencies, before taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a public document designed to provide both the public and local and State governmental agency decision - makers with an analys is of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision- making.

This Executive Summary has been prepared according to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123 for the Draft Subsequent EIR (SEIR) for the proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Pla n (proposed project). This Draft SEIR has been prepared for the City of Long Beach (City) to analyze the proposed project’s potential impacts on the environment; to propose mitigation measures for identified potentially significant impacts that would minimize, offset, or otherwise reduce or avoid those environmental impacts; and to discuss alternatives that could reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project.

1.2 SUMMARY OF LOCATION AND SETTING
The planning area includes the entire 50 squa re miles within the limits of the City of Long Beach (excluding the City of Signal Hill, which is completely surrounded by the City of Long Beach) in Los Angeles County (County), California. The City is bordered on the west by the Cities of Carson and Los Angeles (including Wilmington and the Port of Los Angeles); on the north by the Cities of Compton, Paramount, and Bellflower; and on the east by the Cities of Lakewood, Hawaiian Gardens, Cypress, Los Alamitos, and Seal Beach. The City is also bordered by t he unincorporated communities of Rancho Dominguez to the north and Rossmoor to the east. The Pacific Ocean borders the southern portion of the City, and as such, portions of the City are located within the California Coastal Zone.

Regional access to the Ci ty is provided by Interstate 710 (I -710, which traverses the western portion of the City from north to south), Interstate 405 (I-405, which traverses the central portion of the City from northwest to southeast), State Route 91 (SR-91, which traverses the northernmost portion of the City from east to west), State Routes 103 and 47 (SR-103 and SR -47, respectively, which traverse the western border of the City from north to south), and State Route 1 (SR- 1, which traverses the central portion of the City from e ast to west), commonly referred to as Pacific Coast Highway (PCH or SR-1). In addition, Interstate 605 and State Route 22 (I-605 and SR -22, respectively, and located northeast and east of the City) provide access to the eastern portion of the City.

In add ition, a variety of transit routes maintained by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the Long Beach Transit, and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides both regional and local access to and within the C ity. A variety of bicycle lanes and paths serve s the City, including regional connections along PCH, the San Gabriel River pathway, and the Los Angeles River pathway.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-2

1.3 SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
In December 2019, the Long Beach City C ouncil approved the General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements Project (approved project) as an update to the City’s General Plan intended to guide growth and future development through the horizon year 2040. As part of the approved project, the City Council also certified a Recirculated Draft EIR prepared for the project (referred to as the 2019 Certified Program EIR) . The proposed Climate Action and Adaptation P lan (CAAP) was included in the 2019 Certified Program EIR as Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG -1 in order to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with General Plan buildout.

This Draft SEIR has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts that may result from implementation of the proposed CAAP and Safety Element Update ( proposed p roject). The proposed CAAP is a comprehensive planning document providing a framework to reduce future GHG emissions in the City of Long Beach through climate action strategies and lessen the impacts of climate change on th e City through climate adaptation strategies. As a qualified climate action plan pursuant to the CEQA, the proposed CAAP provides the framework to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets, and the CAAP Consistency Review Checklist (CAAP Checklist ) would be used as the basis for future assessments of consistency with this plan in lieu of a project -specific GHG CEQA analysis for future discretionary projects subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15183.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines . CEQA review of subsequent plans and projects that are consis tent with the GHG emission reduction strategies and targets in the proposed CAAP may take advantage of CEQA streamlining for project-level GHG analysis on a project-by-project basis. The proposed Safety Element Update builds from the CAAP and is designed to address recent State legislation requiring cities to include goals, policies , objectives, and feasible implementation measures in the Safety Element that place a greater emphasis on climate change impacts, inc luding increased risks related to wildfires and flooding. The proposed amendments would bring the Safety Element up to date and into compliance with a number of State laws including relating to climate change and resiliency. This Draft SEIR constitutes th e environmental review of the proposed CAAP and Safety Element Update as planning documents. Neither the proposed CAAP nor the Safety Element Update proposes physical improvements, and approval of these planning and policy documents would not constitute approval of any physical development. Any development or physical improvements incorporating features of the proposed project would be subject to project-specific CEQA review.

See Chapter 3.0, Project Description, for a complete description of the project components.

1.4 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe significant impacts that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented, including those effects that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less than significant level. The purpose of the CAAP is to implement a range of actions to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to climate change impacts. The CAAP was developed to help implement the Land Use Element (LUE) in the most sustainable way possible. The GHG reduction goals of the CAAP were informed by the development assumptions of the adopted LUE and the General Plan buildout conditions. Because the proposed CAAP would not alter the land use designations or development assumptions of t he adopted LUE, the proposed project would not alter the significance conclusions identified in the 2019 Certified Program EIR.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-3 The proposed project also includes text changes to the Safety Element to bring the Safety Element up to date and into compliance with a number of State laws including relating to climate change and resiliency. These text amendments to the Safety Element represent a planning action intended to comply with State law , and as such, would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in environmental impacts.

Therefore, a s determined in this Draft SEIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

1.5 ALTERNATIVES
The City considered several project alternatives, including an alternative planning area, a smart growth alternative, and a reduced project alternative, but rejected these alternatives from further analysis in this Draft SEIR because they were determined t o be infeasible, or they would not meet the basic Project Objectives. The reasons for dismissal of these alternatives are discussed further in Chapter 5.0 , Alternatives . The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts.

Therefore, there are no alternatives that would reduce significant impacts of the proposed project.

However, the No Project Alternative was evaluated, as required by CEQA.

1.5.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Consistent with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines , the No Project Alternative assumes no adoption of the proposed CAAP and continued implementation of the existing General Plan Safety Element (2002) instead of the updates of the proposed project. The existing General Plan Safety Element would continue to guide and regulate the City ’s policies related to public safety and no planning or policy document would be adopted to provide strategies and actions to reduce the City’s GHG emissions, reach its GHG emissions reduction targets and lessen the impacts of climate change on the City. In addition, no CAAP Consistency Checklist would be implemented for future discretionary projects to utilize in lieu of a project -specific GHG emissions analysis to ensure consistency of future development with the City’s GHG emissions reductions goals. Further, MM GHG-1 from the 2019 Certified Program EIR would not be implemented as required.

The alternatives analysis is described in greater detail in Chapter 5.0, Alternatives.

1.6 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123, this Draft SEIR acknowledges the areas of controversy and issues to be resolved that are known to the City or that were raised during the scoping process. Major issues and concerns raised at the scoping meeting held via video conference on September 1, 2021, include the following:
• Concerns that the project would have direct impacts related to biological resources from the loss of sensitive habitat and open space from introduction of non -native, invasive plant species through landscaping, fuel modification areas, and grading.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-4 • Concerns related to potential impacts to specific biological resources including Monarch butterfly habitat, jurisdictional waters and associated vegetation, significant ecological areas (SEAs), nesting birds, and bats.
• Recommendations that th is Draft SEIR consider all facilities maintained by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District have the capacity consistent with the approved growth identified by the Southern California Association Governments (SCAG) in their regional growth forecast. • Recommendations that the CAAP and Safety Element Update are analyzed for consistency with SCAG’s adopted 2020– 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), also known as Connect SoCal.
• Recommendations to include Environmental Justice related goals and policies per Senate Bill (SB) 1000.
• Recommendation to review Caltrans policies, plans, and guidance strategies related to climate change impacts.
• Recommendation to engage in consultation with Native American tribes that are tribally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and SB 18.

Please note that these are not exhaustive lists of areas of controversy, but rather key is sues that were raised during the scoping process. The Draft SEIR addresses each of these areas of concern or controversy in detail, examines project -related and cumulative environmental impacts, and identifies significant adverse environmental impacts . There were no identified potentially significant impacts and, therefore, no mitigation measures were required.

1.7 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 1.1 identifies the potential environmental impacts and level of significance associated with implementation of the proposed project . Table 1.1 also identifies cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project. As stated above, no mitigation measures were required as all impacts were determined to be less than significant or no impact was identified.

Adoption of the proposed CAAP would not directly propose or entitle any physical improvements or new development . The GHG reduction goals of the CAAP were informed by the development assumptions of the adopted LUE and the General Plan buildout cond itions. As the proposed CAAP would not alter the land uses designations or development assumptions of the adopted LUE, the proposed project would not result in impacts greater than those anticipated in the 2019 Certified Program EIR.

All CAAP Actions and A daptation Actions would be reviewed at the project level and under CEQA as applicable. Therefore, the analysis in this Draft S EIR focuses on the potential impacts from the measures included in the CAAP Checklist for future discretionary projects and the po tential impacts of the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions at a programmatic level.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-5 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

4.1: AESTHETICS
Threshold 4.1.1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and does not constitute approval of any physical development or grant any entitlements for development . All future discretionary projects will be reviewed in accordance with CEQA and for consistency with the goals and policies of the City of Long Beach ’s (City) General Plan and development standards. The proposed p roject would also be consistent with the policies and goals of the adopted Land Use Element ( LUE) and Urban Design Element ( UDE) aimed at guiding the aesthetic character of new development in a manner that would not significantly inhibit or obstruct scenic vistas in the planning area. Future development and discretionary projects that would help implement CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions through the CAAP Consistency Checklist, including implementation of required CAAP Actions related to Building and Energy, Transportation, and Waste would be anticipated and required to comply with standards established under the 2019 Certified Program EIR and are not anticipated to impact scenic vista . Implementation of the proposed CAAP would help achieve the goals and polic ies of the adopted LUE. There is not sufficient information at this time to analyze potential future physical improvements that may be needed to implement the proposed framework of Adaptation Actions in the CAAP, as specific projects and locations are unknown. Additional analysis will be needed to develop specific adaptation approaches and projects at specific locations, and future improvements would be analyzed on a project level pursuant to CEQA and for consistency with policies and standards in the adopted LUE and UDE. Therefore, potential impacts of future development or discretionary project s on scenic vistas would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to scenic vistas. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

Threshold 4.1.2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no State-designated scenic highways in the planning area; however, PCH is considered to be an Eligible State Scenic Highway. Also, the City’s existing General Plan adopted UDE designated local scenic routes which include Ocean Boulevard and Livingston Drive and future expansions. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and does not constitute approval of physical development or grant any entitlements for development . Future development and discretionary projects that would implement the CAAP through the CAAP Consistency Checklist, including implementation of required CAAP Actions related to Building and Energy, Transportation, and Waste would be anticipated and required to comply with standards established under the General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements EIR. The CAAP also No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-6 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
identifies Adaptation Actions related to extreme heat, air quality, drought, and sea level rise/flooding; there is not sufficient information at this time to analyze potential future physical improvements that are suggested as Adaptation Actions in the CAAP, and additional analysis will be needed to develop specific adaptation approaches and projects at specific locations.

Therefore, impacts related to substantial damage of scenic resources within a State -designated highway would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to scenic resources within a State - designated scenic highway. No mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.1.3: In non -urbanized areas, woul d the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The planning area is currently characterized as a built -out urban environment. The CAAP Actions of the proposed project would be implemented with future discretionary projects and may result in changes to visual character or to public views within the planning area. However, the proposed project does not constitute approval of physical development or grant any entitlements for development, and all applicable CAAP Actions would be included in future discretionary projects in order to demonstrate consistency with the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets. Future discretionary projects within the City would be required to be consis tent with the City’s design requirements, and thus, impacts related to the visual character would be less than significant in regard to CAAP Actions. The CAAP also identifies Adaptation Actions related to extreme heat, air quality, drought, and sea level rise/flooding; there is not sufficient information at this time to analyze potential future physical improvements that are suggested as Adaptation Actions in the CAAP, and additional analysis will be needed to develop specific adaptation approaches and projects at specific locations. All future projects to implement the CAAP will be analyzed pursuant to CEQA as required.

Therefore, impacts related to scenic quality and visual character would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to visual character of the planning area, or conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-7 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.1.4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. There are existing sources of light in the project vicinity as well as lighting associated with several regional serving uses such as the Port of Long Beach, the Long Beach Airport, and the Pike at Rainbo w Harbor. Adjacent residential areas, public facility uses, commercial uses, and industrial uses also emit light and glare. Future discretionary projects that implement CAAP Actions would have the potential to introduce new sources of light to the City typ ical of development projects.

CAAP Actions that would occur in low -density residential areas have a very minimal effect on nighttime lighting. Conversely, the largest nighttime lighting would occur in areas proposed for commercial, industrial, or high-density mixed-uses. All future discretionary projects that implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets would be reviewed under CEQA and would be required to comply with the design standards established in the adopted UDE and the City’s Municipal Code. Additionally, policies are intended to improve the overall visual character of the City through new development projects that would shape the urban environment of the City, while preserving existing development that defines its unique aesthetic character. There is not sufficient information at this time to analyze potential future physical improvements that are suggested as Adaptation Actions in the CAAP, and additional analysis will be needed to develop specific adaptation approaches and projects at specific locations.

Therefore, the proposed project’s impact related to light and glare would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle a ny physical development that would result in impacts from light and glare. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. CAAP Actions required for future discretionary projects, including measures related to Building and Energy, Transportation, Waste, as well as the Adaptation Actions, would not substantially alter the visual character of the planning area, as compared to existing conditions. The site design, landscaping, and architectural design of future discretionary projects would be required to be
consistent with goals, policies, strategies, and development standards established by the adopted UDE, which are intended to avoid, reduce, offset, or otherwi se minimized identified potential adverse impacts of the proposed project or provide significant benefits to the community and/or to the physical environment.

Additional analysis will be needed to develop specific adaptation approaches and future discretio nary projects would be analyzed on a project level for consistency with policies and standards in the adopted No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-8 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
LUE and UDE. CAAP Actions that would introduce more lighting would be implemented consistent with the lighting and development standards in the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed project does not constitute approval of physical development or grant any entitlements for development and would therefore not cumulatively have a significant adverse impact related to scenic vistas, scenic resources within a State scenic highway, visual character or quality of public views, or light and glare. No mitigation is required.

Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts from light and glare. No mitigation is required.

4.2: AIR QUALITY
Threshold 4.2.1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed CAAP was included as Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-1 in the 2019 Certified Program EIR. As a programmatic planning document that does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development and does not alter the land use designations or development assumptions of the General Plan buildout condition, the proposed project would n ot result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the AAQS or emission reductions in the AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the air quality plans prepared by SCAQMD to attain State and national air quality standards or violate any air quality standard. As such, the proposed CAAP would result in a less than significant impact related to a co nflict or obstruction of implementation of applicable air quality plans. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would conflict or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

Threshold 4.2.2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The Basin is currently designated nonattainment for the federal and State standards for ozone (O3), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size ( PM2.5), as well as the particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10) standard, which is attributed to the region’s development history. The proposed CAAP does not include physical improvemen ts or development . All future discretionary projects that implement CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions or utilize the CAAP Checklist for GHG streamlining would implement measures to support the CAAP Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets, which would also serve to reduce air quality emissions. Therefore, No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-9 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
the potential program-level operational impacts of the CAAP to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable f ederal or State ambient air quality standard would be less than significant . Additionally, all future discretion ary projects that implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions would be reviewed under CEQA as required. Thus, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria polluta nt for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. No mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.2.3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. Adoption of the proposed CAAP would not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development that would result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors such as residential land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site as a result of construction activities through the us e of Localize d Significance Thresholds (LSTs). However, the LSTs are not applicable to programmatic documents, such as the proposed CAAP. Additionally, all future discretionary projects implementing CAAP Actions would be reviewed in accordance with CEQA and would require further evaluation to demonstrate that emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs. Therefore, the proposed CAAP would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

Threshold 4.2.4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. Although the proposed CAAP does not constitute or entitle any physical development, CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions implemented with future discretionary projects could generate new sources of odors. However, all future discretionary projects would be subject to project-level CEQA review to determine if impacts related to odors would occur and if project -specific mitigation is required. Therefore, for these reasons and because the proposed CAAP does not constitute or entitle any physical development, impacts associated with odors would be considered less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-10 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. No mitigation is required.

Cumulative Air Quality Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative growth within the City could increase pollutant concentrations and contribute to existing air pollution in the Basin. The proposed project does not include physical improvements or development; however, project implementation assumes that future discretionary projects would implement CAAP Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets.

Future
development and discretionary projects that would implement CAAP Actions related to Building and Energy, Tra nsportation, and Waste would be subject to CEQA and demonstrate consistency with local, State, and federal air quality standards that are intended to protect air quality. In addition, future development facilitated by the proposed CAAP would be required to comply with California Air Resources Board (CARB) motor vehicle standards, South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) regulations from stationary sources and architectural coatings, and Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Where there is the potential for cumulative impacts, they would be addressed through project-level environmental review and permitting.

As such, the CAAP as a program- level document would not cumulatively contribute to air quality impacts. No mitigation is required.

Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in cumulatively significant impacts . Therefore, the Safety Element Update would not cumulatively contribute to air quality impacts. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

4.3: ENERGY
Threshold 4.3.1: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed CAAP does not include physical improvements or development; however, project implementation assumes future discretionary projects would implement CAAP Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets. The CAAP Actions for Building and Energy included on the Consistency Checklist include actions that encourage the construction or installation of new facilities aimed to increase access to renewable energy and increase use of solar panels. As the CAAP Actions related to Building and Energy are largely improvements to existing facilities or operational programs to reduce emissions, these CAAP Actions would not result in wasteful or inefficient energy use during construction or operation of future disc retionary projects.

In addition, by incorporating
sustainability elements with existing and proposed facilities, the proposed CAAP would result in a beneficial effect to the City’s overall energy demand and would not result in any wasteful or inefficient e nergy usage.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-11 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
All future discretionary projects that implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets would be reviewed in accordance with CEQA and would require further evaluation to demonstrate that such projects would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Th ere is not sufficient information at this time to analyze potential future physical improvements th at are suggested as Adaptation Actions in the CAAP, and additional analysis will be needed to develop specific adaptation approaches and projects at specific locations. Therefore, potential impacts of the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development and, as such, would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. No mitigation required.

Threshold 4.3.2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. Energy usage during construction would be temporary in nature and all future discretionary projects would be reviewed in accordance with CEQA to demonstrate that construction activities would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Additionally, CAAP Actions would support energy conservation and renewable energy, encourage alternative transportation, promote mixed -use development, reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) , and foster energy efficiency,
supporting the goals of the City’s Sustainable City Action Plan. Further, the proposed CAAP identifies Adaptation Actions that prioritize the locations and types of future projects that may be needed to lessen climate change . There is not sufficient information at this time to analyze potential future physical improvements that are suggested as A daptation Actions in the proposed CAAP; however, it is not expected that these A daptation Actions would generate substantial energy demand and any future projects would undergo project-level CEQA review as required.

The proposed CAAP would result in both a decrease in energy demands overall and an increase in renewable energy production.

Therefore, potential impacts of the CAAP Action s to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project operation, would be less than significant, and implementation of the CAAP would not conflict with or obstruct the City’s Sustainable City Action Plan or any other State plans related to energy efficiency. No mitigation would be required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-12 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
or entitle any physical development and, as such, would not conflict wi th or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No mitigation is required.

Cumulative Energy Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development; however, project implementation assumes future discretionary projects would implement CAAP Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets. CAAP Actions support energy conservation and renewable energy, encourage alternative transportation, promote mixed - use development, and encourage recycling compliance and expanded organic waste collection. Further, the proposed CAAP identifies Adaptation Actions that prioritize the locations and types of future projects that may be needed to lessen climate change. However, it is not expected that these adaptations strategies would generate substantial energy demand. Therefore, implementation of CAAP Action and Adaptation Actions would promote energy efficiency and not cumulatively contribute to energy impacts. No mitigation is required.

Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in cumulatively significant energy impacts. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Threshold 4.4.1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development; however, project implementation assumes future discretionary projects would implement CAAP Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets. CAAP Actions are proposed for the sectors of Building and Energy (BE), Transportation (T), and Waste (W). Additional analysis will be needed to determine the potential impacts of how CAAP Actions will be implemen ted at specific locations, and future improvements would be analyzed at the project level and would be subject to CEQA as required. The proposed project would reduce the City’s impact on climate change by reducing future GHG emissions and would result in a less than significant impact related to construction and operational GHG emissions. In addition, implementation of the Adaptation Actions would not have a significant impact on the environment as a result of GHG emissions. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-13 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.4.2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact.

CARB 2017 Scoping Plan: The proposed CAAP would meet the GHG emission s reduction targets for 2030, which align with the adopted targets for the 2017 Scoping Plan. The proposed project would comply with existing State re gulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the AB 32 Scoping Plan, and Executive Order (EO) B-30-15, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and AB 197 and would be consistent with applicable State plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions.

Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

SCAG RTP/SCS: The 2020– 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as forecast development that is generally consistent with regional -level general plan data.

The CAAP is designed to help implement the land use strategies of the Long Beach LUE, which is based on land use strategies of the RTP/SCS. Implementing SCAG’s RTP/SCS would greatly reduce the regional GHG emissions from transportation, helping to achi eve statewide emissions reduction targets, and the project would not conflict with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS Additionally, the intent of the proposed Adaptation Actions is consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHG emissions, and impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

City of Long Bea ch Sustainable City Action Plan: The Sustainable City Action Plan is a City -adopted plan to guide the City in becoming more sustainable. The proposed CAAP includes various policies that are and would be consistent with these goals and initiatives of the Sustainable City Action Plan to reduce solid waste, improve transportation, and address climate change. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with this adopted plan, and impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would no t constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-14 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include physical improvements or development; however, project implementation assumes that future discretionary projects would implement CAAP Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets. The CAAP Actions would reduce the City’s impact on climate change by reducing future GHG emissions. In addition, implementation of the Adaptation Actions would not have a significant impact on the environment as a result of GHG emissions. Thus, the proposed project would have a beneficial impact on GHG emissions and would not have a cumulatively significant impact. No mitigation is necessary.

Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in cumulatively significant GHG impacts. Therefore, the Safety Element Update would not cumulatively contribute to GHG impacts. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

4.5: LAND USE AND PLANNING
Threshold 4.5.1: Would the project divide an established community? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The planning area is almost entirely developed and is characterized by a mix of PlaceTypes. The proposed CAAP is a policy -level planning document that does not include physical improvements or development that would have the potential to divide an established community or have any direct physical impacts. However, project implementation assumes future discretionary projects would implement applicable CAAP Actions to achieve the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. CAAP Actions include measures related to Building and Energy, Transportation, Waste, and would not physically divide an established community.

Implementation of small -scale building and energy and
waste improvements are anticipated to be included with future development projects and are not anticipated to involve construction of large buildings or structures of a scale that would divide an established community. Future discretionary projects for new transit facilities and increased residential, commercial, and mixed -use development that may result in the development of structures would be evaluated for consistency with the adopted LUE and UDE, and the Mobility Element. The CAAP also identifies Adaptation Actions related to extreme heat, air quality, drought, and sea level rise/f looding; future discretionary projects would be analyzed on a project level under CEQA and for consistency with policies and standards in the adopted LUE and UDE.

Therefore, impacts relating to division of established
communities would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would physically divide a community. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-15 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.5.2: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact.

California Coastal Act: The proposed project would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development within the Coastal Zone, and adoption of the CAAP would not require any CDPs from the CCC.

Additionally, the intent of Adaptation Actions is consistent with goals of the CCA to preserve and maintain coastal resources, and thus impacts would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Local Coastal Program Consistency: The City’s Local Coastal Program ( LCP) outlines provisions related to the following general policies: Transportation and Access; General Housing Policy; Park Dedication Policy; and Strand Use and Access. The proposed project would be consistent with applicable pr ovisions of the LCP related to all these general policies. Additionally, as the City updates zoning in each specific area as part of its comprehensive zoning update, the City will also update the LCP and submit it to the California Coastal Commission ( CCC) for review and approval. Therefore, approval of these future LCP updates and
amendments would reduce potential inconsistencies with the City’s LCP. Impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

SCAG 2008 Regional Comprehensi ve Plan: The CAAP was developed to help implement the LUE in the most sustainable way possible, and the LUE was designed to be consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan ( RCP) as described in the 2019 Certified Program EIR . The proposed CAAP Actions would encourage development along transit corridors, promote new housing and employment options along transit corridors, and would help the City meet its GHG reduction goals, thereby remaining consistent with the 2008 RCP goals. Impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

SCAG RTP/SCS Consistency: The CAAP Actions would ensure that future discretionary projects reduce GHG emissions through implementation of CAAP Actions for Transportation that are consistent with the goals of Connect SoCal. Further, Adaptation Actions would require a project-specific consistency analysis, the intent of these actions is consistent with goals of Connect SoCal to expanding transit access. Impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

General Plan, Specific Plan, Port Master Plan, and Airport Land Use Plan Consistency: Adoption of the CAAP and implementation of the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions would reduce GHG emissions and allow the City to adapt to climate change impacts consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. Future discretionary projects to incorporate measures to support the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Action s would also be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans currently regulating development in the City , such as adopted specific plan s, the Port Master Plan , and the Airport No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-16 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Land Use Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical deve lopment that would conflict with any adopted land use plans. No mitigation is required.

Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. Because the proposed project is a citywide policy/planning action that includes strategies and measures that would apply to future discretionary projects throughout the entire City, the proposed project itself is cumulative in nature. As such, future discretionary projects to implement CAAP Actions would be subject to project -level CEQA review as required and General Plan consistency analysis and would be reviewed for consistency with all applicable adopted land use plans and policies. For this reason, cumulative impacts associated with inconsistency of future development with adopted plans and policies would be less than significant. The proposed CAAP would implement Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-1 of the 2019 Certified Program EIR and ensure consistency with the policies of the adopted LUE.

Therefore, land use impacts associated with the proposed project would be considered less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in cumulatively significant land use or planning impacts. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

4.6: NOISE
Threshold 4.6.1: Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include physical improvements or development; however, project implementation assumes future discretionary projects would implement CAAP Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets.

Construction of these future
discretionary projects does not constitute the CAAP project, therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to short -term substantial increases in ambient noise levels. Further, discretionary projects that would implement CAAP Actions would be consistent with the adopted LUE as analyzed in the 2019 Certified Program EIR and would therefore, not result in additional impacts related to the exposure of sensitive land uses to noise. Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose persons to long -term noise levels above the City’s Municipal Code. Potential operational noise impacts of the Adaptation Actions would also be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-17 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
or entitle any physical development that would result in noise impacts. No mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.6.2: Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. Adoption of the proposed CAAP would not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development , nor would it grant any entitlements for development that would result in ground -borne vibration or no ise. The CAAP Actions that would be implemented with future discretionary projects would not require construction methods that would generate excessive ground - borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels or result in an increase in the number of large trucks or add any sources of permanent operational ground -borne vibration. All future discretionary projects that would implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions would be subject to review under CEQA and required to comply with any requirements in effect when the review is conducted, including the Noise Ordinance requirements limiting the operation of any device that creates vibration that is above the vibration perception threshold. As such, impacts of the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions related to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Tex t changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in noise or vibration impacts. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

Threshold 4.6.3: F or a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. A doption of the proposed CAAP would not constitute any physical development of any buildings or structures, nor would it grant any entitlements for development. New solar, solid waste, mixed-use and transit-oriented development projects or other improvements or facilities incorporated into future discretionary projects to implement the CAAP Actions may generate a limited number of new employees and could generate a residential population that may be located in proximity to the Long Beach Airport, exposing people residing or working in these areas to excessive noise levels from aviation activities.

Adoption of the CAAP as a policy action would not present additional impacts as it does not constitute or entitle any physical development, and all future discretionary projects would be required to undergo the Site Plan Review process to be compliant with federal, State, and local aviation safety regulations. With complia nce with local and State regulations and requirements, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels from aircraft noise sources. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-18 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
or entitle any physical development that would result in noise impacts. No mitigation is required.

Cumulative Noise Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not constitute or entitle any physical improvements or development; however, c umulative growth within the City could result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels throughout the City . Construction activities associated with future discretionary projects that implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions would be subject to compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance to ensure that noise impacts from construction sources are reduced. Additionally, the CAAP Actions would be implemented in part through future discretionary projects would be evaluated for consistency with the adopted LUE, and the proposed CAAP would not cause a cumulatively considerable co ntribution to regional noise conditions as it does not constitute or entitle any physical development. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is less than cumulatively significant. No mitigation is required.

Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in cumulatively significant noise impacts. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

4.7: POPULATION AND HOUSING
Threshold 4.7.1: Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and does not constitute or entitle any physical improvements or development; however, project implementation assumes future discretionary projects would implement CAAP Actions to achieve the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. Adoption of the proposed CAAP would not induce population growth beyond what was anticipated in the 2019 Certified Program EIR, and all future discretionary projects that implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions would be reviewed under CEQA for consistency with the General Plan.

Further, it should be noted the GHG reduction goals of the CAAP were informed by the development assumptions of the adopted LUE and the General Plan buildout conditions. The 2019 Certified Program EIR concluded that the LUE would result in less than significant impacts related to unplanned population growth . Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with respect to the inducement of substantial unplanned population growth in an area. No mitigation would be required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or result in any physical development that would result in impacts related to substantial un planned population growth. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-19 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Threshold 4.7.2: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and does not constitute or entitle any physical improvements or grant any entitlements for development that would displace housing or people. Adoption of the CAAP and future discretionary projects that implement CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people because the CAAP would not change local land use plans, and future facilities supported by the CAAP Actions would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the need for replacement housing elsewhere. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or result in any physical development that would displace housing or necessitate additional housing. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and does not constitute physical improvements or grant any entitlements for development . Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively significant population or housing impact and the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions would not result in future development that would induce growth in areas where growth was not previously anticipated. Also, the text amendments to the Safety Element would not constitute or entitle any development that would result in impacts to increased population or housing or induced growth within the City. The proposed project’s contribution to impacts on population and housing would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation would be required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

4.8: PUBLIC SERVICES
Threshold 4.8.1: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which coul d cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection?
OR
Threshold 4.8.2: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which coul d cause significant environmental impacts, in No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-20 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning actio n and does not constitute any physical improvements or grant any entitlements for development that would result in the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities; however, project implementation assumes future discretionary projects wou ld implement CAPP Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions targets. The CAAP would be consistent with the adopted LUE and UDE, and thus there would be no increase in service demands beyond those already contemplated in the 2019 Certified Program EIR . All future discretionary projects that implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions targets would be reviewed under CEQA as required. Additionally, all future development projects would be subject to applicable local regulations, requirements, and development impact fees, as well as State and federal laws, including the payment of the adopted fire facility impact fees. Therefore, impacts to fire protection or police protection services and facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to police or fire services. No mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.8.3: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which coul d cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for public schools?
OR
Threshold 4.8.5: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which coul d cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any other public facility?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is considered a policy/planni ng action and does not constitute or entitle any physical improvements or development that would result in the demand for public schools or any other public facilities. The CAAP would be consistent with the adopted LUE and UDE, and thus service demands would not exceed those already contemplated in the 2019 Certified Program EIR.

All future discretionary projects that implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions to achieve the No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-21 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
City’s GHG emissions targets would be reviewed under CEQA as required , Additi onally, all future development projects would be subject to applicable local regulations, requirements, and development impact fees, as well as State and federal laws, including the payment of the adopted school impact fees as required. Therefore, impacts to schools would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to public schools or facilities . No mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.8.4: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significa nt environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and does not constitute or entitle any physical improvements or development that would result in increased demand or performance impacts for parks . The CAAP would be consistent with the adopted LUE and UDE, and thus service demands would not result in impacts beyond those already contemplated in the 2019 Certified Program EIR. All future discretionary projects that implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions targets would be reviewed under CEQA and would be required to undergo the Site Plan Review process. Additionally, all future development projects would be subject to applicable local regulations, requirements, and development impact fees, as well as State and federal laws, including the payment of any required park fees. Therefore, impacts to parks would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to public services including parks. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

Cumulative Public Services Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. The GHG reduction goals of the CAAP were informed by the development assumptions of the adopted LUE and the General Plan buildout conditions. Because the proposed CAAP would not alter the land uses designations or development assumptions of the adopted LUE , the CAAP would be consistent with the adopted LUE and would not result in a population increase greater than projected for the buildout of the adopted LUE because the CAP would not change local land use plans .

Therefore, the proposed project’s contributi on to fire, police protection, school, parks, and other public facility impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation would be required.

Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that wo uld No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-22 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
result in cumulatively significant public services impacts. No mitigation is required.

4.9: RECREATION
Threshold 4.9.1: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
OR
Threshold 4.9.2: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and does not constitute or entitle any physical improvements or development that would include the construction of recreational facilities or result in the increased use of existing parks or other recreational facilities. Because the proposed CAAP would not alter the land uses designations or development assumptions of the adopted LUE, the CAAP would be consistent with the adopted LUE. Future discretionary projects would be subject to review under CEQA and consistency with the adopted LUE. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the increased use of existing parks or other recreational facilities and the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to parks or recreational facilities. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

Cumulative Recreation Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and does not constitute or entitle any physical improvements or development that would include recreational facilities or result in the increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities .

Because the proposed CAAP would not alter the land uses designations or development assumptions of the adopted LUE, the CAAP would be consistent with the adopted LUE. Future discretionary projects would be subject to review under CEQA and consistency with the adopted LUE. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to parks and recreational facility impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. No mitigation would be required.

Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in cumulatively significant recreation impacts. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-23 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

4.10: TRANSPORTATION
Threshold 4.10.1: Would the project conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not constitute approval of or entitle any physical improvements or development; however, project implementation assumes future discretionary projects would implement CAAP Actions and applicable Adaptation Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions targets and could involve energy efficiency improveme nts, sourcing of clean electricity, new transit and waste facilities, and changes to the existing streetscape such as expanded bicycle and pedestrian networks. Construction of these facilities may temporarily disrupt traffic flows on area roadways from the use of heavy -duty construction vehicles and could temporarily disrupt alternative modes of transportation by blocking bicycle or pedestrian pathways or public transit lanes or result in lane closures.

However, these future improvements are not a part of t he proposed CAAP, and all future discretionary projects that implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions would be reviewed under CEQA.

Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies related to the transportation circulation system.

No mitigation is
required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies related to the transportation circulation system. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

Threshold 4.10.2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed CAAP would promote a reduction of VMT, and a CAAP Action is designed to ensure the City i mplements SB 743 (see T-9). To that end, the City adopted VMT guidelines in 2020 consistent with SB 743 and the proposed CAAP . The proposed project includes measures to support the CAAP Actions related to Building and Energy, which would be constructed within or on existing or proposed buildings (e.g., solar facilities on rooftops) and are not expected to result in additional VMT impacts. Measures to support the CAAP Actions related to Transportation include expansion of the bicycle and pedestrian network a nd other measures to reduce VMT, and increased housing and employment along major transit corridors and increased density and mixing of land uses. Development of housing and employment along transit centers would not result in additional impacts related to VMT beyond those anticipated in the adopted LUE and the 2019 Certified Program EIR ; rather, the CAAP is designed to maximize GHG reduction, including through VMT reduction, as part of LUE implementation. In addition, future discretionary projects that implement measures to support the CAAP Actions related to increased transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would also support reductions in VMT as analyzed in the No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-24 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
2019 Certified Program EIR. Measures to su pport the CAAP Actions for Waste include, but are not limited to, actions that encourage recycling compliance and expanded organic waste collection , which may result in new facilities for organic waste processing. However, such new facilities would be subj ect to their own project-level CEQA review. The proposed CAAP Actions implemented with future discretionary projects would result in a decrease in VMT from existing conditions and compared to the adopted LUE, and thus implementation of the proposed CAAP wo uld have a less than significant impact related to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b). No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in VMT impacts. No mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.10.3: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. Adoption of the proposed CAAP would not constitute or entitle any physical development of any buildings or structures, nor would it grant any entitlements for development that would result in increased design hazards. Most of the CAAP Actions that would be implemented with future discretionary projects through the Consistency Checklist would not change the existing area roadways and would theref ore not cause a substantial increase in hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. Additionally, with compliance with State and local regulations and design guidelines, roadways and transit improvements promoted by the CAAP would not substantiall y increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses, and impacts related to potential hazards due to incompatible uses are considered to be less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update : No impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in potential hazards. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

Threshold 4.10.4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. Adoption of the proposed CAAP would not constitute or entitle any physical development of any buildings or structures, nor would it grant any entitlements for development that would result in inadequate emergency access. All fu ture discretionary projects that would implement measures to support the CAAP Actions or Adapt ation Actions would be subject to project -level review under CEQA and required to comply with any requirements in effect when the review is conducted. Such future discretionary project s would also be reviewed on a project -by-project basis for compatibility with adjacent land uses, and mitigation would be identified during project -level review as appropriate. It should be noted that the construction of any future discretionary projects is not a part of the CAAP project; they are future projects that utilize the CAAP Checklist for GHG analysis streamlining. Therefore, impacts related No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-25 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
to emergency access would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in emergency access impacts. No mitigation is required.

Cumulative Transportation Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not facilitate or entitle any physical improvements or development . All fu ture discretionary projects that would implement measures to support the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Ac tions would be subject to project -level review under CEQA . In the event that the construction of a nearby project occurs at the same time as the construction of a project that would implement a CAAP Action or Adaptation Action, cumulative construction traffic effects could occur. However, these future projects are not a part of the CAAP policy document, which itself does not include any physical development. Further, once future project- specific details and locations are known, the potential for cumulative impacts would be addressed through project -level environmental review and permitting. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would be less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation is required.

Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in cumulatively significant transportation impacts. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

4.11: TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Threshold 4.11.1(i): Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k)?
OR
Threshold 4.11.1(ii): Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be signi ficant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-26 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and does not constitute or entitle any physical improvements or development that would disturb soils in the planning ar ea. There are several CAAP Actions that would be implemented with future discretionary projects that would involve retrofits to existing buildings or may be sited in locations that would result in potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Additional analysis will be needed to determine the potential impacts of how CAAP Actions will be implemented at specific locations, and future improvements would be analyzed at the project level and would be subject to CEQA as required. During the project -specific CEQA analysis, a review of the California Register would be conducted as a well as review of any the City’s local registers of historical resources, as provided in the City’s Historic Preservation Element, and all future discretionary projects would be subject to the requirements of AB 52 for Native American consultation.

Future discretionary improvements related to Adaptive Actions would be analyzed on a project level and project-specific tribal consultation pursuant to the requirements of AB 52 and/or SB 1 8 would be conducted. Therefore, potential impacts of the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to tribal cultural resources. No mitigation is required.

Cumulative Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative growth within the City could result in potential impacts to tribal cultural resources at specific development sites throughout the City. However, the proposed project does not constitute or entitle any physical improvements or developmen t. If multiple future discretionary projects used to implement CAAP Actions would result in impacts to tribal cultural resources, cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources could occur. Where there is the potential for these cumulative impacts, they w ould be addressed through project -level CEQA review and permitting and would be subject to compliance with State law as well as the City’s standard requirements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation is required.

Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in cumulative Tribal Cultural Resources impacts. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-27 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

4.12: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Threshold 4.12.1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
OR
Threshold 4.12.2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and does not constitute or entitle any physical improvements or development. The proposed CAAP Actions incl ude measures related to Building and Energy (BE), Transportation (T), and Waste (W). These CAAP actions would be developed consistent with the land uses and standards of the adopted LUE and resulting PlaceTypes and would be subject to CEQA review and would not result in significant population growth or additional water demand.

All future discretionary projects that implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions to achieve the City’s GHG emissions targets would be reviewed under CEQA and would be required to undergo the Site Plan Review process, during which the City would identify potable water systems serving a project and would assess Plumbing Permit and Plan Check Fees. Payments of these fees would fund future upgrades to water facilities within the pla nning area. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or result in any physical development that would result in impacts related to water demand or water facilities. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required.

Less Than Significant
Impact.

Threshold 4.12.1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation o f which could cause significant environmental effects?
OR
Threshold 4.12.3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projecte d demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitment? No mitigation is required.

Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-28 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed CAAP does not constitute or entitle any physical development of any buildings or structures, nor would it grant any entitlements for development that would result in changes to utilities and service systems. These CAPP Actions would not result in additional population growth or the need for additional wastewater facilities. Additionally , the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions would be implemented through future discretionary projects that would be subject to review under CEQA and required to comply with any requirements in effect when the review is conducted, including sewer capacity considerations as part of the City development review and approval process. For example, projects would be required to pay Sewer Capacity Fees to fund the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and operation of existing and future improvements to the sanitary sewer system, including improvements outlined in the City’s 2021 Capital Improvement Program.

Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed project related to wastewater treatment, or the construction of wastewater supply or conveyance facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or result in any physical development that would result in impacts related to wastewater facilities. No mitigation is required.

Y Threshold 4.12.1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage , electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed CAAP does not constitute or entitle any physical development of any buildings or structures, nor would it grant any entitlements for development that would result in changes to utilities and service systems. All future discretionary projects that would implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions would be subject to review under CEQA and required to comply with any requirements in effect when the review is conducted, including requirements to comply with the provisions of the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), or any other subsequent applicable permits. Furthermore, as future individual projects are proposed, the City would review grading plans and construction documents to identify project features aimed at reducing construction impacts to storm drain facilities. Therefore, potential impacts of the CAAP Actions related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or result in any physical development that would result in impacts related to stormwater facilities. No No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-29 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.12.1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Section 4.3, Energy, for further discussion related to project - related impacts with respect to electric power and natural gas facilities. Implementation of the proposed CAAP does not constitute or entitle any physical development of any buildings or structures, nor would it grant any entitlements for development that would result in changes to provision of electric power or natural gas. The CAAP Actions would not result in additional population growth or the need for additional natural gas or electricity facilities. All future discretionary projects that would implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions would be subject to review under CEQA and required to comply with any
requirements in effect when the review is conducted. CAAP Actions are expected to promote energy efficiency in existing and new buildings, resulting in the reduction of electric power and natural gas demand. Where necessary, infrastructure improvements would be made to serve proposed projects subject to further environmental review depending on the extent and nature of those improvements.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the construction or relocation of existing electricity and natural gas facilities, and no mitigation would be required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or result in any physical development that would result in increased demand for or impacts related to electricity and natural gas facilities. No mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.12.1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities , the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed CAAP does not constitute or entitle any physical development of any buildings or structures, nor would it grant any entitlements for development that would result in changes to telecommunications facilities. All future discretionary projects that would implement the CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions would be subject to review under CEQA and required to comply with any requirements in effect when the review is conducted. Where necessary, infrastructure improvements would be made to existing telecommunications facilities in order to meet customer demands and achieve compliance with the City’s LUE goal of investing in telecommunications No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-30 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
infrastructure systems (LU -M-13). Most telecommunications facilities in the City are currently located within existing right -of-way areas and/or are located underground. As such, environmental impacts associated with future improvements to telecommunications facilities are anticipated to be minimal, as these facility areas would have previously bee n disturbed through association with past infrastructure improvements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the construction or relocation of existing telecommunications facilities, and no mitigation would be required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or result in any physical development that would result in increased demand or impacts related to telecommunications facilities. No mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.12.4: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed CAAP does not constitute or entitle any physical development of any buildings or structures, nor would it grant any entitlements for development that would result in changes to solid waste impacts . Additional analysis will be needed to determine the potential impacts of how CAAP Actions will be implemented at specific locations, and future improvements would be analyzed at the project level and would be subject to CEQA as required. The proposed CAAP would not in itself grant any entitlements for development t hat would result in changes to solid waste . One of the intentions of the CAAP is to reduce GHG emissions associated with solid waste generation, and the CAAP includes Quantified CAAP Actions for Waste that would increase solid waste diversion, reducing the amount of solid waste that would be in landfills through actions that ensure compliance with state law requirements for multifamily and commercial property recycling programs (W - 1), and required expanded organic waste collection and processing (W- 2, W-3, and W-4). Implementation of the CA AP would reduce solid waste generation in the City, and impacts would be beneficial. Any new facilities needed to support increased waste diversion (such as transfer facilities or composting facilities) would be reviewed under CEQA and required to comply with existing regulations for the handling of solid waste, including the applicable permitting requirements of CalRecycle. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to the generation of solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. Text changes to the Safety Element would not constitute approval of or result in any physical development that would result in impacts related to solid waste. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required.

Less Than Significant
Impact.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-31 Table 1.1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts, Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures, Compliance Measures, and Levels of Significance
Potential Environmental Impacts Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts.

Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed CAAP does not constitute or entitle any physical development of any buildings or structures, nor would it grant any entitlements for development .

The proposed CAAP would be consistent with the adopted LUE , and thus any service demands from future new structures would not result in additional impacts beyond what was anticipated in the 2019 Certified Program EIR under the General Plan buildout (2040). Additionally, implementation of the CAAP would not result in a population increase greater than projected for the buildout of the adopted LUE becaus e the CAAP would not change local land use plans, and the additional facilities supported by the CAAP would result in only minor employment increases and minimal, if any, population growth. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to impacts on utili ties and service systems would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation would be required.

Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in cumulatively significant utilities or service systems impacts. No mitigation is required.

No mitigation is required.

Less Than Significant
Impact.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\1.0 Executive Summary.docx «03/16/22» 1-32 This page intentionally left blank

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 OVERVIEW
This Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( SEIR) has been prepared to evaluate environmental impacts associated with the proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and Safety Element Update (proposed project) in the City of Long Beach (City). The City is the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project” and, as such, is the “Lead Agency” for th is project under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) (State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA Section 15367). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in the EIR prior to taking any discretionary action. This Draft SEIR is intended to serve as an informational document to be considered by the City and the Responsible Agencies during deliberations on the proposed project . The anticipated project approvals associated with the proposed project are described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description.

The City of Long Beach , as the Lead Agency, determined that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an SEIR would be required to more fully evaluate potential advers e environmental impacts that may result from development of the project. As a result, this Draft SEIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, as amended (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.). This Draft S EIR also complies with the procedures established by the City for the implementation of CEQA.

Questions regarding the preparation of this Draft SEIR and the City’s review of the proposed project should be referred to the following:

Alison Spindler-Ruiz, Advance Planning Officer
City of Long Beach Development Services, Planning Bureau 411 West Ocean Boulevard, Third Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 570-6946
Email: [email protected]

2.2 GENERAL BACKGROUND
The General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements Project (General Plan LUE/UDE Project) was approved in 2019 and provided an update to the City’s General Plan intended to guide growth and future development through the horizon year 2040. The General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements, replaced the previous 1989 Land Use Element (LUE) and the 1975 Scenic Routes Element (SRE), respectively. The City, as Lead Agency, prepared a Recirculated Draft EIR1 for the General Plan LUE/UDE Project in 2 019. The EIR found that implementation of the project would result in

1 Prior to the Recirculated Draft EIR, a Draft EIR was prepared and circulated from September 1, 2016, to November 18, 2016.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELE MENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-2 significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to air quality, global climate change, noise, and transportation. With the exception o f air quality, global climate change, noise, and transportation impacts, all other potentially significant impacts were effectively mitigated to a less than significant level. The City Council certified the EIR in December 2019, adopted the Mitigation Moni toring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and approved the project . The proposed CAAP is a required mitigation measure of the City’s General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements EIR (2019 Certified Program EIR), which was certified in December 2019.

2.2.1 Authority
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq., requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects. A “discretionary approval” is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether t o approve or how to carry out a project. A n SEIR is a public document designed to provide the public, local, and state governmental agency decision -makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision making.

Pursuant to CEQA Section 21067, the lead agency is “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment.” The C ity of Long Beach has the principal responsibilit y for approval of the proposed project. For this reason, the City is the CEQA Lead Agency for this project.

2.2.2 Subsequent EIR
Section 15162 of the State Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA of 1970 (State CEQA Guidelines) provides that when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that one or more of the following things have occurred:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increas e in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-3 (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The City of Long Beach , as Lead Agency under CEQA, has determined that preparation of an SEIR (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 11; State CEQA Guidelines Section 15163) is appropriate.

This SEIR addresses the environmental effects associa ted with the implementation of the proposed CAAP and Safety Element Update project. As such, this SEIR need only contain information necessary to make the previous City’s General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Element s EIR (2019 Certified Program EIR) adequate.

This SEIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of:
• CEQA of 1970, as amended; and
• State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15000 et seq. of Title 14 CCR.

The overall purpose of this SEIR is to inform the Lead Agency, responsible agencies, decision-makers, and the general public of the environmental effects of the proposed CAAP and Safety Element Update. This SEIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the project, including effects that may be significant and adverse, evaluates a nu mber of alternatives to the project, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects.

2.2.3 Previous Environmental Documents

2.2.3.1 2019 Certified Program EIR
This Draft SEIR is being prepared as a Subsequent EIR to the 2019 Certified Program EIR because the CAAP was a required mitigation measure (GHG- 1) in that document. The Safety Element text updates are consistent with California Government Code Section 65302(g), and are being included in this SEIR because they recognize climate impacts and provide climate adaptation and resilience strategies into the City’s General Plan in line with the CAAP.

Consistent with Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines , an Initial Study (LSA 2015) was prepared for the 2019 Certified Program E IR. The analysis contained in the I nitial Study (IS) found that the General Plan LUE/UDE Project may have a significant effect on the environment unless mitigation is included to lessen or avoid the environmental effects of the project. The City staff determined that a Pro gram EIR was the appropriate environmental document to be prepared for the General Plan LUE/UDE Project (see below, for more information regarding the decision to

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELE MENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-4 prepare a Program EIR). The City, as the Lead Agency, originally prepared the IS and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an EIR for the original project on May 18, 2015, which was distributed via the State Clearinghouse (SCH). The SCH issued a project number for the EIR (SCH No. 2015051054).

The primary purpose of preparing the IS was to scop e the environmental analysis and evaluate potential environmental impacts that may result from project approval. The IS was also used to scope out environmental issues that were determined to be “less than significant” or “no impact,” including agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, recreation, and wildfire. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082, the NOP was circulated to responsible agencies and individuals for a period of 30 days, during which time written comments were solicited pertaining to environmental issues and topics that the EIR should evaluate.

Preparation of the EIR for the General Plan LUE/UDE Project began in June 2015 to fully evaluate the potential adverse environmental impacts that could result from the project. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review for an extended period of 78 days (33 days longer than the required 45-day public review period), from September 1, 2016, to November 18, 2016.

Due to extensive public input provided to the City in the form of written comments on the Draft EIR, oral testimony at public hearings and community meetings, and direction from the City Council to revise the PlaceTypes Maps in the LUE, the City subsequently revised the project in March 2018. The project changes were determined to constitute potentially significant new information, thereby requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines , Section 15088.5. Changes to the project were made in response to public input received on the originally proposed project . As such, a Recirculated Draft EIR was prepared to evaluate environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the project. The Recirculated Draft EIR was circulated for public review for an extended period of 60 days (15 days longer than the required 45 -day public review period), from June 18, 2019 , to August 16, 2019. The Recirculated Draft EIR found that implementation of the project would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to air quality, global climate change, noise, and transportation. With the exception of air quality, global climate change, noise, and transportation impacts, all other potentially significant impacts were effectively mitigated to a less than significant level. The City Council certified the Recirculated Draft EIR in December 2019, adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and approved the project.

The 2019 Certified EIR serves as a Program EIR pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines , Section 15168. The use of a Program EIR provides an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than otherwise would be practical under a Project EIR. However, subsequent activities occurring as a result of program/project approval and certification of a Program EIR must be further evaluated in light of the Program EIR to determine whether or not an additional environmental document must be prepared. If an agency finds that no new effects could occur and that no new mitigation would be required, then the agency can determine that subsequent activities are covered under the Program EIR and no further environmental documentation would be required. Conversely, an agency may determine that future projects could require the preparation of a new IS, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or new EIR. If new

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-5 environmental documentation is required, a Program EIR can be used to focus the scope o f the subsequent environmental document (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168).

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000, et seq., requires that a public agency prepare an EIR wh en the public agency finds substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment (PRC Section 21080 (d)). The basic purposes of CEQA are to:

1. Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities;

2. Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced;

3. Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible; and

4. Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.

In compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has taken steps to maximize opportunities for the public and other public agencies to participate in the environmental review process. The City conducted the scoping process and held a public scoping meeti ng, issued an NOP for the proposed project, and determined that an S EIR was required to evaluate the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project and related actions. Further, this Draft SEIR is subject to public review and comment . These topics related to the environmental review process are described in further detail below.

2.3.1 Scoping Meeting Summary
The City held a public scoping meeting to present the project and to solicit input from interested individuals regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the Draft S EIR. The scoping meeting was held on September 1, 2021 , via video conference. The following issues were raised during the scoping process, which includes the scoping meeting and the NOP responses:
• Concerns that the project would have direct impacts related to biological resources from the loss of sensitive habitat and open space from introduction of non -native, invasive plant species through landscaping, fuel modification areas, and grading. • Concerns related to potential impacts to specific biological resources including Monarch butterfly habitat, jurisdictional waters and associated vegetation, significant ecological areas (SEAs), nesting birds, and bats.
• Recommendations that th is Draft SEIR consider all facilities maintained by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District have the capacity consistent with the approved growth identified by the Southern California Association Governments (SCAG) in their regional growth forecast.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELE MENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-6 • Recommendations that the CAAP and Safety Element Update are analyzed for consistency with SCAG’s adopted 2020 –2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), also known as Connect SoCal.
• Recommendations to include Environmental Justice related goals and policies per Senate Bill (SB) 1000.
• Recommendation to review Caltrans policies, plans, and guidance strategies related to climate change impacts.
• Recommendation to engage in consultation with Native American tribes that are tribally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and SB 18.

Please note that these are not exhaustive lists of areas of controversy, but rather key issues that were raised during the scoping process. The Draft S EIR addresses each of these areas of concern or controversy in detail, examines project- related and cumulative environmental impacts, identifies significant adverse environmental impacts, and proposes mitigation measures designed to reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts. Appendix A includes the NOP and copies of written comments received in response to the NOP. In addition, it should be noted that while the proposed project includ es an update to the General Plan Safety Element, the proposed CAAP is an implementing plan of the General Plan but is not in itself a stand -alone General Plan Element.

Therefore, the requirements of SB 1000 do not apply to the proposed project. However, both the City’s General Plan and the CAAP contain environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives integrated throughout the General Plan elements.

2.3.2 Draft SEIR
This Draft S EIR is being distributed to numerous public agencies and other interested parties for review and comment. The Draft SEIR is also available at the locations listed below. It should be noted that these locations may not be open to the public due to the ongoing COVID-19 public health concerns. Copies of the Draft SEIR are also available on the City’s website, which is provided below.

City of Long Beach Development Services, Planning Bureau 411 West Ocean Boulevard, Third Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Saturday and Sunday, Closed
Billie Jean King Main Library
200 West Broadway
Long Beach, CA 90802
Hours: Sunday and Monday, Closed
Tuesday, 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Wednesday, 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Thursday, 12:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Friday and Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-7 The Draft SEIR is also available on the City’s website:
http://www.longbeach.gov/lbds/planning/environmental/reports/ All comments received from agencies and individuals on the Draft S EIR will be accepted during the public review period, which will not be less than 45 days, in compliance with CEQA. All comments on the Draft SEIR should be sent to the following City contact person:

Alison Spindler-Ruiz, Advance Planning Officer
City of Long Beach Development Services, Planning Bureau 411 West Ocean Boulevard, Third Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 570-6368
Email: [email protected]
Comments will only be accepted in written form via e -mail and/or hardcopy letter delivered to the above-referenced email and mailing addresses , respectively. After the public review and comment period, written responses to all comments received pertaining to environmental issues will be prepared as part of the Final S EIR. As required by CEQA, responses to comments submitted by responsible public agencies will b e distributed to those agencies for review at least 10 days (in accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines) prior to consideration and approval of the Final S EIR. Upon completion of the Final S EIR and other required documentation, the City Council may certify the Final SEIR, adopt findings relative to the proposed project’s environmental effects after implementation of mitigation measures, and approve or deny the project.

2.4 SCOPE OF THIS DRAFT SEIR
This Draft S EIR has been prepared to evaluate environmental impacts that may result from implementation of the proposed project. As the Lead Agency, the City has the authority for preparation of this Draft SEIR and, after the comment/response process, certification of the Final SEIR, and approval of the proposed project as described in this Draft SEIR.

The City has the authority to make decisions on discretionary actions relating to the proposed project. As previously stated, this Draft SEIR is intended to serve as an informational document to be considered by the City during deliberations on the proposed project. This Draft SEIR evaluates and mitigates a reasonable worst -case scenario of potential impacts associated with the proposed project.

As previously stated, the City is the Lead Agency for t he proposed project under CEQA ( State CEQA Guidelines Section 15367). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in the EIR prior to taking any discretionary actions. This Draft S EIR provides information to the Lead Agency and othe r public agencies, the general public, and decision -makers regarding the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The purpose of the public review of the Draft SEIR is to evaluate the adequacy of the environmental analysis in terms of compliance with CEQA. Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines states the following regarding standards from which adequacy is judged:

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELE MENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-8 “An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables th em to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonab ly feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among experts. The courts have not looked for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” Under CEQA (PRC Section 21002.1[a]):
“The purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.” As previously discussed in Chapter 1.0, Executive Summary, a n SEIR is a comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full -disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed proje ct that ha ve the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.

2.5 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, this Draft SEIR identifies the potential effects of the proposed project that were d etermined not to be significant and adverse, and therefore, not addressed in the Draft SEIR. The proposed project includes adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element . Adoption of the CAAP also includes the adoption of a Consistency Checklist which would be utilized by future discretionary projects to implement required and applicable CAAP Actions. This Draft SEIR analyzes the potential impacts of the Safety Element text updates and adoption of the CAAP, including po tential impacts of CAAP Actions on the City related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities an d Service Systems. The proposed CAAP Actions can be analyzed for how these types of actions may be consistent with adopted City policies and their overall intent to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to meet the City’s GHG reduction target, as well as t o lessen the impacts of climate change on the City. However, because the project does not include any physical land use changes or specific physical improvements, environmental impacts related to environmental topics that are directly tied to physical land changes including Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire are not anticipated to be significant or poten tially significant requiring a detailed analysis . These issues are briefly discussed below along with the substantiation for why they were determined not to be significant.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-9

2.5.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
The planning area is almost entirely developed and is not used for agricultural or forestry purposes.

No properties within the planning area are designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance nor are there areas zoned for agricultural or forestry uses .

Further, there are no areas protected by a Williamson Act contract. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in environmental changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to non -agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Furthermore, the proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element , which are considered policy/planning actions and do not include any physical improvements or development that wou ld result in impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. Therefore, this issue is not evaluated further in this Draft SEIR.

2.5.2 Biological Resources
In its existing setting, the planning are a is almost entirely developed and is located in an urban area of Los Angeles County. These urban areas do not contain mapped habitat for any sensitive biological species as identified on local/regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Although the majority of the planning area is urban in nature, the City contains a number of open space areas (e.g., El Dorado Regional Park, the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, Los Cerritos Wetlands, beaches along the Pa cific Ocean shoreline, rights -of-way, marinas, bays, riparian habitat, and wetlands) that have the potential to support sensitive biological resources. Alamitos Bay is also located within the City and is a designated Significant Ecological Area (SEA) by th e County of Los Angeles.
2 However, the proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element , which are considered policy/planning actions and adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development that would result in impacts to biological resources. Existing habitat and species would not be affected as a result of implementation of the proposed project. In addition, the CAAP Actions focus on measures that would apply to future discretionary projects as contemplated with the adopted LUE, which anticipates future development concentrated along transit corridors throughout the City and on parcels that are currently paved and/or developed. As such, measures to support the CAAP Actions implemented with future discretionary projects would be located in existing urban areas and would not result in the loss of open space or sensitive habitat . Further, these future discretionary projects would require project-level CEQA review as there is not sufficient information related to the exact location, project type, and timing of the Adaptation Actions in the CAAP; future discretionary projects to implement CAAP Adaptation Actions would be subject to project-level CEQA review.

According to the National Wetlands Inventory managed by the USFWS, although the majority of the planning area is urban in nature, the planning area does contain riparian habitat that has the

2 Los Angeles County. 2019. Significant Ecological Areas and Coastal Resource Areas Policy Map. Website:
https://planning.lacounty.gov/site/sea/maps/ (accessed September 27, 2021).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELE MENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-10 potential to supp ort sensitive biological resources; the planning area also contains State and federally protected wetlands that have the potential to support sensitive biological resources. 3 As stated previously, the proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element , which are considered policy/planning actions and adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development that would result in impacts to biologi cal resources. In addition, the CAAP Actions focus on actions that would apply to future discretionary projects as contemplated with the adopted LUE, which anticipates future development concentrated along transit corridors throughout the City and on parce ls that are currently paved and/or developed. As such, measures to support the CAAP Actions implemented with future discretionary projects would be located in existing urban areas and would not result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, waters, or assoc iated vegetation. Further, these future discretionary projects would require project-level CEQA review as there is not sufficient information related to the exact location, project type, and timing of the Adaptation Actions in the CAAP; future discretionar y projects to implement CAAP Adaptation Actions would be subject to project-level CEQA review.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code 3503 protect most native bird species from destruction or harm. This protection extends to individuals, as well as any part, nest, or eggs of any bird listed as migratory. Most native North American bird species are on the MBTA list. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts related to interference with the movement of species within wildlife corridors. As stated previously, the proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element, which are considered policy/planning actions and adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development that would result in impacts to biological resources.

The City of Long Beach Municipal Code ( Chapter 14.28) regulates the care and removal of trees on public property and is intended to preserve and protect the community’s urban forest and to promote the health and safety of City trees. The City’s Municipal Code requires that a municipal permit from the City of Long Beach Director of Public Works be obtained prior to the remov al of trees on City -owned property. The City’s Tree Maintenance Policy also requires a 1:1 replacement ratio and payment of a fee that is equivalent to a City -approved 15 -gallon tree. 4 Per Section

21.42.030 of the City’s Municipal Code, a Landscape Documen t Package would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits for future discretionary projects, and the use of invasive plant species is specifically prohibited within the California Coastal Zone. Other requirements of the City’s landscaping standards also include the removal of dead or diseased trees. The City would also be responsible for review and approval of the landscape plans

3 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS ). National Wetlands Inventory. Website: https://www.fws . gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed August 5, 2021). 4 City of Long Beach. 2006. Tree Maintenance Policy. Website: https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/ sustainability/media-library/documents/nature-initiatives/urban-nature/tree-maintenance-policy (accessed September 27, 2021).

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-11 for future discretionary projects to ensure no loss of sensitive habitat or open space would occur as a result of the introduction of invasive species and pest management. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s tree preservation policies. Furthermore, the proposed CAAP includes climate Adaptation Acti ons for future plans and projects, including tree plantings in communities most vulnerable to higher temperatures. As stated previously, the proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element, which are considered policy/planning actions and adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development that would result in impacts to biological resources.

There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), Natural Communities Conservation Plans (NCCP), or other similar plans within the City.

For the reasons stated above, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources. Any future discretionary project s within the City would be evaluated individually in compliance with CEQA, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed.

Therefore, this issue is not evaluated further in this Draft SEIR.

2.5.3 Cultural Resources
Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial change in t he significance of a historical, archaeological, or tribal cultural resource.

CEQA defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria:
(1) listed in, or determine d eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resource survey me eting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by a project’s Lead Agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]). The proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element, which are considered policy/planning actions and adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development that would result in impacts to historical resources.

The City’s adopted General Plan Land Use Element aims to minimize potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources through compliance with applicable federal, State, and local guidelines. In its existing setting, the planning area is almost e ntirely developed and is located in an urban area of Los Angeles County. Consequently, much of the planning area has been previously disturbed as a result of past construction activities in the City. As stated previously, the proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element, which are considered policy/planning actions and adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development that would res ult in impacts to archaeological resources. Similarly, the proposed project would not disturb any human remains.

For the reasons stated above, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources. Any future discretionary projects within the City would be evaluated individually,

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELE MENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-12 in compliance with CEQA , and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, this issue is not evaluated further in this Draft SEIR.

2.5.4 Geology and Soils
Given the City’s location in the seismically active area of Southern California, portions of the planning area are located within a Fault Zone, as designated by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). According to the City’s General Plan Seismic Safety Element (1988), the most prominent fault zone in the City is the Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone, which transverses the City from the northwest to the southeast. The proposed project involves the adoption o f the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element, which are considered policy/planning actions and adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development . Future individual projects subject to discretionary approval would be required to be consistent with City requirements established in the Safety Element and would be required to comply with current applicable building codes. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic-related failure (e.g., liquefaction or landslides).

As stated previously, the proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element , which are considered policy/planning actions and adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development that would result in impacts related to substantial soil erosion, unstable soils, expansive soils, or soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Compliance with applicable building codes in effect at the time future discretionary projects are proposed and preparation of site -specific geology and soils engineering studies would ensure that future projects would not result in impacts related to substantial soil erosion, unstable soils, expansive soils, or soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

In its existing setting, the planning area is almost entirely developed and is locat ed in an urban area of Los Angeles County. Consequently, much of the planning area has been previously disturbed as a result of past construction activities in the City. As stated previously, the proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element, which are considered policy/planning actions and do not include any physical improvements or development that would impact paleontological resources. As a result of implementation of the proposed project, the existing paleontological setting would remain unchanged.

For the reasons stated above, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to geology and soils. Any future discretionary project s within the City would be evaluated individu ally, in compliance with CEQA, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, this issue is not evaluated further in this Draft SEIR.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-13

2.5.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials are chemicals that could potentially cause harm during an accidental release or mishap, and are defined as being toxic, corrosive, flammable, reactive, and an irritant or strong sensitizer.
5 Hazardous substances include all chemicals regulated under the United States Department of Transportation ’s “hazardous materials” regulations and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “hazardous waste” regulations. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment. The probable frequency and severity of consequences from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is affected by the type of substance, the quantity used or managed, and the nature of the activities and operations. The proposed project in volves the adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element, which are considered policy/planning actions and adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development that would involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; create a hazard to the public or the environment through the release of hazardous materials; emit hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of any school; or result in a significant impact related to a known hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65965.5 . T herefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ; interfere with air traffic patterns, conflict with established Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) flight protection zones, or conflict with building height standards established by the FAA for structures on and adjacent to the Long Beach Airport; interfere with an adopt ed emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildland fires.

Any future discretionary projects within the City would be evaluated individually, in compliance with CEQA, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed.

Individual projects subject to discretionary approval would also be required to comply with all policies set forth in the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and the updated General Plan S afety Element. The proposed project includes text amendments to the Safety Element to consolidate the current Safety and Public Safety Elements and to recognize climate impacts and incorporate climate adaptation and resiliency strategies into the General P lan. Furthermore, these amendments would implement the requirements of SB99 (2019), which requires the identification of residential developments in any identified hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes and AB 747 (2019), which requires the Safety Element to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios. Therefore, this issue is not evaluated further in this Draft SEIR.

5 A “sensitizer” is a chemical that can cause a substantial proportion of people or animals to develop an allergic reaction in normal tissue after repeated exposure to a chemical (U.S. Department of Labor, 2017.

Appendix A TO Sections 1910.1200—Health Hazard Criteria, Section A.4 , Respiratory or Skin Sensitization.

Website: https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/hazcom-appendix-a.html [accessed August 5, 2021]).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELE MENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-14

2.5.6 Hydrology and Water Quality
According to the Long Beach Water 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (adopted June 2, 2016), groundwater supply for the City is considered to be very reliable , even during multi -year droughts because extractions are strictly limited and because multiple forms of replenishmen t exist (e.g., recycled water is mixed with imported water and/or natural runoff and is allowed to percolate in the groundwater basin, and San Gabriel River stream flows are used to replenish the groundwater basin, etc.). However, depending on the depth to groundwater and the depth of excavation, groundwater may be encountered during construction of future projects, and groundwater dewatering may be required. Future projects requiring groundwater dewatering activities during construction would be required to obtain coverage under and comply with the provisions of the Groundwater Discharge Permit. Project applicants would be required to provide the Waste Discharge Identification Number to the City to demonstrate proof of coverage under the Groundwater Dischar ge Permit. Pursuant to the requirements of the Groundwater Discharge Permit, dewatered groundwater would be tested and treated (as necessary) prior to release into surface waters so violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would not occur. In addition, in most cases, the duration of groundwater dewatering and the volume of groundwater extracted during construction would be small in volume compared to the overall size of the groundwater basin and would not result in the substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.

As stated previously, the proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element , which are considered policy/planning actions and adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development that would result in impacts related to water quality, water supplies, or drainage patterns. In addition, the CAAP Actions focus on measures that would apply to future discretionary projects as contemplated in the adopted LUE, which anticipates future development concentrated along transit corridors throughout the City and on parcels that are currently paved and/or developed. As such, meas ures to support the CAAP Actions implemented with future discretionary projects would be located in existing urban areas and would not result in impacts associated with the alteration of a stream or river or in the addition of substantial amounts of imperv ious surfaces.

In addition, future applicants of future discretionary projects would be subject to all requirements for submitting a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and a Low Impact Development (LID) Plan . These plans would identify best management practices ( BMPs) to be implemented during operation to control stormwater pollutants and runoff to minimize impacts related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and related to the alteration of existing drainage patterns. Further, because a majority of future discretionary projects that would implement CAAP Actions would occur on already paved and developed sites, operational BMPs would be implemented where treatment BMPs likely currently do not exist, which would improve stormwater quality discharges from those sites. Therefore, adoption of the proposed CAAP and Safety Element Update would not result in impacts associated with the violation of water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements or with the alteration of a stream or river or drainage patterns.

As stated above, groundwater supply for the City is considered to be very reliable, even during multi-year droughts because extractions are strictly limited and because multiple forms of replenishment exist. Because the CAAP Actions are considered at a program level and for how they

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-15 would apply to future discretionary projects anticipated by the General Plan LUE, which focuses on infill development projects on parcels that are currently paved and /or developed, the proposed CAAP Actions would not substantially increase impervious surface areas in a manner that would substantially decrease infiltration. Therefore, adoption of the proposed CAAP and Safety Element Update would not result in the substa ntial depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.

According to Figure LU -1 in the General Plan LUE, most of the City is located in areas that are not within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zones, with the exception of areas near the Port of Long Beach, Downtown, and Naples Island. As such, future applicants of discretionary projects would be required to obtain development permits from the City’s Floodplain Administrator for future projects proposed in FEMA special flood hazard areas to minimize flooding impacts to people and structures. Therefore, adoption of the proposed CAAP and Safety Element Update, which do not include any physical development, would not result in impacts related to flooding.

According to the City’s Seismic Safety Element (1988) and the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA), the majority of the City is not located within a zone of seiche areas. Similarly, the majority of the City is located outside of the Tsunami Inundation Zone, with the exception of the Port of Long Beach and in areas along the coastline and the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers.

However, in the event of a tsunami, the City has established response procedures as described in the City of Long Beach Hazar d Mitigation Plan (2017). Therefore, adoption of the proposed CAAP and Safety Element Update, which do not include any physical development, would not result in flood hazards associated with inundation as a result of a tsunami or seiche. Therefore, this issue is not evaluated further in this Draft SEIR.

While the proposed project includes text amendments to the Safety Element , these amendments are to recognize climate impacts and incorporate climate adaptation and resiliency strategies into the General Plan. Therefore, this issue is not evaluated further in this Draft SEIR.

The proposed text amendments to the Safety Element include a discussion of flooding related specifically to sea level rise and climate change. As this discussion of floo ding is related specifically to climate change impacts as a result of greenhouse gas emission s, this discussion is contained in Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft SEIR.

2.5.7 Mineral Resources
According to the City’s General Plan Conservation Element (1973), the mineral resources within the City have historically consisted of oil and natural gas. However, over the last century, oil and natural gas extractions have diminished as the resources have become increasingly depleted. Although extraction operations continue, they are on a reduced scale as compared to past historic levels. The proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element, which are considered policy/planning actions and adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development that would result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value. As a result of project implementation, availability of existing mineral resources and locally important mineral resource

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELE MENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-16 recovery sites would remain unchanged. Any future discretionary project s within the City would be evaluated individually in compliance with CEQA, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, this issue is not evaluated further in this Draft SEIR.

2.5.8 Wildfire
In its existing setting, the planning area is almost entirely developed and is located in an urban area of L os Angeles County. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ( CAL FIRE) publishes maps that predict the threat of fire in individual counties in the State. Local responsibility areas and State or federal responsibility areas are classified as either very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) or non- VHFHSZ based on factors including fuel availability, topography, fire history, and climate. The planning area is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area or Local Responsibility and does not include land classified as VHFHSZ as defined by CAL FIRE. 6 The proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed CAAP and text amendments to the General Plan Safety Element, which are considered policy/planning actions and adoption of the prop osed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development that would result in exacerbated wildfire risk. Any future discretionary project s within the City would be evaluated individually in compliance with CEQA, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed.

Therefore, this issue is not evaluated further in this Draft SEIR.

2.6 FORMAT OF THE EIR
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15120(c), this Draft S EIR contains the information and analysis r equired by State CEQA Guidelines , Sections 15122 through 15131. Each of the required elements is covered in one of the Draft SEIR chapters described below.

Chapter 1.0: Executive Summary
Chapter 1.0 contains the Executive Summary of the Draft SEIR, listing all significant p roject impacts and the level of significance of each impact. The summary is presented in a tabular format.

Chapter 2.0: Introduction
Chapter 2.0 contains a discussion of the purpose and intended use of the Draft S EIR. A summary discussion of effects found not to be significant and , therefore, not included in the Draft SEIR analysis is also included in this chapter.

Chapter 3.0: Project Description
Chapter 3.0 includes a discussion of the p roject’s geographical setting, the histo ry of the planning area, the project’s goals, objectives, characteristics, and components , and the anticipated discretionary action for the project.

6 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2021. Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Website: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed September 27, 2021).

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-17 Chapter 4.0: Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Chapter 4.0 includes an analysis of the proposed project’s environmental impacts. It is organized into the following topical sections: aesthetics, air quality, energy, green house gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems . The environmental setting discussions describe the “existing conditions” of the environment in the planning area and in the vicinity of the site as they pertain to the environmental issues being analyzed (Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines).

The project impact discussions identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. The direct and indirect significant effects of the proposed project on the environment are identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long- term effects, as necessary (Section 15126.2[a] of the State CEQA Guidelines).

Chapter 4.0 also includes a discussion of the cumul ative effects of the proposed project within the analysis of each environmental topic when considered in combination with other projects, causing related impacts as required by Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Cumulative impacts are based on the General Plan buildout scenario.

Chapter 5.0: Alternatives to the Proposed Project
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the alternatives discussion in Chapter 5.0 describes a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and that are capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a less than significant level. The alternative analyzed in Chapter 5.0 includes the No Project Alternative. Other alternatives commonly considered, including the Reduced Project Alternative and the Alternate Location Alternative , are not applicable due to the nature of the proposed project being a policy/planning action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development. The substantive reasons for the elimination of such alternatives are provided in Chapter 5.0. The environmentally superior alternative is also identified.

Chapter 6.0: Long-Term Implications of the Project
Chapter 6.0 includes CEQA -mandated discussions required by Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines regarding: (a) significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of the proposed p roject, (b) significant adverse environmental impacts for which either no mitigation or only partial mitigation is feasible, and ( c) growth-inducing impac ts of the proposed project.

Chapter 7.0: List of Preparers and Persons Consulted
Chapter 7.0 provides a list of the preparers of the Draft SEIR, the CAAP, and the Safety Element Update, as well as persons consulted during preparation of the Draft SEIR.

Chapter 8.0: References
Chapter 8.0 provides the references cited in this Draft SEIR.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELE MENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\2.0 Introduction.docx «03/15/22» 2-18

2.7 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
As permitted in Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR may reference all or portions of another document that is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public.

Information from the documents that have been incorporated by reference has been briefly summarized in the appropriate sections of this Draft SEIR, along with a description of how the public may obtain and review these documents. These documents include:
• City of Long Beach General Plan Elements (as amended) ( website: http://www.longbeach. gov/lbds/planning/advance/general-plan/)
• City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements Environmental Impact Report ( 2019 Certified Program EIR ) (website: https://www.longbeach.gov/lbds/ planning/ environmental/reports/)
• City of Long Beach Municipal Code and other titles referenced herein ( website: https://www. municode.com/library/ca/long_beach/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=16115) • Proposed Long Beach Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (website: https://www.longbeach. gov/lbds/planning/caap/)
• Proposed Long Beach General Plan Safety Element Update (March 2022) (Appendix B) (website:
http://www.longbeach.gov/lbds/planning/advance/general-plan/) Documents that are incorporated by reference are available for review at the website links noted above and at the City of Long Beach, Department of Development Services, 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3
rd Floor, Long Beach, California 90802.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx «03/16/22» 3-1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( SEIR) has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts that may result from i mplementation of the proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) Project and Safety Element Update (proposed project). As Lead Agency, the City of Long Beach (City) has the authority for preparation of this Draft SEIR and, after the comment/ response process, certification of the Final SEIR and approval of the proposed project as described in this Draft SEIR. The City and Responsible Agencies have the authority to make decisions o n discretionary actions r elated to the approval of the proposed p roject. This Draft SEIR is intended to serve as an informational d ocument to be c onsidered by the Cit y and the Responsible Agencies during deliberations on the proposed p roject. This Draft SEIR evaluates for a reasonable worst -case scenario of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and p rovides mitigation where necessary. The analysis in t his Draft S EIR is based on the proposed Draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) (City of Long Beach, December 2020) ( provided in Appendix B), the Draft Safety Element Update (City of Long Beach) (provided in Appendix C), and the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Consistency Review Checklist and Technical Support Documentation (ESA, 2021) (provided in Appendix D).

The proposed CAAP is a comprehensive planning document providing a framework to reduce future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the City of Long Beach through climate action strategies and lessen the impacts of climate change on the City through climate adaptation strategies . As a qualified climate action pla n pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), th e proposed CAAP may be used to streamline the GHG analysis for future plans and projects undergoing review pursuant to Section 15183.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines . CEQA review of subsequent plans and projects that are consistent with the GHG reduction strategies and targets in the proposed CAAP may take advantage of CEQA streamlining for project -level GHG analysis on a project-by-project basis. The proposed Safety Element Update builds from the CAAP and is designed to address recent State legislation requiring cities to include goals, policies , objectives, and feasible implementation measures that place a greater emphasis on climate change impacts, including increased risks related to wildfires and flooding. The proposed amendments would bring the Safety Element up to date and into compliance with a number of State laws including relating to climate change and resiliency . This Draft SEIR constitutes the environmental review of the proposed CAAP and Safety Element Update as planning document s. Neither the proposed CAAP nor the Safety Element Update proposes physical improvements and approval of these planning and policy documents would not constitute approval of any physical development. Any development or physical improvements incorporating features of the proposed project would be subject to project- specific CEQA review.

3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
As illustrated on Figure 3 -1, Project Location , the City (also referred to as the “ planning area”) includes the entire 50 square miles within the limits of the City of Long Beach (excluding the City of Signal Hill, which is completely surrounded by the City of Long Beach) in Los Angeles County (County), California. The City is bordered on the wes t by the Cities of Carson and Los Angeles (including Wilmington and the Port of Los Angeles); on the north by the Cities of Compton,

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-2 Paramount, and Bellflower , and the unincorporated community of Rancho Dominguez ; and on the east by the Cities of Lakewood, Hawaiian Gardens, Cypress, Los Alamitos, and Seal Beach , and the unincorporated community of Rossmoor . The Pacific Ocean borders the southern portion of the City, and as such, portions of the City are located within the California Coastal Zone.

Regional access to the City is provided by Interstate 710 (I -710, which traverses the western portion of the City from north to south), Interstate 405 (I-405, which traverses the central portion of the City from northwest to southeast), State Route 91 (SR-91 , which traverses the northernmost portion of the City from east to west), State Routes 103 and 47 (SR-103 and SR -47, respectively, which traverse the western border of the City from north to south), and State Route 1 (SR- 1, which traverses the central portion of the City from east to west) , commonly referred to as Pacific Coast Highway (PCH or SR-1). In addition, Interstate 605 and State Route 22 (I-605 and SR -22, respectively, and located northeast and east of the City) provide access to the eastern portion of the City.

In addition, a variety of transit routes maintained by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Long Beach Transit, and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provide both regional and local access to and within the City. A variety of bicycle lanes and paths serve the City, including regional connections along PCH, the San Gabriel River pathway, and the Los Angeles River pathway.

3.2 PROJECT HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CAAP
In November 2015, Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia si gned an official commitment to the Compact of Mayors ( Compact, now called the Global Covenant of Mayors), a global coalition working to collectively reduce GHG emissions and enhance resilience to climate change. In order to comply with Compact requirements , the City must establish a plan for climate action and a plan for adaptation. Given the need for climate action and adaptation planning, the City’s desire to be a leader in climate planning, and the myriad of state requirements related to GHG reduction an d planning for climate adaptation, the City decided to develop a comprehensive climate action and adaptation plan through a single planning process.

Technical analysis that became the basis of the CAAP began in 2016, including a review of available climate science for Long Beach, a climate hazards analysis, vulnerability assessments and mapping, GHG emissions inventories and forecasts, and GHG reductions target setting. Three Working Groups, a Scientific, Community and Business Working Group, were convened in 2017. Broader community engagement for the CAAP began in 2018.

Between mid-2018 and mid -2019, a variety of community outreach events and activities were held and focused on validating the data and risk assessments, then developing and prioritizing polic y solutions found in a draft CAAP that was released in mid -2019. Stakeholder engagement was key to the process and had two main components : (1) working with a series of stakeholder working groups and (2) extensive public outreach. Three stakeholder working groups were convened throughout the development of the proposed CAAP, including a scientific working group, a business working group, and a community working group. In addition to the stakeholder workin g groups, the proposed CAAP was also informed by an extensive public engagement process, which reached out to almost 10,000 residents and stakeholders at more than 60 events, including community meetings, open houses,

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx «03/16/22» 3-3 resource fairs, and expert panel discu ssions hosted throughout the C ity. The City worked in partnership with the working groups and the public to understand, prioritize, and plan mitigation measures and adaptation strategies towards CAAP goals and reduction target s, including new regulations, prioritized infrastructure improvements, strategies for growing a green economy, energy efficiency and alternative transportation incentive programs, urban greening efforts, and community partnerships.

3.3 CAAP RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL POLICIES One of the driving goals behind the proposed CAAP is its alignment with the various existing federal, State, and local policies guiding cities on how they can contribute to the overall federal, State, and local goals regarding climate change. In addition to the key policies related to the implementation of the proposed CAAP and Safety Element described below, please refer to Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Section 4.10, Transportation, of this Draft SEIR for a detailed discussion of all applicable federal, State, and local regulations and policies related to GHG emissions reductions and addressing global climate change impacts.

3.3.1 Emissions Reduction Targets
Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act, is California’s landmark climate change mitigation legislation. The act set initial statewide GHG emissions targets and directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to periodically update a Scoping Plan to outline the State’s plan for achieving emissions reductions. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update recommends local government goals of 6 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (C0 2e) per capita by 2030
and 2 MT CO2e per capita by 2050. The City has established a target t o reduce per -service population (SP) (i.e., residents plus employees) emissions from a baseline of approximately 4.5 MT CO2e/SP in 2015 to 3.04 MT CO2e/SP (2.0 million metric tons [MMT] CO2e) in 2030, and by 2045, the City has established an aspirational goal of achieving net carbon neutrality.

Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 (2015) updated existing statewide GHG emissions reduction goals to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2040, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Senate Bill (SB) 32 (2016), the California Global Warming Solutions Act, updates AB 32, requiring California to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32 continues the timeline set by AB 32 to reach the targets set in EO B-30-15.

EO B-55-18 (2018) calls for statewide net carbon neutrality by 2045, as well as to achieve and maintain negative net emissions in subsequent years.

3.3.2 General Plan Safety Element Updates
Recent State legislation requires that cities include goals, policies, objectives, and feasible implementation measures that place a greater emphasis on climate change impacts, including increased risks related to wildfires, flooding, and climate change.

AB 3065 (2005) and SB 1241 (2012) require consideration of State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Safety Element of General Plans.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-4 The Safety Element must also address peak load water supply requirements and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as they relate to identified topics related to both f ire and geologic hazards (Government Code Section 65302[g][1]).

SB 99 (2019) requires the identification of residential developments in any identified hazard area s that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes.

AB 747 (2019) requires the safety element to identify evacuation routes and “their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios.”
The flood legislation package encompassed by SB 5, AB 162, AB 70 (2007) , and SB 1278 (2012) requires safety elements to identify flo od hazards and to establish a set of comprehensive goals, policies, and objectives for the protection of the community from risks of flooding. These flood protection bills also included new consultation requirements for the preparation and revision of safety elements. SB 379 (2015) requires the Safety Element to include a climate change vulnerability assessment, measures to address climate change vulnerabilities, and a comprehensive climate hazard mitigation and emergency response strategy.

SB 1035 (2018) requires the safety element be reviewed and updated upon each revision of the housing element no less than once every eight years, to address climate adaptation and resiliency and identify new information related to flood and fire hazards.

3.3.3 Relationship to the General Plan and CEQA Streamlining for GHG Analysis The proposed CAAP was included as Mitigation Measure GHG-1 of the City’s General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Element s EIR, which was certified in December 2019. Recognizing that the State obligates the City to create opportunities for increased housing and jobs to meet the needs of a growing population, the proposed CAAP outlines requirements, incentives, and potential policies to ensure more sustainable development.

In order to meet obligations under State law, local governments may prepare a Plan for Reduction of Greenhouse Gases that is consistent with AB 32 and SB 32 goals. The development of such a plan can be used to streamline the GHG analysi s for future plans and projects undergoing review pursuant to Section 15183.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines . This approach allows jurisdictions to address GHG emissions at a community -wide level to determine the most effective and efficient methods to reduc e them, to identify the reduction measures that would promote the goals of the General Plan, and to employ the reduction measures that have the most co -benefits (such as, for improving mobility and access, increasing local economic development, reducing ho usehold and business utility and transportation costs, and improving public health). The CAAP serves as the plan for reduction of GHG emissions for the City. Future discretionary plans and projects that are consistent with the GHG reduction strategies and targets in the p roposed CAAP may be able to take advantage of CEQA streamlining for project-level GHG analysis.

The proposed project also includes amendments to and combining of the Public and Seismic Safety Elements to incorporate recognition of climate change and resiliency , consistent with the climate adaptation and resiliency considerations and strategies included in the proposed CAAP. As described

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx «03/16/22» 3-5 above, SB 379 requires that cities and counties include climate a daptation and resiliency strategies in their General Plans to ensure the safety and protection of their communities. In addition, through the CAAP process, information was gathered to develop a report to comply with SB 691, which requires local planning to address sea level rise in the Tidelands area of the City.

The City currently addresses safety issues in two of its General Plan elements: the Public Safety Element and the Seismic Safety Element. The Public Safety Element is proposed to be updated to reflect recent information and mapping, and to meet the requirements of State law. The Draft Safety Element Update provides additional information related to climate adaptation and resiliency, including flood hazards, wildland and urban fire hazards, water supply for firefighting, evacuation routes, road widths and clearance around structures, and hazardous materials handling and transportation . The Seismic Safety Element would be consolidated into the proposed Safety Element, with the information updated to reflect the most current data and Building Code requirements, including descriptions and exhibits related to earthquake fault locations, surface fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction and earthquake-induced settlement, and tsunamis, along with other geologic hazards including soil erosion, landslides, and mu dslides. The proposed project includes the adoption of an updated and consolidated single Safety Element.

General Plans are required to include goals, policies, objectives, and feasible implementation measures that avoid and minimize public risk from ident ified hazards. The current General Plan Seismic Safety and Public Safety Elements contain a set of recommendations, but do not include a listing of policies. Therefore, distinct goals, policies, objectives, and implementation programs designed to protect t he public from safety hazards are proposed for the newly consolidated Safety Element. The draft updates to the Safety Element incorporate the proposed CAAP as well as reference to and incorporation of other recent City planning documents, such as the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (2015), Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017), and Tsunami Preparedness Guide (2017).

3.3.3.1 CAAP Checklist
As a qualified climate action plan pursuant to CEQA, the proposed CAAP provides the framework to achieve the City’s GHG reduction targets, and the CAAP Consistency Review Checklist (CAAP Checklist) would be used as the basis for future assessments of consistency with this plan in lieu of a project-specific GHG CEQA analysis for future discretionary projects subject to CEQA (Appendix D).

The CAAP Checklist is required to accompany the City’s Environmental Determination Application Checklist for all projects and plans subject to CEQA review, whether supported by private or government (local o r State) funding, proposed within the City l imits. Future discretionary projects, including projects proposed by private developers , other agencies, or City-implemented municipal projects, would first be reviewed to see if they meet the screening criteria included in the Consistency Checklist. If a project is both consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) and demonstrates consistency with the General Plan and CAAP Checklist, then the project is considered consistent with the CAAP and is eligible for CEQA streamlining of project -level GH G analysis. Alternatively, if a project can demonstrate that it w ould achieve fewer than 1.4 MT CO2e/SP or less, which is the CAAP’s effective efficiency-level reduction target for new development, then the project would be considered consistent with the CAAP. If a project cannot fully demonstrate consistency with every component of the General Plan and CAAP Checklist, it may

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-6 propose alternative actions but must provide substantial evidence as to how such actions would achieve the same or greater level of GHG emissions reductions as the CAAP Action that it replaces. If the project is inconsistent with the LUE and requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA), the project may still be eligible for streamlining of a project -level GHG analysis if it can be demonstrated that either (1) the GPA project would achieve emissions of 1.4 MT CO2e/SP or less; or (2) the GPA would allow a land use designation to facilitate a lower per -service population carbon footprint than the existing designation ( e.g., if a GPA were for a higher density residential or mixed -use designation near transit compared to the existing land use designation) . Such a project would still be eligible to utilize the CAAP Checklist to demonstrate consistency. If a project does not demonstrate consistency through any of the avenues described above, a project -specific GHG analysis w ould be required.

Lastly, if through the preparation of the C AAP Checklist, a project cannot implement the required Tier 1 CAAP Actions requ ired for all future discretionary projects or cannot demonstrate implementation of equivalent replacement strategies , a project -specific GHG analysis w ould be required. These steps for utilizing the CAAP Checklist are described in further detail below.

Screening Criteria. Certain projects may be screened out of the CAAP Checklist if they meet certain criteria designed to ensure high efficiency and low GHG emissions. Projects that meet the following screening criteria would generally be consistent with the CAAP’s GHG emissions reduction actions (CAAP Actions) for new development and would therefore also be considered consistent with the CAAP: If the project would achieve emissions of 1.4 MT CO2e/SP or less, the project would be considered consistent wit h the CAAP and no project -specific GHG impact analysis would be required.

Additionally, projects may skip completion of the Transportation subsection of the CAAP Checklist if they meet one of the following criteria:

1. Located in a Transit Priority Area or High Quality Transit Area (HQTA).

2. Include local -serving retail (e.g., grocery stores, pharmacies, or restaurants) less than 50,000 square feet.

3. Include 100 percent affordable housing.

4. Would result in fewer than 110 daily trips per day.

Even i f the project meets one of these criteria, completion of the Building Energy and Waste sections of the CAAP Checklist would still be required.

Consistency with General Plan Land Use Assumptions. Projects that are consistent with the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions used in the CAAP (i.e., consistent with the City’s General Plan LUE) can utilize the CAAP Checklist to demonstrate consistency with the CAAP, and if consistent, can tier from the existing programmatic environmental review contained in the adopted Subsequent EIR for the CAAP and adopted EIR for the General Plan LUE . In doing so , pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b) , a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions effect may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable. This approach is consistent with the recommendations of the Association of

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx «03/16/22» 3-7 Environmental Professionals (AEP) Climate Change Committee (2016) for tiering from qualified GHG reduction plans that demonstrate substantial progress toward meet ing the next milestone statewide planning reduction target (i.e., a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 as set forth by SB 32).

The CAAP Checklist for new development provides a mechanism for projects to specifically identify “those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project” per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(2)).

GHG emissions associated with construction from a land use development project are generally orders of magnitude lower than the operational emissions. This is because construction emissions are typically short in duration compared to the project’s overall lif etime. Therefore, construction emissions can be assessed qualitatively as part of related CEQA GHG emissions analysis. However, some projects may have long construction periods or entail substantial excavation and grading that could result in construction -related GHG emissions that may be considered significant. Therefore, the City retains the discretion on a project -by-project basis to consider whether a project’s construction-related GHG emissions could be cumulatively considerable and require more detailed quantitative CEQA GHG emissions analysis and mitigation.

If a project is not consistent with the land use designations of the adopted General Plan LUE, it is not eligible for streamlining of a project -level GHG analysis through the CAAP Checklist unless it can be demonstrated that the requested change in land use designation would support the CAAP’s strategies and emissions reduction targets by changing the existing land use to a land use designation anticipated to result in fewer per -service population emissions, such as to a higher density residential or mixed-use designation near transit, which is consistent with the CAAP goals and policies. Projects that are inconsistent with existing General Plan land use designations and that cannot demonstrate the GPA would reduce per -service population emissions compared to existing land use designations at the project site must prepare a comprehensive project -specific analysis of GHG emissions. This analysis must quantify existing and projected GHG emissions and incorpora te Tier 1 CAAP Actions or equivalent replacement strategies and Tier 2 CAAP Actions to the extent feasible, along with identified project-specific mitigation measures.

CAAP Actions. The proposed CAAP in cludes GHG reduction actions (hereto referred to as CAAP Actions) for the categories of Building and Energy (BE), Transportation (T), and Waste (W). 1 The CAAP Checklist includes a variety of measures that support the CAAP Actions . All future discretionary projects seeking to utilize the CAAP Checklist to streamline the project’s GHG analysis under CEQA must demonstrate consistency with the se measures or document why the measures that support the CAAP Actions are not applicable or are infeasible, and alternative measures must be identified and quantified as replacement strategies. The CAAP Checklist categorizes all measures as either Tier 1 or Tier 2. Refer to Table 2 of the C AAP Checklist provided in Appendix D of this

1 The proposed CAAP de scribes the GHG reduction actions as “Mitigation Actions”; however, for the purposes of this Subsequent EIR, these actions are referred to as “CAAP Actions”, as they are strategies intended to mitigate the effects of GHG emissions but are not mitigation me asures as defined under CEQA.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-8 document for the list of all Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures that support the CAAP Actions. A project - specific environmental document that relies on the CAAP Checklist for its GHG emissions impacts analysis would identify the specific CAAP Actions applicable to the project and would also describe how the project incorporates Tier 1 measures as required, or equivalent replacement strategies, and Tier 2 measures, as applicable . If the measures are not otherwise binding and enforceable, they must be incorporated as mitigation measures or pro ject conditions of approval, or as some other mechanism to ensure implementation.

Tier 1. Tier 1 measures are considered as mandatory or required for all future discretionary projects that may utilize the CAAP Checklist for GHG streamlining per the screening criteria described above either because they support the five quantified CAAP Actions or because they are required under the existing regulatory setting . Refer to the CAAP Checklist and Technical Support Documentation ( Appendix D) for th e substantial evidence and calculations that demonstrate how the Tier 1 measures support five quantified CAAP Actions (BE-1, BE -2, T -1, W-1, and W -2) and ensure that future development is doing its fair share towards meeting the City’s GHG reduction targets.2
Tier 2. Tier 2 measures are comprised of additional GHG reduction strategies from CAAP Actions that are not quantified as part of the City’s GHG reduction pathway as well as measures to implement CAAP Adaptation Actions as part of future discretionar y projects . Tier 2 measures would also support the CAAP Actions and are encouraged to be implemented by future discretionary projects, as applicable, to help facilitate the City’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions and lessen the impacts of climate change.

The proposed CAAP provides details on implementing the se GHG reduction and adaptation strategies, including the party or parties responsible for implementation at a citywide level. The CAAP Checklist translates the program-level CAAP Actions to measures that can be implemented at the project level. CAAP Actions also include GHG reduction strategies that apply to the City itself , as well as Adaptation Actions that are encouraged to be included with future discretionary projects , as applicable, but may be implemented by the City or other agencies and may not all be subject to CEQA. As the CAAP Checklist is intended to provide an avenue for streamlining for project-level GHG analysis under CEQA, the CAAP Checklist would only apply to future discretio nary projects . For all future discretionary projects, the City would review the CAAP Consistency Checklist to determine if the project is consistent with the General Plan LUE and whether: (a) the project meets the screening criteria and is consistent by the nature of the project ; (b) the project would implement all required Tier 1 CAAP Actions and Tier 2 CAAP Actions and/or Adaptation Actions, as applicable; (c) the project includes one or more replacement strategies that would be equally or more effective in reducing GHG emissions, and such replacement strategy or strategies are not included in the proposed CAAP or required by any other regulation, standard, design criteria, or other existing requirement ; or (d) the project is inconsistent with the CAAP and a project-specific GHG analysis is required.

2 Only four Tier 1 measures were quantified, representing implementation of five quantified CAAP measures. There are an additional seven Tier 1 measures that were not quantified for new development in the CAAP; these measures are required for all projects to demonstrate consistency with the CAAP (including the BAU forecasts), but are not tied directly to specific GHG emission reductions. See the Technical Support Documentation, provided in Appendix D, for more information.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx «03/16/22» 3-9

3.4 PROPOSED PROJECT

3.4.1 Summary
The proposed project is the adoption of a CAAP, and it represents the City’s first plan of this type.

The proposed CAAP is a comprehensive and programmatic planning document outli ning the City’s proposed approach both to address climate impacts on Long Beach and to reduce Long Beach’s impact on the climate by reducing GHG emissions. The proposed CAAP provide s a framework to reduce the City's GHG footprint (climate action) and ensure the community and physical assets are better protected from the impacts of climate change (climate adaptation). The vision of the proposed CAAP is to create a more sustainable, resilient , and equitable city by addressing climate change in a way that remedies existing environmental health disparities while also improving health, quality of life, and enhancing economic vitality throughout Long Beach. The proposed CAAP includes a roadmap for implementing new polices, programs, incentives, requirements, projects, and initiatives in the immediate future, as well as longer -term actions that will need to be studied further while monitoring how the climate continues to change and evaluating the effectiveness of actions taken.

The proposed CAAP discusses several desired high-level outcomes , which are organized into the following themes : low carbon, climate resilient buildings and neighborhoods; safe and adaptable infrastructure; protected and enhanced natural systems; a healthy, resilient and ready population; and, residents and businesses with a minimized carbon footprint. The purpose of the CAAP is to implement a range of actions to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to climate change impacts. The actions proposed by the CAAP are organized by the desired outcomes , which represent the underlying values of the CAAP.

The proposed CAAP is organized into the following chapters:
• Chapter 1.0: What is the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan? • Chapter 2.0: How was the CAAP Developed?
• Chapter 3.0: Understanding Climate Change in Long Beach • Chapter 4.0: Adaptation Actions
• Chapter 5.0: GHG Inventory, Forecasts, and Targets
• Chapter 6.0: Mitigation Actions
• Chapter 7.0: City Leadership and Funding
• Chapter 8.0: Performance and Monitoring
Plans prepared to reduce GHG emissions are considered qualified GHG reduction plans if they meet the criteria established in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5[b][1] . The proposed CAAP must therefore achieve the following criteria in order to be considered a qualified plan:
• Complete a baseline emissions inventory and project future emissions. • Identify a community-wide reduction target.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-10 • Prepare a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to identify strategies and measures to meet the reduction target.
• Monitor the effectiveness of reduction measures and adapt the plan to changing conditions. • Adopt the CAP in a public process following environmental review.

The proposed CAAP addresses each of these criteria, as summarized below.

Chapter 5 .0 of the proposed CAAP includes the GHG inventory and presents the 2015 base year emissions inventory and forecasts, the City’s 2030 emissions target, and an aspirational goal to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2045 . The methodology and data that support this chapter are further detailed in Appendix A of the proposed CAAP (GHG Methodology & 2030 Reduction Target Pathway). Chapter 6 .0 of the proposed CAAP contains three subsections, one for each p roposed CAAP emissions sector area, that describe the CAAP A ctions that will be implemented to achieve the City’s GHG targets. The implementation mechanisms at the project level for these CAAP Actions are provided in Appendix D , the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Consistency Review Checklist and Technical Support Documentation . Chapter 7 .0 of the proposed CAAP includes City leadership, funding, and financing strategies, and Chapter 8.0 of the proposed CAAP describes the City’s process for monitoring, evaluating, and revising the proposed CAAP to ensure that the estimated strategy reductions do occur so that the targets are achieved. Refer to Section 3.4.2 below for a detailed discussion of the City’s GHG re duction targets. As part of the proposed CAAP, the City has included adaptation strategies that the City will pursue to adapt to and protect against major anticipated climate change impacts such as extreme heat, worsening air quality, drought, and sea level rise and flooding. Chapter s 4.0 and 6 .0 of the proposed CAAP include the adaptation and mitigation strategies, respectively. This Draft SEIR demonstrates compliance with the criteria for the environmental review process of the proposed CAAP.

3.4.2 GHG Inventory, Forecasts, and Reduction Targets

3.4.2.1 GHG Inventory
As described above, the reduction of GHG emissions is the primary objective of the proposed CAAP.

The p roposed CAAP utilizes a baseline year of 2015 to reflect existing conditions at the time the CAAP development process began.

Establishing a baseline is necessary in order to understand how emissions will increase through 2050 if no GHG reduction action is taken. The baseline is also used to develop reduction strategies and evaluate their effectiveness in meeting GHG emissions targets set by the p roposed CAAP. This is the first time that the City has calculated a community-wide inventory or set a GHG reduction target.

The emissions results are expressed as MT CO 2e/yr to provide a standard measurement that incorporates the varying global warming potential (GWP) values of different GHGs. The GWP describes how much heat a GHG can trap in the atmosphere relative to carbon dioxide, which has a

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx «03/16/22» 3-11 GWP of 1. For example, me thane has a GWP of 28, which means that 1 MT of methane will trap 28 times more heat than 1 MT of carbon dioxide, which makes it a more potent GHG.3 To provide a robust understanding of the GHG inventory, GHG emissions we re analyzed using three different accounting methods: production -based inventory, consumption -based inventory, and life cycle emissions inventory. The primary emissions analysis is a production - based inventory which accounts for emissions produced within t he community, such as vehicle travel, home energy use, and waste disposal. The production -based inventory is the foundation for the City’s emissions forecasts and target setting, and it is the inventory against which CAAP implementation will be measured, consistent with S tate law and guidance including SB 32. For informational purposes and public education, t he proposed CAAP also include s a consumption - based inventory, which accounts for lifecycle emissions that occur inside and outside of the community from consumptive activities by individuals and businesses. The CAAP is also informed by an oil and gas lifecycle emissions inventory, whic h accounts for lifecycle emissions that occur inside and outside of Long Beach from oil and gas extraction activities within Long Beach . However, only the production-based inventory is considered in the analysis of this Draft S EIR, as the City can most directly influence emissions related to the sources included in the production inventory and as is recommended by State guidance.

The proposed CAAP represents a community -wide GHG inventory that follows the Global Protocol for Community -Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC) to support consistency in community-wide inventory preparation and comparison. Guidance provided in the GPC is the globally accepted framework for calculating and reporting community GHG emissions, as well as the standard used b y the Global Covenant of Mayors, the world’s largest cooperative effort among mayors and city officials to reduce global GHG emissions, track progress, and prepare for the impacts of climate change. The GPC requires cities to report their emissions by GHG, sector and sub- sector, and scope. The scopes framework helps to differentiate emissions occurring physically within the city (Scope 1) from those occurring outside the city (Scope 3), and from the use of energy supplied by grids (e.g., electricity) that may cross city boundaries (Scope 2).

The GPC also provides two levels of reporting, referred to as BASIC and BASIC+, for the sources of the emissions analyzed. The City of Long Beach developed a total production -based inventory that achieves the BASIC repo rting requirements and allows a comparison of the City’s emissions with those of other cities that follow the GPC methodology. BASIC+ reporting requires more comprehensive coverage of emissions sources, including some sources over which a city has limited control to reduce emissions. During preparation of the BASIC inventory, data were collected for additional BASIC+ emissions sources —transboundary aviation and transboundary port waterborne activity emissions —and analyzed separately to provide an additional emissions perspective. For example, emissions from airplanes landing at Long Beach Airport, which are federally regulated and over which the City has limited control, are not included in the BASIC inventory , but emissions associated with airport operation s that are in the City’s control, such as ground transport, are included. Finally, the City of Long Beach developed a jurisdictional production-based inventory, which accounts for emissions sources over which the City and community have some amount of

3 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . 2014. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Website:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ (accessed December 22, 2021).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-12 influence, for target setting and monitoring purposes. These jurisdictional emissions sources are primarily aligned with the BASIC inventory described above, except for the exclusion of port -based waterborne activities like cargo shipping.

The jurisdictional production-based inventory is organized into three emissions categories, or sectors, based on their sources:
• Stationary Energy: Emissions from building ele ctricity and natural gas use in residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial buildings, as well as emissions from energ y industries operating within the City limits.
• Transportation: Emissions associated with passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, rail transit, freight rail, off-road vehicles, and ground aviation operations. • Waste: Emissions from waste disposed in landfills or incinerated, and emissions from wastewater treatment.

To provide a complete emissions analysis, the City evaluated its total production inventory according to the BASIC and BASIC+ reporting frameworks. In 2015, th e City’s BASIC emissions totaled 3,100,468 MT CO 2e/yr, which equates to 6.6 MT CO 2e per resident (MT CO 2e/capita) and 5.0 MT CO2e/SP (i.e., residents and employees). In 2015, the City’s BASIC+ emissions totaled 3,366,173 MT CO2e/yr (or 7.2 MT CO 2e/capita and 5.4 MT CO 2e/SP), which reflect the BASIC inventory emissions with the addition of transboundary aviation and transboundary port waterborne activity emissions.

One of the primary purposes of a community emissions inventory is to inform city climate poli cy development, and the CAAP was designed to focus on opportunities for local action that are within the City’s and the community’s control. This is why the proposed CAAP focuses on jurisdictional emissions. Emissions occurring from vessel operations at th e Port of Long Beach are, in part, regulated at the State level by the CARB, and the City does not have the direct authority to dictate emissions reduction policies for private shipping companies that operate from the port. For this reason, the City has removed port waterborne activity from the emissions inventory analyzed in the proposed CAAP, although the air quality impacts of such activities are still considered and air quality Adaptation Strategies are proposed . Aviation operati ons include emissions associated with the operation of ground service equipment and generators at the Long Beach Airport. Emissions associated with transboundary airplane trips are not included in the BASIC reporting framework. The BASIC+ reporting framewo rk includes emissions from transboundary aviation; these actions are federally regulated, and therefore, the City has limited control.

Target setting and analysis within the proposed CAAP are based on the jurisdictional inventory, as described above. The jurisdictional inventory totals 2,799,123 MT CO 2e in 2015. This equates to
approximately 6.0 MT CO 2e/capita and 4. 5 MT CO2e/SP. Figure 3-2, Production Inventory Emissions Summary, illustrates the details of the City’s 2015 jurisdictional production inventory results by sector and sub-sector.

Emissions associated with energy use in port facilities and with on- road trucking activities associated with the Port of Long Beach are still included in the CAAP inventory and analyzed for GHG tar get- setting purposes. The Port of Long Beach not only develops its own annual emissions inventories,

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx «03/16/22» 3-13 but also developed a Clean Air Action Plan that is designed to improve air quality and reduce GHG emissions associated with port activities. As the Port of Long Beach is the entity responsible for implementation of its Clean Air Action Plan and reducing port emissions, the City’s proposed CAAP includes an Adaptation Action to implement this plan but does not replace the GHG emissions reduction efforts of that plan.

3.4.2.2 Forecasts
The production inventory was used to develop community -wide emissions forecasts for the 2030, 2040, and 2050 planning time frames. These “business -as-usual” (BAU) forecasts estimate how emissions could change in the future if no local act ion is taken, such as through CAAP implementation.4 The emissions forecasts provided in the Draft CAAP provide useful insights about the scale of reductions necessary to achieve the City’s emissions targets and represent a best estimate of the future.

Emissions were forecast using a variety of factors that represent the drivers of emissions growth in the community, such as local population grow th, employment, and travel demand modeling. The forecasts also take into account S tate requirements related to GHG reduction, such as the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, which is a State law that requires increasing amounts of renewable electricity in California and various vehicle efficiency standards that will reduce emissions from on-road transportation to help achieve California’s 2030 GHG targets.

As illustrated on Figure 3 -3, Business-as-Usual Emissions Forecasts 2015 –2050 and Emissions Targets, the City’s BAU emissions forecasts show that emissions are expected to decrease from 2015 through 2050 . The forecasted decline is largely a result of statewide and regional actions such as California’s RPS, which would result in a reduction in the carbon intensity of electricity supplied to the grid, an estimated decrease in natural gas use in the energy sector due to energy efficiency improvements (via SB 350 and utility programs) , the transition from natural gas uses to electricity in both existing and new buildings, and declining vehicle emission factors due to the Pavley vehicle fuel efficiency standards and vehicle turnover. Per capita emissions are estimated to decrease through 2050 from 6.0 MT CO
2e/capita in 2015 to 4.5 MT CO2e/capita in 20 30, and 3.1 MT CO 2e/capita in 2050, while per service population emissions are es timated to decrease from 4.5 MT CO 2e/SP to 3.3 MT CO2e/SP in 2030, and 2.2 MT CO2e/SP in 2050.

3.4.2.3 Reduction Targets
The City evaluated a series of GHG reduction target options during the development of the proposed CAAP. Several reduction target options were considered and were vetted by th e CAAP Scientific Working Group. The targets selected represent the City’s commitment to doing its fair share and meeting its requirements to help California achieve its ambitious statewide GHG targets.

Table 3.A outlines the State’s GHG reduction commitments.

4 The BAU forecast still takes into consideration the federal and State reduction measures described in this chapter as there is no scenario where the City would have the authority or intent to prevent these measures from occurring. These measures include the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), the Pavley vehicle fleet standards , the S outhern C alifornia Association of Governments’ (S CAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and others.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-14 Table 3.A: State of California Greenhouse Gas Targets
Target Year Target Corresponding Legislation
2020 Return to 1990 GHG levels by 2020 Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 2030 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 Senate Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 2045 Carbon neutrality by 2045 Executive Order B-55-18 of 2018 2050 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 Executive Order S-3-05 of 2005 Source: City of Long Beach, Proposed Long Beach CAAP, Table 8 (December 2020).

CAAP = Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
GHG = greenhouse gas

The City’s near-term 2030 target was selected based on guidance provided in CARB’s 2017 California Climate Change Scoping Plan and was developed to demonstrate consistency with the statewide 2030 target shown in Table 3.B . The City’s 2030 target is established on a per -service population basis and aims to achieve emissions rates of 3.04 MT CO 2e/SP. This compares to the City’s 2030 BAU forecast of 3.34 MT CO 2e/SP. Based on the City’s service population growth estimates, the 2030 target emissions level is 1,984,272 MT CO 2e/yr. GHG reductions of approximately 192,659 MT CO 2e will be required to achieve this target, or a reduction of approximately 0.3 MT CO 2e/SP compared to BAU. Table 3.B summarizes the City’s 2030 GHG target.

Table 3.B: City of Long Beach GHG Reduction Targets
2030 GHG Target 3.04 MT CO2e/Service Population
Emissions Business as Usual Forecast 2,176,931 MT CO2e/yr Emissions Target Level 1,984,272 MT CO2e/yr
GHG Reductions Needed 192,659 MT CO2e/yr
Source: City of Long Beach, Proposed Long Beach CAAP, Table 9 (revised) (December 2020).

GHG = greenhouse gas

The CAAP’s 2030 target of 3.04 MT CO 2e/SP aligns with the statewide 2030 target as codified in SB 32 and the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan Update. This value is derived from an adjusted statewide emissions inventory that accounts for the same local emissions sources contained in the CAAP’s emissions inventory for the C ity. This was done because community GHG inventories often do not include all of the same emissions sectors as the statewide inventory. Therefore, a scaled version of the full statewide emissions inventory was based on the emissions inventory sectors occurring in Long Beach, which is more appropriate for use in community CAAP target -setting because it draws a clearer correlation between the City’s GHG target and its relationship to the State’s own targets.

After excluding emissions not included in the CAAP’s inventory and forecast, the adjusted s tatewide 1990 inventory is 324.4 MMT CO2e (versus the full inventory of 431 MMT CO 2e). To align with SB 32 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030), the 2030 target emissions level for the State would be 194.6 MMT CO2e. The total projected service population of California is 64.6 million; therefore , the adjusted SB 32 target for 2030 would be 3.04 MT CO2e/SP. This target also sets the City on a trend to achieve California’s 2050 GHG emissions reduction target and would therefore align with the Paris Agreement 2°C goal.

Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and SB 32 is an appropriate metric by which the City may determine the significance of future discretionary projects’ GHG emissions impacts. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b)(3) states that a lead agency “may consider a project’s

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx «03/16/22» 3-15 consistency with the State’s long -term climate goals or strategies” when determining the significance of a project’s impacts. Additionally, in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (Newhall), the California Supreme Court sanctioned the use of such a threshold by stating that assessing a project’s GHG impacts based on a “consistency with a GHG emission reduction plan” threshold of sig nificance is legally permissible under CEQA. Further, the use of an efficiency metric as a threshold of significance for GHG emissions is supported in the literature by a number of sources. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research ’s (OPR) 2018 Discussion Draft: CEQA and Climate Change states that an efficiency metric is an appropriate method to determine significance: “A significance threshold that is based on an efficiency metric — rather than an absolute number —would allow lead agencies to compare pro jects of various types, sizes, and locations equally, and determine whether a project is consistent with the State’s reduction goals.” 5 The efficiency metric for 203 0 above is derived using the 2017 Scoping Plan’s recommendations for local land use develop ment to contribute their “fair share” of emission s reductions to the statewide GHG target for 2030. This is consistent with the AEP 2016 white paper recommendation for “Substantial Progress” thresholds for land use development to show consistency with statewide targets.
6 As discussed above, the proposed CAAP establishes a 2030 GHG target consistent with the State’s adopted 2030 GHG target (i.e., 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) and CAAP Actions are further defined to demonstrate a feasible and quantifiable reduction pathway toward target achievement.

The GHG inventory methodology and reduction pathway are detailed in Appendix A of the CAAP.

As discussed further in Appendix A of the CAAP, the CAAP evaluated the GHG reduction potential that w ould result from implementation of the CAAP along with other initiatives such as Southern California Edison’s (SCE) commitment to provide 80 percent carbon -free energy by 2030, as well as the additional net emissions reductions that would occur from voluntary participation in SCE’s Green Rate program. These separate initiatives were factored into the CAAP implementation scenario (not the BAU scenario).

The CAAP implementation scenario was developed using participation estimates and/or goals for the different electricity-focused CAAP actions to calculate what amount of future electricity demand would be provided by renewable sources in a manner that differs from the BAU scenario.

The proposed CAAP also includes an initial evaluation of a long -term aspirational GHG reduction goal to achieve net carbon neutrality and includes the strategies that will be required to achieve it.

The City has set an aspirational goal to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2045, which is consistent with California EO B-55-18, which calls for statewide net carbon neutrality in the same year.

5 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Discussion Draft: CEQA and Climate Change.

December 2018. Website: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20181228- Discussion_Draft_Climate_Change_ Adivsory.pdf (accessed December 2021).
6 Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) . 2016, Final White Paper - Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California, October 18. Website: https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf (accessed December 2021).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-16 Figure 3-3 also illustrates the City’s emissions forecasts and reduction targets. The gap between the emissions forecast (top line) and the target (bottom line) shows the amount of reductions needed in each year. The actions included in the proposed CAAP will help the City achieve its near -term 2030 target and begin moving forward on its path toward the 2045 aspirational goal.

3.4.3 CAAP Actions
The proposed CAAP identifies 21 priority GHG reduction actions (referred to as CAAP Actions), which are intended to reduce the C ity’s per -service population GHG emissions. CAAP A ctions are in the following sectors: Building and Energy, Transportation, and Waste. Each CAAP A ction identifies an implementation lead and partners, general timeline (short, medium, long) and City costs (low, medium, high), co -benefits, implementing sub -actions, and an equity strategy for maximizing benefits of each action for communities most impacted by climate change, including low -income communities of color. Appendix F of the proposed CAAP (provided in Appendix B of this Draft SEIR) includes a preliminary set of potential performance metrics associated with each action that will be considered. In addition to ongoing evaluation of efforts towards the GHG reduction target through bi-annual inventories, t hese will be used to track action -specific outcomes related to GHG reductions, co -benefits, and equity, and complement GHG monitoring as outlined in the Implementation and Monitoring chapter of the proposed CAAP.

Adoption of the propo sed CAAP would not directly propose, facilitate, or approve physical improvements or new development, but rather provide a set of strategies for reducing emissions citywide, including improvements to be implemented by the City, other agencies, or through both mandatory and encouraged strategies that would apply to future discretionary projects to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction targets . All future projects developed to implement CAAP Actions will be reviewed at the project level to determine if implementation of the action is subject to a discretionary action and review under CEQA. Future i mplementation of certain CAAP Actions may not be subject to CEQA review; however the proposed project includes the adoption of the CAAP at a programmatic level, and impacts from all potential future CAAP Actions at this time would be speculative. Therefore, the analysis in this Draft SEIR focuses on the potential impacts from the measures included in the CAAP Checklist to be incorpor ated as part of future discretionary projects, as well as the potential impacts of the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions at a programmatic level.

The Building and Energy (BE) CAAP Actions are intended to transition the City to renewable energy and increase energy efficiency in existing and new residential, commercial, and municipal buildings.

The Transportation (T) CAAP Actions facilitate existing City efforts to increase use of and improve transit service, expand the City’s bikeway and pedestrian networks, and increase housing and employment density along major transit corridors. New actions are also included to increase rapid bus service, establish bus-only lanes, and expand electric-vehicle charging infrastructure to further reduce emissions. The Waste (W) CAAP Actions are designed to increase recycling and expand communitywide participation in organic waste collection and diversion. Additional analysis will be needed to develop specific mitigation approaches and projects at specific locatio ns. CEQA review of subsequent plans and future discretionary projects that are consistent with the GHG reduction strategies and targets in the proposed CAAP may take advantage of CEQA streamlining for project- level GHG analysis on a project -by-project basi s by utilizing the Consistency Checklist provided in

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx «03/16/22» 3-17 Appendix D in place of a project -level GHG emissions analysis . However, this Draft SEIR does not analyze any physical improvements , facilitate future development, or environmentally clear future projects as the proposed project is the adoption of this programmatic planning document , and no physical development is contemplated at this time.

The proposed CAAP includes the following CAAP Actions that would demonstrate future projects’ consistency with the goals of the proposed CAAP:

Building and Energy
BE-1: Provide access to renewably generated electricity BE-2: Increase use of solar power
BE-3: Promote community solar and microgrids
BE-4: Develop a residential and commercial energy assessment and benchmarking program BE-5: Provide access to energy efficiency financing, rebates, and incentives for building owners BE-6: Perform municipal energy and water audits
BE-7: Update building codes to incentivize electric new residential and commercial buildings BE-8: Implement short-term measures to reduce emissions related to oil and gas extraction Transportation
T-1: Increase the frequency, speed, connectivity, and safety of transit options T-2: Expand and improve pedestrian infrastructure citywide T-3: Increase bikeway infrastructure citywide
T-4: Implement the Port of Long Beach Clean Trucks Program T-5: Develop an Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Master Plan T-6: Increase employment and residential development along primary transit corridors T-7: Update the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance T-8: Increase the density and mixing of land uses
T-9: Integrate SB 743 planning with the CAAP process
Waste
W-1: Ensure compliance with state law requirements for multifamily and commercial property recycling programs
W-2: Develop an organic waste collection program for City-serviced accounts W-3: Partner with private waste haulers to expand organic waste collection community-wide W-4: Identify organic waste management options

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-18 As discussed previously, the City has established a target to reduce per -service population (i.e., residents plus employees) GHG emissions from a baseline of approximately 4.5 MT CO 2e/SP in 2015 to 3.04 MT CO2e/SP (2.0 MMT CO2e) in 2030. The City has also established an aspirational goal of achieving net carbon neutrality by 2045. These CAAP A ctions, combined with reductions from State and federal initiatives, are estimated to result in the City meeting and slightly exceeding the 2030 target. As shown in Figure 3-4, 2030 Reduction Target , CAAP A ctions from the Building and Energy, Transportation, and Waste sectors are cumulatively estimated to achieve reductions totaling approximately 363,250 MT CO 2e, which represent emissions levels of 2.78 MT CO 2e/SP in 2030, compared to the target of 3.04 MT CO2e/SP and the BAU value of 3.3 MT CO2e/SP without the CAAP.

This figure also shows the distribution of emissions by sector in the 2030 forecasts and the 2030 mitigated scenario, which reflects implementation of the priority actions.

3.4.4 Climate Adaptation Planning
In addition to the CAAP Actions described above to reduce GHG emissions, t he proposed CAAP also identifies 40 Adaptation Actions, which are intended to improve the ability of Long Beach and its residents and businesses to adapt to climate change and lessen related negative impacts now and in the future. Adaptation Actions are organized into four climate impacts: extreme heat, air quality, drought, and flooding due to sea level rise . Each action identifies an implementation lead and partners, general timeline (short, medium, and long) and City costs (low, medium, and high ), co - benefits, implementing sub-actions, and an equity strategy. Appendix F of the proposed CAAP includes a preliminary set of potential performance metrics associated with each action that will be considered. These will be used to measure implementation outcomes related to reducing the impacts of climate change on the community, associated co-benefits, and equity considerations, and will complement GHG monitoring as outlined in the Implementation and Monitoring chapter of the proposed CAAP.

The Adaptation Actions do not include any physical improvements at this time but rather are intended to improve the City’s ability to adapt to climate change by incorporating specific strategies and improvements into future plans and projects, and by identifying and prioritizing locations and assets at the greatest risk of climate change impacts based on how soon and how severe impacts are anticipated, and generally envisioning the types of projects that may be needed to lessen climate change impacts at particular locations. However, additional analysis will be needed to develop specific adaptation approaches and projects at specific locations.

The Adaptation Actions include strategies to withstand rising temperatures and associated impacts related to worsening air quality, flooding associated with sea level rise and intense storm events, and drought. Extreme Heat Actions include new requirements such as cool roofs and reflective surfaces to reduce temperatures and save energy, tree plantings in communities that are most vulnerable to higher temperatures, and enhancing access to the cooling centers and to the coast. Air Quality Actions include strategies to reduce air pollution from a variety of sources such as buses, landscaping equipment, the Long Beach Airport, and food transportation. The Drought Actions include continuation of programs to meet and exceed state water use efficiency targets as well as new actions to increase the supply and use of recycled water, expand green infrastructure and streets, and increase the capture and storage of rainfall. The Sea Level Rise and Flooding Actions include strategies to address existing and future impacts by establishing a fl ood impacts monitoring

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx «03/16/22» 3-19 program, incorporating sea level rise into Ci ty policies, plans, and programs, investing in resilient infrastructure and buildings, and striving to preserve coastal access and recreation through elevation, retrofit or relocation of critical infrastructure . The Adaptation Actions in the CAAP are described for citywide implementation at a programmatic level , and the CAAP Checklist translates those actions into recommendation s for strategies that may be incorporat ed at the project level for future developments. The analysis contained in this Draft SEIR considers adoption of the CAAP at a programmatic level, and all future discretionary projects that implement Adaptation Actions would undergo project-level CEQA review as required.

The following Adaptation Actions are identified in the proposed CAAP:

Extreme Heat Actions
EH-1: Increase presence of cool roofs and cool walls
EH-2: Increase the presence of reflective streets, cool surfaces, and shade canopies EH-3: Enhance and expand urban forest cover and vegetation EH-4: Install additional water fountains and other actions to increase public access to water EH-5: Identify future vulnerability potential for power outages related to extreme heat and develop plans to prevent such outages
EH-6: Enhance and expand the accessibility of cooling centers EH-7: Provide bus shelter amenities
EH-8: Improve beach and coastal transit access during extreme heat events Air Quality Actions
AQ-1: Incentivize installation of photocatalytic tiles
AQ-2: Encourage urban agriculture practices that reduce air quality pollution AQ-3: Support the development of the Long Beach Airport Sustainability Plan AQ-4: Electrify small local emitters, such as lawn and garden equipment, outdoor power equipment, and others
AQ-5: Work with Long Beach United School District (LBUSD) to support school bus electrification AQ-6: Implement the Port of Long Beach Clean Air Action Plan AQ-7: Increase monitoring and regulation of oil extraction and refining process Drought Actions
DRT-1: Continue development and implementation of water use efficiency programs and implement additional water conservation programs
DRT-2: Enhance outreach and education related to water conservation DRT-3: Expand usage of green infrastructure and green streets

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-20 DRT-4: Expand usage of recycled water and greywater for non-potable use DRT-5: Incorporate increased rainfall capture and other actions to maximize local water supplies and offset imported water
Sea Level Rise and Flooding
FLD-1: Update and augment floodplain regulations as necessary FLD-2: Incorporate sea level rise language into citywide plans, policies, and regulations FLD-3: Establish a flood impacts monitoring program
FLD-4: Incorporate adaptation into City lease negotiations FLD-5: Update the City’s existing Stormwater Management Plan FLD-6: Conduct citywide beach stabilization study
FLD-7: Review and conduct studies of combined riverine/coastal flooding and increased severity of rainfall events on watershed flooding
FLD-8: Enhance dunes
FLD-9: Inventory and flood-proof vulnerable sewer pump stations FLD-10: Relocate/elevate critical infrastructure
FLD-11: Elevate riverine levees
FLD-12: Expand beach nourishment
FLD-13: Construct living shoreline/berm
FLD-14: Elevate street hardscapes
FLD-15: Elevate streets/pathways
FLD-16: Retrofit/extend sea wall
FLD-17: Retreat/realign parking lots
FLD-18: Extend/upgrade existing seawalls
FLD-19: Investigate feasibility of managed retreat
FLD-20: Evaluate feasibility of storm surge barrier at Alamitos Bay

3.4.5 Safety Element Update
As described in Section 3.3.1.2 above, t he proposed project also includes amendments to and combining of the current Public Safety and Seismic Safety Elements to incorporate recognition of climate change and resiliency, consistent with the climate adaptation and resiliency considerations and strategies included in the proposed CAAP . These amendments necessary to provide an updated and consolidated Safety Element represent a planning action intended to comply with State law. The proposed Draft Safety Element Update is provided in Appendix C of this Draft SEIR.

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx «03/16/22» 3-21

3.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The proposed CAAP, as Mitigation Measure GHG -1 of the 2019 Certified Program EIR, helps the City achieve the objectives identified for the Land Use and Urban Design Elements Project and establishes several project objectives, which would help reduce citywide GHG emissions (refer to Chapters 4.0 and 6.0 of the proposed CAAP) and improve the ability of Long Beach and its residents and businesses to adapt to climate change. In addition, amendments to provide the updated and consolidated Safety Element also establish objectives to ensure the City’s policies related to safety incorporate climate adaptation and resiliency. For CEQA purposes, t he following primary objectives have been established to aid decision -makers in their review of the project and its associated environmental impacts:

1. Provide a goal post against which the cumulative progress of the City’s GHG reduction actions over time can be evaluated.

2. Comply with requirements of the Global Covenant of Mayors, to which the City of Long of Beach has been a signatory since 2015.

3. Demonstrate the City’s commitment to global efforts to address climate change.

4. Illustrate the relationship between the City’s reduction target and compliance with State mandates for cities related to GHG reduction.

5. Demonstrate a level of GHG emissions below which Long Beach would have less than cumulatively considerable GHG impacts for future environmental review projects.

6. Create a plan that will help Long Beach realize the following: low c arbon, climate resilient buildings and neighborhoods ; safe and adaptable infrastructure; protected and enhanced natural systems; a healthy, resilient and ready population; and residents and businesses with minimized carbon footprint.

7. Incorporate climate adaptation and resiliency considerations and strategies consistent with the CAAP in the updated and consolidated General Plan Safety Element in order to ensure the City’s goals and policies related to safety recognize and address climate impacts including those related to extreme heat, drought, and flooding occurrences.

8. Comply with the Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG -1 in the Certified General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements Program EIR (2019), which required the City to adopt a greenhouse gas (GHG) Reduction Plan or Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP).

3.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS, PERMITS, AND OTHER APPROVALS This Draft SEIR analyzes and documents the environmental impacts of the proposed project and all discretionary actions associated with t he project. In accordance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the designated Lead Agency for the proposed project and has principal authority and jurisdiction for CEQA actions and project approval. Responsible Agencies a re those agencies that have jurisdiction or authority over one or more aspects associated with the

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-22 development of a proposed project and/or mitigation. Trustee Agencies are State agencies that have jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a proposed project.

The discretionary actions to be considered by the City as a part of the proposed project include:
• Approval of the Proposed CAAP: The project would require approval of the proposed CAAP. • Adoption of the Safety Element Update. The project w ould require approval of the proposed text amendments and adoption of the updated Safety Element. • Certification of the SEIR: The project would require certification of the SEIR and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

City of
Downey
City of
Ly oodnw
City of
Santa Fe
Sp nri gs
City of
La lmaPa
City of
Artesia
City of
Bellflower
City of
Carson
City of
Ce torri s
City of
Cm p too n
City of
Hawaiian
Gn sarde
City of
Lakewood City of
Lo gn
Beach
City of
Los Angeles
City of
Norwalk
City of
Par tamoun
City of
Seal
Beach
City of
Cy sspre
Cit Losy of
Al tosami
City of
Hunti onngt
Beach
ÄÆ22
ÄÆ47
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ19
ÄÆ91
§¨5
§¨
605
§¨
710
§¨
405
Project Area (City of Long Beach)
SOURCE: Bing Maps (c. 2008); ESRI (2008)
FIGURE 3-1
Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
and Safety Element Update EIR
Project Location
210
MILES
LEGEND
I:\CLB1904.16\G\Project_Loc.cdr ( / /202 )31 6 2
City of
Si lgna
Hill
County ofCounty of
Los AngelesLos Angeles
City of
Si lgna
Hill

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-24 This page intentionally left blank
SOURCE City of Long Beach:

FIGURE 3-2
2015 Production Inventory Emissions Summary
I:\CLB1904.16\G\Production Inventory.cdr ( / /202 )31 6 2 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
and Safety Element Update EIR

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-26 This page intentionally left blank
SOURCE City of Long Beach:

FIGURE 3-3
Business-as-Usual Emissions Forecasts 2015-2050 and Emissions Targets I:\CLB1904.16\G\Business-as-Usual Forecasts.cdr (3/ /202 )16 2 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
and Safety Element Update EIR

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-28 This page intentionally left blank
SOURCE City of Long Beach:

FIGURE 3-4
2030 Reduction Target
I:\CLB1904.16\G\2030 Reduction Target.cdr (3/ /202 )16 2 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
and Safety Element Update EIR

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY E LEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\3.0 Project Description.docx (03/16/22) 3-30 This page intentionally left blank

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.0 Existing Environmental Setting.docx «03/15/22» 4-1

4.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS,

IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following chapter contains three sections, each of which addresses one environmental topic outlined in Appendix G of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act ( State CEQA Guidelines) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15397).

For each environmental topic analyzed, the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( SEIR) includes a detailed explanation of the existing conditions, thresholds of significance that will be applied to determine whether the proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and Safety Element Update (proposed project) impacts are significant or less than significant, analysis of the environmental impacts, and a determination of whether the proposed project would have a significant impact if implemented. A “significant impact” or “significant effect” means “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project” (14 CCR 15382). Each environmental topic section in Chapt er 4.0 also include s a discussion of the cumulative effects of the project when considered in combination with other projects causing related impacts, as required by Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Each of the sections is organized into subsections, as follows:
• Introduction briefly describes the topics and issues covered in the section. • Scoping Process describes the comment letters received during the public review period of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) that are related to the topic. • Existing Environmental Setting describes the physical conditions that exist at the present time that may influence or affect the issue under investigation. This section focuses on phy sical site characteristics that are relevant to the environmental topic being analyzed. • Regulatory Setting lists and discusses the laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies that relate to the specific environmental topic and how they apply to the proposed project. • Methodology describes the approach and methods employed to complete the environmental analysis for the issue under investigation.
• Thresholds of Significance provides the thresholds that are the basis of the conclusions of significance, which are primarily the criteria in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. • Project Impacts describes the potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur if the proposed project is implemented. Evidence is presented to show the cause-and-effect relationship between the proposed project and potential changes in the environment. The exact magnitude, duration, extent, frequency, and range or other parameters of a potential impact are ascertained to the extent feasible to determine whether impacts may be significant. In accordance with CEQA, potential project impacts, if any, are classified as follows for each of the environmental topics discussed in this Draft EIR.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 202 2
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.0 Existing Environmental Setting.docx (03/15/22) 4-2 ○ Significant Adverse Impact. S ignificant adverse i mpacts are those that cannot be fully mitigated or avoided. If the project is approved, decision makers are required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to State C EQA Guidelines Section 1509 3 e
xplaining why the project benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects caused by these significant adverse environmental impacts. ○ Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. This classification refers to significant environmental impacts that can be feasibly mitigated or avoided. If the project is approved, decision makers are required to make findings pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that adverse significant impacts have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible through implementation of mitigation measures. ○ Less than Significant Impact. Less than significant impacts are e nvironmental impacts that have been identified but are not significant. No mitigation is required for l ess than significant impacts.
○ No Impact. A “no impact” determination is made when the proposed project is found to have no environmental impact.
• Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation describes the significance of potential impacts prior to implementation of mitigation measures. No potential significant unavoidable impacts were identified for the proposed project, and no mitigation was required. • Compliance Measures and Project Design Features:
○ Compliance Measures are regulations or standards applicable to the project. ○ Project Design Features (PDFs) are specific components of the proposed project that have been incorporated to reduce potential environmental effects. PDFs were not required for the proposed project as no physical development is included or entitled by the proposed project.
• Cumulative Impacts refers to potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur as a result of project implementation together with all other reasonably foreseeable, planned, and approved future projects producing related impacts.

Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative i mpacts may result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. F or each of the environmental topics considered in this Draft EIR, the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis is defined. For example, the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis for potential cumulative land use and planning impacts includes all areas within the entire 50 square miles within the limits of the City of Long Beach (referred to the “planning area” throughout this Draft SEIR).

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-1

4.1 AESTHETICS
This section provides a discussion of the existing visual and aesthetic resources in the planning area and in the surrounding area and evaluates the potential for changes in aesthetic character that could result from implementation of the proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan ( CAAP) and Safety Element Update Project (proposed project). This section also evaluates the potential loss of existing visual resources, effects on public views, visual compatibility with existing uses, and light and glare impac ts. As described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project is the adoption of the proposed CAAP and Safety Elemen t Update and is considered a policy/planning action. The proposed project does not include physical improvements or development , and impacts from implementation of all future CAAP Actions at this time would be speculative. Any future discretionary projects would also be subject to project -level CEQA as required. Therefore, the analysis in this Subsequent Env ironmental Impact Repor t (SEIR) focuses on the potential impacts from the measures included in the CAAP Consistency Review Checklist (CAAP Checklist) required for future discretionary projects , as well as the potential programmatic level impacts of the CAAP Actions, Adaptation Actions, and the Safety Element Update.

4.1.1 Scoping Process
The City of Long Beach (City) received five comment letters during the public review period of the Notice of Preparation ( NOP). For copies of the NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A of this Draft SEIR. No comment letters included comments related to aesthetics.

4.1.2 Existing Environmental Setting

4.1.2.1 Visual Resources
Scenic Resources. Scenic resources are natural or man-made features that are aesthetically pleasing and contribute to the definition o f a community. Examples of scenic resources include trees and landscaping, rock outcroppings, historic buildings, and public art. Scenic resources within the planning area include the Pacific Ocean, the Port of Long Beach, the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and Santa Ana Mountains, and the Los Cerritos Wetlands. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains can be seen from various points throughout the City, with the most predominant views being from the northern areas of the City and from higher elevations. Distant views of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana Mountains can be seen from higher elevations in the City. Views of the Pacific Ocean, including Alamitos Bay, Rainbow Harbor, and the Port of Long Beach, can be seen along the City’s shoreline and from higher elevations in the City. Views of the Los Cerritos Wetlands are visible from the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) planning area and provide expansive views of native wetlands vegetation, including facilities associated with oil operations such as oil derricks and mechanical buildings that are part of the overall landscape. However, the most prominent scenic resources within the planning area are the Pacific Ocean and the associated beaches and marinas located along the City’s coastline. Examples of beaches and marinas in the City include, but are not limited to, Alamitos Beach, Alamitos Bay -Long Beach Marina, Belmont Shore Beach, Colorado Lagoon Park and Beach, Granada Beach and Rosie’s Dog Beach, Long Beach City Beach, Mother’s Beach, and Rainbow Harbor and Marina.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-2 Scenic Vistas. As previously stated, scenic vistas are viewpoints that provide expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the public’s benefit. Scenic vistas within the planning area include views of the Pacific Ocean, the Los Cerritos Wetland s, the Jack Dunster Marine Biological Reserve, Golden Shore Marine Biological Reserve Park, and the Dominguez Gap Wetlands. Views of distant mountain ranges, such as the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and Santa Ana Mountains, also constitute scenic vistas within the planning area. However, the Pacific Ocean is the most prominent visual asset in the planning area.

Sensitive View. As previously stated, sensitive views are generally those associated with designated vantage points and public recreational uses, but the term can be more broadly applied to encompass any valued public vantage point.

Scenic Corridors. As previously stated, scenic corridors are defined as roadways and thoroughfares that provide expansive views of natural landscapes and attractive man-made developments.

According to the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no State -designated scenic highways in the planning area; however, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is considered to be an Eligib le State Scenic Highway. 1 Existing scenic corridors and routes in the City are designated in the City’s General Plan Urban Design Element (UDE) for the purpose of preserving scenic views afforded to pedestrians, motorists, and bicyclists traveling throughout the City. Specifically, the UDE identifies Ocean Boulevard and Livingston Drive as a designated scenic route and notes this system will be expanded by the year 2030 to include Ocean Boulevard on the Belmont Peninsula, the Promenade in Downtown, the Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River corridors, Appian Way along the Colorado Lagoon, Marine Stadium, Studebaker Road, the approach road to Rancho Los Cerritos, and the entire stretch of Pacific Coast Highway.

Visual Character. The planning area includes the entire 50 square miles within the limits of the City that are framed by natural and man -made features. Most notably, the Pacific Ocean frames the southern waterfront edge of the City. The San Gabriel River and Coyote Creek define the eastern edge of the planning area; Port -related facilities, the Los Angeles River, and developed areas form the eastern edge of the City; and developed areas form the northern edge of the City.

The planning area is almost entirely developed with a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional uses. The majority of the planning area is characterized by low -to- moderate-density residential uses (approximately one - to two-stories in height) located throughout the City; however, the Downtown and Port areas serve as visual focal points for inland and coastal areas of the City. In addition, the entertainment activities at Rainbow Harbor combine with the visual landscapes of the Downtown and Port areas to provide a central visual point of interest for viewers. Views of neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown areas are typical of those in suburban areas with auto-oriented commercial centers.

1 California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans). 2021. Scenic Highway s. California State Scenic Highways. Website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap -landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv -i-scenic-highways (accessed August 18, 2021).

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-3 Neighborhood Visual Character. The visual character of the planning area is variable depending on the viewer’s location within the City. Generally, the planning area can be defined by its community plan areas, which vary by the mix of land uses and architectural character. The planning areas are comprised of the following nine primary community plan areas: North Long Beach, Bixby Knolls, Westside and Wrigley, Eastside, Central, Traffic Circle, Downtown, Midshore, and Southeast. The neighborhood visual character of each of these community p lan areas is summarized below. The structures in each neighborhood vary in height, scale, massing, and architectural features, with no distinguishable or consistent architectural theme across the entire City.

1. North Long Beach. The North Long Beach area is located west of the Interstate 710 (I -710) and includes the areas located west of Downey Avenue and north of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). This area is predominantly characterized by low -scale development largely consisting of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. The residential uses in this area are typically one - and two -story single -family dwellings and multifamily dwellings generally not exceeding four stories. Commercial uses along major corridors, such as Long Beach Boule vard and Atlantic Avenue, maintain varied setbacks. Newer commercial/retail buildings along these corridors typically have larger setbacks for parking areas to buffer the buildings from the roadway, while older buildings are typically situated at the right -of-way limits with no setbacks.

The areas in the vicinity of Paramount Boulevard and South Street consist of low -density industrial uses and associated equipment storage areas.

2. Bixby Knolls. The Bixby Knolls area consists of the California Heights, Los Ce rritos, Bixby Knolls, Bixby Highlands, Scherer Park, Ridgewood Heights, and Ranton Circle neighborhoods. This community is home to several historic residential resources dating from the 1920s and 1940s.

The area also includes a retail corridor along Atlant ic Avenue between San Antonio Drive and Interstate 405 (I -405). This corridor is predominantly characterized by retail shops with large window facades, sidewalks on both sides of the street, and traffic -calming features (e.g., landscaped medians) that comb ine to add to the pedestrian -friendly nature and aesthetic character of this arterial within the Bixby Knolls area. While newer auto -oriented commercial uses are present along this corridor (near 45th Street and Atlantic Avenue), the historic character and scale of existing residential uses largely remains intact between Antonio Drive and East Bixby Road.

3. Westside and Wrigley. The Westside neighborhood is located on the west side of the I -710 and includes the Westside and Arlington neighborhoods. This neighborhood is characterized by low - density development comprised of one- and two-story residential and commercial buildings. The majority of the housing units in this area are single -family detached homes, with many of these homes having been constructed in the 1920s and 1940s. The residential and commercial structures in this area maintain remnants of the architecture and styles of the era, but the intactness of their historic value is highly variable. The Century Villages at Cabrillo (CVC) development is located north of PCH and east of State Route 103 (SR -103), the Terminal Island Freeway. The CVC is a 27 -acre multifamily development and includes buildings that are approximately four stories designed in a modern style of architecture, which is a variation from the traditional architectural style in this area. The CVC provides transitional and permanent supportive housing for children, veterans suffering from post -traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-4 aging veterans, and other homeless persons with dual diagnosis , such as substance abuse and mental illness.

The Wrigley neighborhood is located on the east side of the I -710 and west of Long Beach Boulevard. Having been constructed during the 1950s, this neighborhood is largely characterized by low-density post-World War II housing developments with mature tree-lined parkways.

4. Eastside. The Eastside area is the largest community plan area in the City and is bound by the Cities of Los Alamitos and Hawaiian Gardens to the east, the City of Lakewood to the north, and PCH and 7th Street to the south. Predominant uses in this area include low -density housing, shopping centers, schools, religious institutions, and parks. The Eastside area also contains the 800-acre El Dorado Regional Park and the California State University , Long Beach campus. The residential neighborhoods in this area are characterized by low -density (one - and two -story) post-World War II suburban developments with mature tree -lined parkways. Auto -oriented commercial centers are located along major corridors (i.e., Bellflower Boulevard and Spring Street) to serve the surrounding homes and businesses within the Eastside area. The low-density scale and post -WWII architecture of the residential dwellings is largely consistent throughout Eastside. The commercial centers in the Eastside area are diverse in their architectural styles; however, the concentration of similarly scaled commercial developments along major corridors provides a pattern of development that maintains consistency in this neighborhood.

5. Central. The Central area largely encompasses the area around the intersection of Orange Avenue and PCH and includes the Central Area West, Central Area East, and Washington School neighborhoods. The primary uses in this community plan area are residential and co mmercial.

The residential dwellings in this area include a mix of single -family and multifamily dwellings of varied time periods and architecture. The business corridor along Anaheim Street in the Central area is home to Cambodia Town, which is largely characterized by one -story commercial uses consisting of both auto - and pedestrian -oriented development patterns. In addition to these residential and commercial uses, the Central area is characterized by several historic resources; however, the most prominent historic resource within the Central area is the Minerva Park Place Historic District. This Historic District is located along Minerva Park near the intersection of Gaviota Avenue and 11th Street. Homes lining this street are reflective of the Spanish Co lonial Revival architectural style and were built as part of a single development project in 1925.

6. Traffic Circle. The Traffic Circle area is comprised of a large multi- lane roundabout at the intersection of Lakewood Boulevard and Los Coyotes Diagonal. Th is area is located south of the Long Beach Airport and includes the Stearns Park, Alamitos Ridge, and Bryant School neighborhoods. The roundabout consists of a park-like setting with mature trees and grass areas comprising the central landscaped median div ider island. One -story commercial uses surround the traffic circle, while mid -rise multifamily residential uses are concentrated east of the roundabout on PCH. Suburban single -family residential neighborhoods and auto -oriented commercial centers are locate d further north and southeast of the Traffic Circle. Residential uses located south of the Traffic Circle were generally constructed in the 1920s and 1930s, while the residential uses located further north were constructed in the 1940s and 1950s.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-5

7. Downtown. The Downtown area is the primary entertainment, commercial, and employment center in the City. This area includes the Willmore City, West End, East Village, Promenade, North Pine, and the Downtown Shoreline neighborhoods. The neighborhoods north of Ocean Boulevard within this plan area contain historic neighborhoods connected to early Long Beach history. The intersection of 10th Street and Magnolia Avenue forms the center of the Willmore City neighborhood in the Downtown area. This neighborhood includes t he Willmore/Drake Historic District, which includes the American Colony Tract developed by William Willmore, the second tract of homes developed in the City. The Downtown skyline and entertainment uses at the Pike at Rainbow Harbor are points of visual int erest for both nearby and distant viewers.

Many of the north -south roadways in the City terminate at Ocean Boulevard in the Downtown area. Commercial and entertainment venues are located throughout the area, with a concentration of these types of uses on P ine Avenue and the Pike at Rainbow Harbor. Building heights vary in this community plan area and are substantially higher than the other areas within the City. The four tallest buildings in the downtown area range from 20 to 30 floors and consist of office and high -density residential buildings along Ocean Boulevard, including City Hall. This area maintains its urbanized downtown character through minimal building setbacks, mixed-use buildings, and transit-oriented development.

8. Midshore. The Midshore area is comprised of Alamitos Beach, Rose Park, Franklin School, Bluff Heights, and Bluff Park. Midshore contains a mix of low -density historic residential districts (bungalows developed in the 1920s); however, many of these homes were replaced with newer high-density residential units between the 1960s and 1980s. Additional high -rise multifamily developments are located along Ocean Boulevard. Generally, these high -rise developments range from 10 - to-20 stories in height. While these developments have been devel oped to significantly greater heights than surrounding residential uses, these buildings are generally lower in height and scale than similar uses in the adjacent Downtown area. Commercial uses in this area are concentrated along east-west corridors (e.g., Broadway, 3rd Street, 4th Street, and 7th Street). These commercial areas contain a mix of historic and contemporary architecture.

The overall height of commercial buildings within the area ranges from one- to two-stories, with a general increase in building heights on the south side of Ocean Boulevard.

9. Southeast. The Southeast area is comprised of Alamitos Heights, Belmont Heights, Belmont Shore, Belmont Park, Naples, Peninsula, Recreation Park, University Park Estates, and the SEASP neighborhoods. The So utheast area is characterized by residential, commercial, and maritime uses. The Alamitos Bay and supporting uses are largely concentrated in the southern portion of this area and maintain a mix of commercial uses among other establishments to support the maritime activities in the bay. The Belmont Shore area is comprised of low -density commercial and residential uses, with scattered entertainment and office uses. The corridor along 2nd Street serves as a popular designation as it contains a variety of retail and restaurant uses within a pedestrian -oriented streetscape. In addition to development along 2nd Street, the Naples neighborhood is unique within the Southeast area as it is comprised of residential uses and three artificial islands connected by high -arching bridges. Due to the proximity of the homes within this neighborhood to the water, boat docks and maritime uses also serve to characterize the visual character of the Naples neighborhood. The Southeast area is also characterized by large open space and recreational uses, predominantly along 7th Street and PCH, and the SEASP

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-6 neighborhood. The SEASP area is generally comprised of low -density, auto -dominated commercial areas, the Los Cerritos Wetlands, the Alamitos Bay Marina, and the Alamitos Bay Landing. As evidenced above, development in the Southeast community plan area varies by type and architectural style, but largely remains at a one- or two-story scale.

Existing Lighting and Glare. Glare results from reflected light caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from highly finished surfaces (e.g., window glass, mirrored finishes, or brightly colored surfaces). Land uses that are typically sensitive to excess light and glare include residential, hospitals, senior housing, and other types of uses where excessive light and glare may disrupt sleep.

In addition, light and glare may interfere with the vision of drivers.

Nighttime lighting that is present in the City consists of streetlights and vehicle headlights on nearby roadways; building facade and interior lighting; and pole -mounted lighting in the parking areas.

However, it should be noted that the most significant nighttime lighting present in the City is associated with regional -serving uses such as the Port of Long Beach, the Long Beach Airport, and entertainment activities at the Pike at Rainbow Harbor. Because the planning area includes the entire 50 square miles within the City limits, the planning area itself also contains significant nighttime lighting associated with the operations of existing land uses. Existing uses in the City also consist of building facades that use reflective materials, such as glass and mirror, which also contribute to glare within the City.

Existing Shade/Shadow. Mid- to high-rise buildings located throughout the planning area are the primary source of prolonged shadows within the planning area. As previously stated, shadow - sensitive uses include routinely used outdoor spaces associated with residential, recreational, or institutional land uses; commercial uses.

4.1.3 Regulatory Setting

4.1.3.1 Federal Regulations
No federal policies or regulations pertaining to aesthetics are applicable to the proposed project.

4.1.3.2 State Regulations
Caltrans Scenic Highway Progra m. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Program protects the natural scenic beauty of the State’s highways and corridors through its designated scenic highways throughout the State. Caltrans defines a scenic highway as an y freeway, highway, road, or other public right -of-way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Other considerations given to a scenic highway designation include how much of the natural landscape a traveler may see and the extent to which visual intrusions degrade the scenic corridor.

As described in Threshold 4.1.1 below, there are no Caltrans officially designated scenic highways within the planning area; however, PCH (State Route 1 or SR-1) is eligible for designation.

California Coastal Act. The California Coastal Act (CCA; Public Resources Code [PRC] 30000) of 1976 was created to (1) protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the California Coastal Zone environment and its natural and manmade resources; (2) ensure orderly,

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-7 balanced utilization and conservation of Coastal Zone resources, taking into account social and economic needs; (3) maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the Coastal Zone consistent with sound resource conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners; (4) ensure priority for coastal- dependent development over other development on the coast; and (5) encourage State and local cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses in the Coastal Zone.

The proposed project includes policies that apply to the entire area within the City’s limits, including the Coastal Zone, which is regulated by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) under the CCA.

Section 30251 of the CCA requires development to be located and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land fo rms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. Section 4.4, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft SEIR addresses the CCA requirements that pertain to aesthetics and are applicable to the proposed project.

California Code, Public Resources Code Section 21099. PRC Section 21099 requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines establishing criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas, which are areas within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop. Such criteria should promote a reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transp ortation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Within transit priority areas, aesthetic impacts related to residential, mixed -use residential, or employment center projects on an infill site would not be considered significant impacts on the environment.

4.1.3.3 Local Regulations
City of Long Beach Land Use Element. The City’s Land Use Element (2019) formulated the following broad-range goals guiding land use in the City: manage growth, encourage economic development, revitalize the Downtown area, allow for the construction of new housing, encourage the development of affordable housing, emphasize strong neighborhoods, maintain existing public facilities, and maintain and/or improve the circulation system.

The L and Use Element (LUE) introduced the concept of “Pl aceTypes,” which replaced the prior approach of segregating property within the City through traditional land use designations and zoning classifications. The LUE establishes 14 primary PlaceTypes that divide the City into distinct neighborhoods, thus allo wing for greater flexibility and a mix of compatible land uses within these areas. Each PlaceType is defined by unique land use, form, and character- defining goals, policies, and imple mentation strategies tailored specifically to the particular application of that PlaceType within the City. The following goals and policies related to visual resources are presented in the LUE:

STRATEGY No. 1: Support sustainable urban development patterns. • LU Policy 1 -3: Require sust ainable design strategies to be integrated into public and private development projects.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-8 • LU Policy 1 -5: Encourage resources and processes that support sustainable development for adaptive reuse projects, as well as appropriate infill projects.

STRATEGY No. 7: Implement the major areas of change identified in this Land Use Plan (Map LU 20). • LU Policy 7 -4: Encourage degraded and abandoned buildings and properties to transition to more productive uses through adaptive reuse or new development. • LU Policy 7-8: Ensure infill development is compatible with surrounding established and planned uses.
• LU Policy 7 -12: Develop and implement a plan for SEASP that establishes the area as an important gateway and builds on residential neighborhoods that are complemented by businesses and commercial services, protects wetlands and local coastal habitat, and creates attractive streetscapes with buildings designed at appropriate scale and form.

STRATEGY No. 8: Enhance and improve the waterfront areas. • LU Policy 8 -1: Work with the community to reinvigorate the area around the Belmont Pool complex, Belmont Veterans Memorial Pier, and vicinity. Provide new connectivity to adjoining neighborhoods and increase visitor-serving amenities.
• LU Policy 8 -2: Improve Alamitos Bay Landing to create a more enjoyable and successful place with additional coastal access, recreation and visitor- serving uses and design improvements to create a more pedestrian-friendly and attractive area.

STRATEGY No. 9: Protect and enhance established neighborhoods. • LU Policy 9-1: Protect neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible activities or land uses that may have negative impacts on residential living environments. • LU Policy 9 -2: Enhance and improve neighborhoods through maintenance strategies and co de enforcement.

STRATEGY No. 19: Provide a variety of park facilities, marinas, beaches and water bodies that meet the diverse needs and interests of the community.
• LU Policy 19 -1: Develop and maintain a high -quality network of natural and urban parks and open spaces that meet the needs of families, young adults, seniors, children , and disabled individuals.
• LU Policy 19 -2: Explore opportunities to create mini -parks and parklets within urbanized and growth areas of the City.

STRATEGY No. 20: Preserve, restore, and protect water bodies, natural areas, and wildlife habitats.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-9 • LU Policy 20 -1: Identify, acquire, protect and manage open spaces, sensitive biological resources, native habitat , and vegetative communities, including wetlands and uplands, to support wildlife species and wildlife linkages and to add ecological value and climate resiliency to the entire open space system.
• LU Policy 20 -12: Ensure minimization of potential development impacts in accordance with policies for protection of natural resources in the Natural Resource Protection Policies section in the Appendix.

STRATEGY No. 21: Reconnect with nature’s systems and natural processes. • LU Policy 21- 1: Transition the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers to more attractive, multi- functional, healthier environments that are easily accessible for passive recreation. • LU Policy 21-7: Support opportunities for eco-tourism to celebrate and showcase natural assets such as the Los Cerritos Wetlands, the Los Angeles River, the Dominguez Gap Wetlands, and the beachfront, while creating a stronger tourism draw for the City.

City of Long Beach Urban Design Element. The City’s Urban Design Element (2019) provides an urban framework that address es the varying aesthetic characteristics associated with the historic districts, residential neighborhoods, auto -oriented commercial centers, urbanized centers, and corridors located throughout the City. As the City continues to evolve, the U rban Design Element seeks to shape the urban environment by preserving the character of existing neighborhoods that define the City’s unique physical and aesthetic character while allowing for the continued evolution and improvement of the City in areas targeted for new development. The Urban Design Element (UDE) identifies v istas from high points, open locations, long corridors, and other similar places within the City including high grounds in mid-City and near Signal Hill looking toward Downtown and the coast, small promontories such as Los Cerritos hill, views across the Long Beach Skyline , airport tarmac, into golf courses and parks, along rivers and channels, and natural are as among others.

Other important vistas identified in the UDE include the view along Alamitos, south to Villa Riviera; El Dorado Park; 3rd Street to the Port of Long Beach cranes; Ocean Boulevard; Bluff Park to the Pacific Ocean and Belmont Pier; Queensway Bay and Shoreline Park to the Queen Mary and cruise ships; the Downtown; the marinas; and Los Coyotes Diagonal to the distant San Gabriel Mountains.

There are also dramatic views from the City of Signal Hill out and over Long Beach. While there is otherwise little topographic relief across the rest of the City, this assures that there are also many walkable and bikeable neighborhoods.

The UDE defines the physical aspects of the urban environment. Specifically, the UDE enhances the City’s PlaceTypes established in the Land Use Element (2019) by creating great places; improving the urban fabric, and public spaces; and defining edges, thoroughfares, and corridors. It is the City’s intention that creating great places would provide gathering spaces for communit y members to meet and provide a space for spontaneous activities to occur. By improving the urban fabric, the City would allow for new development that would complement the existing historical development while serving as a unique and distinctive feature o f the City. The following goals and policies related to visual resources are presented in the UDE:

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-10 STRATEGY No. 1: Improve function and connectivity within neighborhoods and districts. • Policy UD 1 -4: Focus on building flexible design on ground floors to a llow for active building frontages along corridors and at the street level.
• Policy UD 1-5: Prioritize and revitalize streetscapes in existing neighborhoods and targeted areas of change to provide well -lit streets, continuous sidewalks, consistent paving tr eatment and improved crosswalks at intersections.
• Policy UD 1 -6: Identify streets that can be reconfigured to accommodate a variety of improvements, such as wider sidewalks with trees, bike paths, dedicated transit lanes, and landscape medians or curb exte nsions that make the streets more attractive and usable, consistent with Complete Streets principles.
• Policy UD 1-7: Employ timeless and durable materials in streetscape-designed amenities.

STRATEGY No. 2: Beautify and improve efficiency of corridors, gate ways, and private and public spaces.
• Policy UD 2 -1: Encourage a mix of building forms that embrace key historic resources of a neighborhood, encouraging architectural preservation and allowing for innovative renovations to older structures that will contribute to neighborhood character. • Policy UD 2-2: Remove or screen visual pollution, including amortizing blighting conditions. • Policy UD 2 -3: Promote enhancement of the built environment through façade improvements, quality and context-sensitive infill development, and landscaping. • Policy UD 2 -4: Incorporate aesthetic elements such as pedestrian lighting, gateway landscape treatment, and ornamental landscaping throughout the City. • Policy UD 2 -5: Building elements and landscaping should screen items such as ab ove-ground wires, communication boxes, back -flow preventers, and electric transformers that create visual distractions.
• Policy UD 2-6: Prioritize aesthetic considerations in the refinement of development standards to enhance the quality of new and existing developments within scenic areas and iconic sites. • Policy UD 2-7: Identify, protect, and enhance designated scenic routes and iconic sites described in Public Spaces in this Chapter.
• Policy UD 2 -8: Minimize visual clutter that detracts from an overall positive experience of a pedestrian. This would include regulating signage and the use of electronic signs and billboards (which may be appropriate in certain urban locations more than others).

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-11 • Policy UD 2-9: Encourage the use of aesthetically designed common trash enclosures in alleys for multiple businesses to create more attractive and walkable environments.

STRATEGY No. 3: Support distinct and attractive neighborhoods that are dynamic, active, and engaging.
• Policy UD 3 -1: Preserve important neighborhood characteristics that create a sense of place, including buildings, landmarks, development patterns, design features and materials, streetscapes, signs, landscaping, public amenities, and open spaces.

STRATEGY No. 5: Integrate healthy living and sustainable design practices and opportunities throughout Long Beach.
• Policy UD 5 -4: Preserve, rehabilitate, and integrate existing buildings into new development projects wherever feasible to encourage adaptive reuse, reduce waste, and maintain local character.

STRATEGY No. 7: Provide safe and secure neighborhoods, streets, buildings, parks, and plazas. • Policy UD 7 -1: Encourage public amenities and spaces in neighborhoods that allow for human contact, social act ivities, and community involvement to create an “eyes on the street” environment.

STRATEGY No. 8: Capitalize on urban design techniques that support economic development, prosperity, and the preservation of existing businesses throughout the community. • Policy UD 8-2: Provide flexibility in building form and site design to encourage development that supports economic activity, entrepreneurship, and small businesses.

STRATEGY No. 9: Protect and enhance historic resources, distinguishing architecture and other features that contribute to the unique character and identity of each neighborhood. • Policy UD 9 -1: Identify and preserve historic buildings that enhance a historic district or are classified as a contributing structure.
• Policy UD 9 -2: Protect districts th at are part of the City’s history and possess a unique neighborhood character.
• Policy UD 9 -3: Identify, preserve, and enhance scenic areas and iconic sites. See Map UD -1, Historic Sites.

STRATEGY No. 10: Celebrate diverse and unique cultural influences thr ough architectural style, public art, public spaces, markets, fairs, and streetscape furnishings. • Policy UD 10 -1: Embrace the cultural diversity and heritage prevalent within Long Beach through public art, signage, and preservation of historic structures.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-12 • Policy UD 10-2: Collaborate with regional artists, residents, and community members during the design process to infuse public art and cultural amenities into a project.

STRATEGY No. 11: Integrate public art into the urban fabric of the City. • Policy UD 11 -1: Incorporate public art and cultural amenities as community landmarks, encouraging public gathering and wayfinding, large and small. • Policy UD 11 -2: Utilize public art to enhance pedestrian environments, such as sidewalks, paseos, plazas, and alleys.
• Policy UD 11-3: Incorporate public art either as stand - alone installations or integrated into the design of other urban improvements, such as bridges, on -ramps, public building murals, paving, benches, and streetlights.
• Policy UD 11-4: Encourage the integration of localized art that add to the interest and nuance of the City’s neighborhoods and showcase local identity and history. • Policy UD 11 -5: Consider opportunities to add whimsical elements to the environment by incorporating art into street furnishings.
• Policy UD 11-6: Encourage expression of cultural heritage within art and public spaces.

STRATEGY No. 12: Expand the unified sign program, within the Areas of Change identified in the Land Use Element, to help orient visitors throughout the community. Inclu de freeway identification, gateways, directional signs, and informational signs.
• Policy UD 12 -1: Focus investment on improving the appearance of entrances to the City on major boulevards so that wayfinding, landscape, and lighting are integrated into a coh esive design.
• Policy UD 12-2: Develop a comprehensive approach to wayfinding for visitors and tourists who will enter the City at these gateways, including neighborhood entry signs and murals. • Policy UD 12-4: Emphasize gateways into Long Beach at freeways and important transportation hubs, such as the Long Beach Airport, Blue Line stations, the Long Beach Cruise Terminal, and at arrival points of distinct neighborhoods and districts, through landscaping, architecture, street furniture, and appropriate signage.
• Policy UD 12-5: Utilize neighborhood identity and wayfinding signage to establish an identity or theme within an existing neighborhood.
• Policy UD 12-6: Provide wayfinding signage on 7th Street to provide direction to attractions and neighborhoods from State Route 22 and the 605 and 710 Freeways.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-13 STRATEGY No. 13: Create and maintain complete neighborhoods. • Policy UD 13 -1: Incentivize neighborhood improvements to increase walkable/bikeable access to daily needs, goods/services, and healthy foods, reduce blight, and create safe places to play and congregate.
• Policy UD 13 -4: Implement streetscape improvements along the major cross-town corridors using a comprehensive approach to the corridor’s sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, and amenities that reflect the individual neighborhoods along the corridor.

STRATEGY No. 14: Building types and forms should contribute to the PlaceType they are sited within and should address potential conflicts between neighboring PlaceTypes by implementing buffering measures and thoughtful design patterns.
• Policy UD 14-1: Properly scale a building’s form (i.e., height and massing) to the primary street it fronts on (i.e., taller buildings on larger boulevards, smaller buildings on narrower streets). • Policy UD 14-2: Acknowledge transitions between commercial and residential uses by requiring new development in higher-density centers and corridors to tra nsition in height, massing, scale, and intensity in a thoughtful way to provide a buffer to lower density residential development. • Policy UD 14 -3: Allow new development projects to respond to their particular context and experiment with alternative development patterns while complementing their PlaceTypes. • Policy UD 14 -5: Promote commercial center and corridor development compatibility with adjacent residential uses, including ensuring that project design and function minimizes the potential adverse impacts of vehicle access, parking and loading facilities, building massin g, signage, lighting, trash enclosures, and noise generating uses and areas. • Policy UD 14-6: Ensure new development respects the privacy concerns of adjoining properties and buildings. Building, window, and balcony orientation should maximize views while preserving the privacy of surrounding neighbors by considering direct sight lines to windows and/or outdoor living spaces on neighboring lots. Minimize obtrusive light by limiting outdoor lighting that is misdirected, excessive, or unnecessary. • Policy UD 14-7: Utilize building form and development strategies in conjunction with PlaceTypes and the interface between buildings and the streets (Strategy Nos. 34 –35) to create a comprehensive urban fabric.
• Policy UD 14 -9: In residential areas, support development which blends the form, mass, and profile of individual homes with the natural terrain and neighborhood context in order to minimize the visual impact on the site and surrounding neighborhood.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-14 STRATEGY No. 15: Consider vacant parcels as infill opportunities. • Policy UD 15 -2: Promote infill projects that support the designated PlaceType and be appropriate in their use, scale, compactness of development, and design character with adjacent sites and nearby existing development.

STRATEGY No. 17: Define boundaries between natural areas, parks, and built areas. • Policy UD 17-1: Restrict development from encroaching into natural areas to protect viewsheds and access to public space.
• Policy UD 17-2: Enhance linkages and access points with lighting and signage.

STRATEGY No. 18: Improve and preserve the unique and fine qualities of Long Beach to strengthen the City’s image and eliminate undesirable or harmful visual elements. • Policy UD 18 -1: Carefully consider the development of iconic sites with visual corridors or structures of the highest visual and architectural quality. • Policy UD 18 -2: Expand the existing network of scenic routes and expand to include additional routes, corridors, and sites.
• Policy UD 18 -3: Establish guidelines and zoning overlays, as appropriate, t o regulate development within scenic areas and for iconic sites.
• Policy UD 18 -4: Prioritize aesthetics to enhance the quality of new and existing developments within scenic areas and iconic sites.
• Policy UD 18 -5: Include aesthetic design considerations for all roadway and appurtenances within scenic areas.
• Policy UD 18-6: Remove or screen visual pollution, including amortizing blighting conditions. • Policy UD 18 -7: Increase the visibility and awareness of visual resources through promotional materials to all segments of the population.
• Policy UD 18-8: Increase governmental commitment to the designation of scenic routes and the protection of scenic resources, and create and maintain a system of scenic routes through joint public and private responsibility.
• Policy UD 18 -9: Link and enhance significant recreational, cultural, and educational opportunities through a network of scenic corridors.
• Policy UD 18-10: Follow the principles of the former scenic highways element, now incorporated into the General Plan as p art of street character change (Mobility Element, Page 89, Map 16), and as part of the Street Design Manual, implementation measure MOP IM-1, Page 122.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-15 STRATEGY No. 19: Protect and enhance established Founding and Contemporary Neighborhood PlaceType.
• Policy UD 19 -1: Encourage new construction, additions, renovations, and infill development to be sensitive to established neighborhood context, historic development patterns, and building form and scale.
• Policy UD 19 -2: Ensure that project site design and function minimizes the potential adverse impacts of vehicle access, parking and loading facilities, signage, lighting, trash enclosures, and sound systems.
• Policy UD 19-3: Support new development that is designed to respect the height, massing, and open space characteristics of the existing neighborhood while creating the appearance of single- family units for multifamily buildings to allow for better integration. • Policy UD 19-4: Promote the uniqueness of each neighborhood through preservation of mature trees, historic structures, fine -grained architectural detail, appropriate building scale, and cultural amenities that are key to the neighborhood’s identity and help create a uniform streetscape.
• Policy UD 19 -5: Provide shade trees to match the existing speci es to reinforce neighborhood identity, to add greenscape for texture, shade, and overall visual character, and to create a uniform streetscape. Maintain consistent wall and fence treatment along the street edge.

STRATEGY No. 20: Protect and enhance establi shed Multi- Family Residential - Low and Moderate PlaceTypes.
• Policy UD 20 -1: Integrate Multi -Family Residential – Low and Moderate PlaceType neighborhoods with surrounding uses to encourage appropriate transitions in height and massing.
• Policy UD 20 -2: Encourage the design of multifamily buildings to relate to and reflect the surrounding context, whether it is historic or of a recognizable design era. • Policy UD 20 -3: Encourage the design of multifamily buildings along major corridors and near transit areas to increase density over existing conditions to encourage investment and development of infill sites.
• Policy UD 20-4: Encourage all development to exhibit a high standard of design and materials, to maintain privacy standards, and to provide public front ages that contribute to the larger street and block character.
• Policy UD 20-5: Preserve the existing urban fabric through preservation of mature trees, historic structures, and cultural amenities.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-16 • Policy UD 20 -7: Encourage walk -up entries, patios, and balc onies to maintain “eyes on the street” and encourage active ground floor uses along major street frontages.

STRATEGY No. 21: Protect and enhance established Neighborhood -Serving Centers and Corridors – Low and Moderate PlaceTypes.
• Policy UD 21-1: Promote the concentration of mixed uses and higher building intensity nearest the center of the PlaceType and adjacent to transit stations, with housing or lower scale buildings at the periphery.
• Policy UD 21-2: Encourage gateway elements that help define neighbo rhood edges and provide transitions into center development along lengthy corridors. • Policy UD 21 -3: Promote pedestrian activity by establishing well- designed streetscapes, active ground floor uses, and tree -canopied sidewalks that are unique to the indivi dual neighborhood and transit stations.
• Policy UD 21 -4: Ensure signage, lighting, and other potential nuisances are selected with sensitivity to existing residential neighbors.

STRATEGY No. 22: Protect and enhance established Transit -Oriented Development – Low and Moderate PlaceTypes.
• Policy UD 22 -1: Encourage the massing of buildings and setbacks behind the Long Beach Boulevard light rail corridor to transition from moderate to low, in order to gracefully handle the transition from more intense to less intense development. • Policy UD 22-2: Establish tree-lined sidewalks to provide a shade canopy and human-scale along primary corridors and adjacent to transit centers.
• Policy UD 22 -3: Provide a mix of uses either within a single development or within a 1/4 -mile radius of the PlaceType area, and centered around a transit station. The highest density of development should occur nearest the station.
• Policy UD 22-4: Incorporate amenities such as benches, bike racks, banners, way-finding signage and public art withi n Transit-Oriented Development to foster a pleasant experience and convey the unique identity of each district.
• Policy UD 22 -6: Require a well- designed interface between pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Bicycle facilities and pedestrian amenitie s, including enhanced crosswalks, mid -block crossings, curb extensions, paseos, and public plazas, should be integrated throughout the PlaceType.
• Policy UD 22 -7: Develop iconic architecture, plazas, and major entrances oriented towards the transit station.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-17 STRATEGY No. 23: Protect and enhance established Community Commercial PlaceType. • Policy UD 23 -1: Provide adequate setbacks, along with visual and noise buffers, to separate automobile- oriented developments from adjacent residential neighborhoods. • Policy UD 23 -2: Develop single -family attached units or multifamily residential uses as a transition in scale between the automobile-oriented corridor and the adjacent neighborhood. • Policy UD 23 -3: Encourage new developments to provide alley and streetscape improvements that enhance the experience of the pedestrian and transit rider, such as low walls screening parking lots, substantial landscaping, street trees, and pedestrian-scaled lighting. • Policy UD 23-4: Provide clear and controlled signage that is not allowed to proliferate along the corridor or within a center in order to minimize visual clutter. • Policy UD 23-6: Provide low walls or hedges to buffer pedestrians from surface parking lots and provide well-marked pedestrian paths from sidewalks and parking lots to commercial entrances.

STRATEGY No. 24: Protect and enhance established Industrial PlaceType. • Policy UD 24-1: Promote flexible interior spaces, integrated technological resources, innovative architectural styles, and enhanced entrances and frontages to attract creative office and neo - industrial uses.
• Policy UD 24 -3: Promote the incorporation of buffers between residential and industrial uses, such as surface parking, landscaped open space buffers, and lower buildings. • Policy UD 24 -6: Provide heavily landscaped edges and screening along industrial corridors to make them more attractive to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. • Policy UD 24 -7: Establish parkways, planted medians, and st reet trees along the sidewalk to increase permeable surface areas.

STRATEGY No. 25: Protect and enhance established Neo-Industrial PlaceType. • Policy UD 25 -2: Establish visual screens, whenever possible, between live -work units and existing heavy or unenclosed industrial operations.
• Policy UD 25 -3: Encourage buildings that step down to match permitted residential building heights where new development is adjacent to residential uses. • Policy UD 25 -4: Encourage development intensity that is graduated, from low er intensity near residential neighbors, to moderate intensity near wholly industrial uses. • Policy UD 25-5: Encourage Neo-Industrial PlaceTypes to have improved walkability with on -site, sidewalk and streetscape landscaping, signage, and other enhancements.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-18 • Policy UD 25 -6: As a critical component of this PlaceType, establish alleys and pathways between streets and blocks that will be maintained and enhanced. • Policy UD 25-8: Integrate sustainable design strategies into all development or redevelopment, including new exterior materials or design features.

STRATEGY No. 26: Protect and enhance established Regional-Serving Facility PlaceType. • Policy UD 25-1: Enhance the edges, both within and adjacent to, the regional serving facility to avoid abrupt transitions between large institutional facilities and their neighbors. • Policy UD 26 -2: Encourage separation of incompatible land uses with site planning strategies and appropriate design treatments.
• Policy UD 23 -3: Incorporate shade trees and pedestrian amenities alo ng main streets, with pedestrian entrances oriented toward the sidewalk, not just internalized to the campus or facility.
• Policy UD 26-4: Incorporate design features that provide for thematic elements to link adjacent areas with regional serving facilities, reinforcing community connections to these places.

STRATEGY No. 27: Protect and enhance established Downtown PlaceType. • Policy UD 27 -1: Promote the importance of the transitions between uses and developments in the Downtown PlaceType, given the small block sizes and mix of different uses. • Policy UD 27-3: Establish sustainable streetscape design as a norm for this PlaceType. • Policy UD 27 -4: Enhance streetscapes and building elements to promote significant pedestrian activity by providing well -articulated b uilding facades with quality building materials and workmanship, and featuring high-quality street furnishings and design. • Policy UD 27 -5: Establish a bustling urban environment that will allow pedestrians to feel comfortable and welcome.

STRATEGY No. 28: Protect and enhance established Waterfront PlaceType. • Policy UD 28 -2: Encourage mixed-uses and greater building intensity to be located nearest the center within this PlaceType, with housing and/or lower-scale buildings on the periphery. • Policy UD 28 -4: Develop attractive gateway elements to invite visitors in to explore the unique offerings found in each of the Waterfront PlaceTypes.
• Policy UD 28 -5: Promote and preserve street design characteristics unique to each Waterfront PlaceType.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-19 • Policy UD 28-8: Establish signage that is clear and controlled. • Policy UD 28-10: Encourage pedestrian-scaled building details featuring well-articulated building facades with quality building materials and workmanship.

STRATEGY No. 29: Restore and protect Long Beach’s natu ral features, which include: the Pacific Ocean, beaches, bluffs, San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers, ranchos and adjacent land, Dominguez Gap, the Los Cerritos Wetlands, and waters in Alamitos Bay.

STRATEGY No. 31: Provide a variety of public spaces throughout the City. • Policy UD 31 -3: Encourage plazas and public spaces in locations that take advantage of views and viewsheds.
• Policy UD 31-4: Promote the integration of adequate seating, bike racks, water features, public art, and other pedestrian amenities within plazas and public spaces.

STRATEGY No. 35: Building design and form shall define street walls that contribute to great streets and vibrant pedestrian environments.
• Policy UD 35-2: Buildings should be constructed of high quality and durable materials, especially at the ground floor, which is experienced most by pedestrians. • Policy UD 35-4: Emphasize pedestrian orientation in site and building design to define the public realm and activate sidewalks and pedestrian paths.
• Policy UD 35-6: Maintain a minimum street wall height to ensure the “public room of the street” (as shaped by buildings on both sides) is consistent. This is intended to eliminate parcels being underdeveloped along the edges, thus not contributing to the creation of good streets. • Policy UD 35-7: Monolithic structures that appear as a massive wall, block views, or overshadow the surrounding neighborhood, should be avoided.
• Policy UD 35 -8: Where parking structures are planned, the street wall should be composed of active uses that screen po dium parking, parking structures, and other uses that do not contribute to a vibrant pedestrian environment.

STRATEGY No. 36: Develop a specific role and identity for a street, so that it contributes to the neighborhood’s character while supporting specific, functional requirements. • Policy UD 36 -1: Improve the frontage zone of buildings as extensions of the building, by enhancing entryways and doors, incorporating sidewalk cafes, and enhancing the space adjacent to the building as part of the pedestrian experience.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-20 • Policy UD 36 -2: Develop streetscape strategies and concepts that establish a street as a public room, and incorporate opportunities for dining and display, walking, landscaping, and street furniture.
• Policy UD 36 -3: Develop guidelines for sidewalk dining and parklets that enhance the overall character of the streetscape and provide restaurants and businesses a streamlined permitting process to encourage sidewalk dining and parklets where appropriate. • Policy UD 36 -4: Identify zones along both sides of the street that define the building edge, dining and display areas, walking zone, planting and street furniture zones, and parking zones to enhance the character of the “public room.”
STRATEGY No. 37: Frontages shall have well-designed street walls, contributing to making an inviting transition between public and private space.
• Policy UD 37-1: Unify streets within each district with consistent frontage character types. • Policy UD 37 -2: Provide outdoor dining areas at restau rants with enclosed patios, decorative fencing, planters, and potted plants.
• Policy UD 37 -3: Identify areas for frontage improvements along pedestrian priority areas, described in the Mobility Element on Page 80, Map 13.
• Policy UD 37 -4: Promote façade impr ovement strategies and implementation measures for existing commercial, office, and residential buildings, and incorporate the following improvements:
○ Entrances that include recessed doors, archways or cased openings, a change in wall plane, and/or projecting elements above the entrance.
○ Accessible pathways from parking or the street to building entries. ○ Low-level lighting on pathways and building faces.
○ Clear glass windows on the ground floor for interior shop views, awnings, or other window coverings that contribute to defining the character of the building. ○ 360-degree architectural articulation.

STRATEGY No. 38: Enhance the functionality within each PlaceType by improving the character and functionality of each Street Type.
• Policy UD 38-2: Ensure that urban and downtown areas with high volumes of pedestrian travel have enlarged walk zones, street trees, and maximum use of street furnishings and lighting. • Policy UD 38-4: Buffer and screen parking areas with landscaping, berms, or low screens.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-21 • Policy UD 38-5: Provide special paving treatment or striping at crosswalks and intersections. • Policy UD 38 -7: Create a clear frontage zone along the sidewalk with clear visibility of the structure and façade, as well as the space adjacent to the building. • Policy UD 38-9: Provide a street furniture and landscape zone adjacent to the curb for parkways, tree grates, bicycle parking, lighting, benches, newspaper kiosks, utility poles, potted plants, benches, transit shelters, and other pedestrian amenities.

STRATEGY No. 39 : Beautify the City with trees and landscaping while being conscious of water resources and utilizing sustainable practices.
• Policy UD 39 -1: Accommodate large canopy street trees that contribute to the City’s urban forest, enhance street char acter and neighborhood identity, and provide shade for pedestrians and parked cars and bikes.

STRATEGY No. 40: Design parking lots, structures, driveways, and access points to promote walkability, reduced trips, and promote sustainability. • Policy UD 40-1: Minimize the visual impact of parking structures by encouraging the first floor to be wrapped with pedestrian -friendly uses and by urban design and landscaping features along pedestrian-oriented street frontages.
• Policy UD 40 -3: Beautify and screen parking lots located adjacent to a street edge with landscaping, shade trees, and decorative paving treatments. • Policy UD 40 -4: Use planter beds, decorative paving materials, and safe pedestrian paths to break up large areas dedicated to parking.
• Policy UD 40 -6: Enhance driveway access points with ornamental landscaping, accent paving, and lighting.

STRATEGY No. 41: Connect neighborhoods, corridors, and centers by maintaining and providing for walkable blocks.
• Policy UD 41 -4: Provide street furnishings in the pede strian zone to encourage walking and to stop and rest.
• Policy UD 41 -5: Promote enhancement, repair, and maintenance of alleys, paseos, paths, and trails.
• Policy UD 41 -6: Encourage the use of specialty paving or artistic ground treatment, such as painted concrete, where alleys intersect to enhance pedestrian activity.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-22 • Policy UD 41 -7: Provide wayfinding signs, pedestrian lighting for safety and security, benches, and public art along alleys, paseos, paths, and trails to enhance neighborhood character and walkability.

City of Long Beach General Plan Conservation Element. The City’s Conservation Element (1973) addresses the conservation and enhancement of the City’s natural and scenic resources. Goals and policies presented within the Conservation Element are in tended to optimize and manage the City’s resources. The following goals and policies related to visual resources are presented in the Conservation Element:

GOAL: To create and maintain a productive harmony between man and his environment through conservati on of natural resources and protection of significant areas having environmental and aesthetic value.

GOAL: To identify and preserve sites of outstanding scenic, historic, and cultural significance or recreational potential.

City of Long Beach General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element. The City’s Open Space and Recreation Element (2002) addresses the preservation of open space and recreation. Goals and policies presented within the Open Space and Recreation Element are intended to manage the use and enhancement of the City’s parklands. The following goals and policies related to visual resources are presented in the Open Space and Recreation Element:

Policy 1.2: Protect and improve the community’s natural resources, amenities, and scenic values, including nature centers, beaches, bluffs, wetlands, and water bodies.

Long Beach Municipal Code. Title 21, Zoning, of the Long Beach Municipal Code includes property development standards, as well as design guidelines, for development projects within the City.

Among the aspects of development regulated by the Municipal Code are types of allowable land uses, setback and height requirements, landscaping, walls, fencing, signage, access, parking requirements, storage areas, and trash enclosures. The Long Beach Munic ipal Code also provides performance standards for various land use types to measure development projects’ consistency with such regulations. The City is currently in the process of establishing Title 22 to facilitate a substantial update to the City’s Zoning Code consistent with the recently adopted LUE. The intention is to fully transition from Title 21, which is the currently established zoning chapter within the City’s Municipal Code, to Title 22, which will eventually regulate zoning throughout the City.

Lighting Standards. As described in the City’s Zoning Code, all lighting proposed as part of a parking lot and/or garage shall be illuminated with lights directed and shielded to prevent light and glare from intruding onto adjacent sites. All lights shall be illuminated to the applicable standards of the Illuminating Engineers Society. Additional details pertaining to parking lot lighting are provided in Section 21.41.259, Parking areas -Lighting and Section 22.30.110, Lighting Design for Safety, of the City’s Zoning Code.

Rooftop Solar. As described in the City’s Zoning Code, regulations for rooftop solar are provided for residential, commercial, and industrial districts.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-23 • Section 21.31.220(B)(4) (residential): Rooftop solar collectors and associated supporting structures may exceed the applicable height limit only if necessary for the sole purpose of solar collection , not otherwise installed on any occupiable areas of the roof, and consistent with the City of Long Beach Certified Local Coastal Program.
• 21.32.220 (h) (commercial): Rooftop solar collectors and associated supporting structures may exceed the applicable height limit only if necessary for the sole purpose of solar collection and not otherwise installed on any occupiable areas of the roof.
• 21.33.130 (E) (industrial): Rooftop solar collectors and associated supporting structures may exceed the applicable height limit only if necessary for the sole purpose of solar collection.

Landscaping Design Guidelines. Chapter 21.42, Landscaping Standards , of the City’s Zoning Code establishes landscape guidelines for development projects. As described in this section, the City requires that landscaping be composed of a minimum of 90 percent drought -tolerant and native plant materials in the interest of promoting water conservation. If the proposed planted area contains less than 90 percent of land covered with very -low to low water-use planting, a Landscape Document Package showing the Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU) of all proposed plantings is required for City review and approval. The landscaping standards would be applicable to all projects requiring site plan review.

4.1.4 Methodology

4.1.4.1 Key Concepts and Terminology
The concepts and terminology used in this analysis are described below. • Scenic Resource: Scenic resources are defined as natural or man-made elements that contribute to an area’s scenic value and are visually pleasing. Scenic resources include landforms, vegetation, water, or adjacent scenery and may include a cultural modification to the natural environment. The degree to which these resources are present in a community is clearly subject to personal and cultural interpretation. However, it is possible to qualify certain resources as having aesthetic characteristics and establish general guidelin es for assessing the aesthetic impacts of new development. The most prominent scenic resources in the planning areas are the Port of Long Beach, Pacific Ocean, and associated beaches. • Scenic Vista: A scenic vista is viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the public’s benefit. It is usually viewed from some distance away. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista include (1) scenic quality, (2) sensitivity level, and (3) view access.

A scenic vista can be impacted in two ways: a development project can have visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or “vista” of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether a proposed project would block scenic vistas include the project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel corridors.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-24 Scenic vistas within the planning area include views of the Pacific Ocean, the Los Cerritos Wetlands, Jack Dunster Marine Biological Reserve, Golden Shore Marine Biological Reserve Park, and the Dominguez Gap Wetlands. Views of distant mountain ranges, such as the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and Santa Ana Mountains, also constitute scenic vistas within the planning area. • Sensitive View: Sensitive views are generally those associated with designated vantage points and public recreational uses, but the term can be more broadly applied to encompass any valued public vantage point. Sensitivity level has to do with the (1) intensity of use of a visual resource; (2) visibility of a visual resource; and (3) importance of the visual resource to users. • Scenic Corridors: Scenic corridors are channels that facilitate movement (primarily by automobile, transit, bicycle, or foot) from one location to another with expansive views of natural landscapes and visually attractive man -made development. Scenic corridors analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) typically include State -designated scenic highways.
• Visual Character and Quality: The visual aesthetic character or quality of a streetscape, building, group of buildings, or other man -made or natural feature that creates an overall impression of an area within an urban context. For example, a scenic vista along the boundary of a community, a pleasing streetscape with trees, and well -kept residences and yards are scenic resources that create a pleasing impression of an area. In general, concepts of visual character and quality can be organized around four basic elements: (1) site util ization, (2) buildings and structures, (3) landscaping, and (4) signage. Adverse visual quality effects can include the loss of aesthetic features or the introduction of contrasting features that could contribute to a decline in overall visual character. I n addition, the degree of access to a visual resource contributes to the value of that resource so that an adverse visual quality effect can also occur if access to a visual resource is restricted.
• Glare: A continuous or periodic intense light that may cau se eye discomfort or be temporarily blinding to humans.
• Light Source: A device that produces illumination, including incandescent bulbs, fluorescent and neon tubes, halogen and other vapor lamps, and reflecting surfaces or refractors incorporated into a lighting fixture. Any translucent enclosure of a light source is considered to be part of the light source.

The analysis of visual impacts focuses on changes in the visual character of the planning area that may result subsequent to the approval of the propo sed project as a result of the CAAP Actions to meet the City’s GHG reduction targets and Adaptation Actions to address impacts of climate change . Implementation of CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions by the City, other agencies, or private developers would be subject to review to determine if a project- level CEQA analysis is required. The CAAP Checklist provided in Appendix D translates the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions into project -level measures , to ensure future discretionary projects are consistent with the proposed CAAP’s goals and policies to aid in reducing the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and achieve the City’s GHG target for 2030 . This would include the visual

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-25 compatibility of on -site and adjacent uses, changes in vistas and viewsheds where visual changes would be evident, changes to scenic resources along designated scenic roads, and the introduction of new sources of light and glare. Impacts to the existing environment in and around the planning area are identified by the contrast be tween the visual setting of the planning area before and after implementation of the proposed project.

Although few standards exist to singularly define perceptions of aesthetic value, the degree of visual change can be described in terms of visual contrast. The visual contrast of pattern elements
2 within visual environments can be described based on four aspects of pattern character3: dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity. The enjoyment or interpretation of the visual experience is the visual quality. The degree of visual character and quality is evaluated around three descriptive elements: vividness, intactness, and unity. None of these descriptive elements alone is equivalent to visual quality; all three must be high to substantiate high visu al quality.
• Vividness: Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in striking and distinctive visual patterns. For example, the view of the Grand Canyon would be rated high for vividness. In the City, views of the Port of Long Beach would be rated high for vividness.
• Intactness: Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and human -built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. This factor can be present in well- kept urban and rural landscapes and natural settings. For example, the view of a two -lane road meandering through the countryside would be rated high for intactness. In the City, views of the Alamitos Bay from Vista Marina Park would be rated high for intactness.
• Unity: Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered as a whole; it frequently attests to the careful design of individual components in the landscape.

For example, the view of an English or Japanese garden would be rated high for unity. In the City, views of the Pacific Ocean would be rated high for unity.

Visual changes to an existing setting could result in a positive or a negative perception of the proposed project depending on the viewer groups. Thus, viewer sensitivity is a combination of visual quality changes and viewer response to those changes. Viewer sensitivity to a project varies depending on familiarity with existing views, the sense of ownership of these views, and the activities viewers perform in relationship to those views. Visual perception is the act of seeing or recognizing an object and can be affected by physical conditions such as distance and speed. As an observer’s distance increases from an object, the ability to see the details of an object decreases. Similarly, as an ob server’s speed increases, the sharpness of lateral vision declines and the observer tends to focus along the line of travel. Thus, the physical location of

2 Pattern elements are primary attributes of a landscape and include form, line, color, and texture. 3 Pattern character refers to the visual relationships of pattern elements.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-26 the viewer group and the duration of its view would affect viewer exposure. All of these factors potentially affect perception and reaction to visual changes.

Light and Glare. The analysis of light and glare identifies the location of light -sensitive land uses and describes the existing ambient conditions on and in the vicinity of the planning area. The analysis describes the proposed project’s light and glare sources and the extent to which project lighting, including any potential illuminated signage, would spill off the planning area onto adjacent light - sensitive areas. The analysis also describes the affected street frontages, the direction in which the light would be focused, and the extent to which the proposed project would illuminate sensitive land uses. The analysis also considers the potential for sunlight to reflect off of windows and building surfaces (glare) and the extent to which such glare would interfere with the operation of motor vehicles, aviation, or other activities. Glare can also be produced during evening and night - time hours by artificial light sources, such as illuminated signage and vehicle headlights. Glare - sensitive uses generally include residences and transportation corridors (i.e., roadways).

Shade/Shadow. Prolonged periods of shade and shadowing have the potential to negatively affect the character of certain land uses. Shad ow-sensitive uses include routinely used outdoor spaces associated with residential, recreational, or institutional land uses; commercial uses, such as pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces or restaurants with outdoor seating areas; nurseries; and existing solar collectors/panels.

4.1.4.2 Analysis Approach
As stated above, the assessment of aesthetic impacts is subjective by nature. This analysis attempts to identify and objectively examine factors that contribute to the perception of aesthetic impacts that would be caused by implementation of the proposed project.

The City has not adopted defined standards for analyzing aesthetic impacts. Because the proposed project under evaluation in this Draft S EIR includes both the proposed CAAP and Public Safety Element Update of the City’s General Plan, and because specific design plans for future discretionary projects that may be facilitated by approval of the proposed project are not known at this time, the visual effects of the proposed project are evaluated on a programmatic level based on the project’s consistency with goals and policies established in the Land Use (2019), Urban Design (2019), Open Space and Recreation (2002), and the Conservation (1973) Elements of the City’s General Plan and whether or not visual change s that may result from implementation of the proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding area.

4.1.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance criteria are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines Based on these thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact related to aesthetics if it would:

Threshold 4.1.1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; Threshold 4.1.2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway;

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-27 Threshold 4.1.3: In a non -urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of th e site and its surroundings. If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or
Threshold 4.1.4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adverse ly affect day or nighttime views in the area.

4.1.6 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.1.1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the proposed CAAP, which was included as a mitigation measure in the General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements EIR (2019 Certified Program EIR) and is a policy document that provides a framework outlining requirements, incentives, and potential policies to ensure sustainable development and reduce the City’s greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development. Implementation of certain CAAP Actions by the City or other agencies , such as performance of municipal energy and water audits (BE -7), may not be subject to discretionary approval and project -level CEQA review. Additional analysis will be needed to determine the potential impacts of how CAAP Actions will be implemented at specific locations, and future improvements would be analyzed at the project level and would be subject to CEQA as required .

The proposed project would also be implemented through the application of the CAAP Checklist (Appendix D) to future discretionary projects to allow for CEQA GHG analysis streamlining. In order to demonstrate consistency with the proposed CAAP, future projects would either demonstrate emissions below the CAAP target of 1.4 metric tons of carbo n dioxide equivalent per service population ( MT CO
2e/SP) or less, or implement both mandatory (Tier 1) measures and, to the maximum extent feasible, the encouraged (Tier 2) measures that support the CAAP Actions and would achieve the City’s GHG emissions targets . CAAP Actions are proposed for the sectors of Building and Energy (BE) , Transportation (T), and Waste (W). If a project does not include specific Tier 1 measures, equivalent measures for GHG emission s reductions backed by substantial evidence must be provided for the project in order for the project to utilize the CAAP Checklist in lieu of a project-level GHG analysis.

Tier 1 measures are required because they were quantified as part of the City’s GHG reduction pathway for new development. Tier 1 measures or equivalent strategies would also be required for other improvements to existing development to demonstrate consistency with the goals and policies of the CAAP. Tier 1 measures required for the Building and E nergy sector include zero - carbon electricity, building energy efficiency, reduction of energy use and supply of renewable energy, and compliance with building energy codes and ordinances. There are no Tier 2 measures identified for the Building and Energy sector. Implementation of the Tier 1 measures would support the CAAP Actions for Building and Energy by requiring increased access to and incentives for clean electricity (BE-1 and BE -5) and the increased use of solar panels and community solar (BE-2 and BE-3), or equivalent alternative measures . Implementation of small- scale solar power panels or charging stations is not anticipated to involve construction of large buildings or structures at a scale

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-28 that would substantially alter or obstruct views from scenic v istas. While rooftop solar panels may be visible from scenic vistas, solar panels are generally consistent with the existing roofline and periods of reflection are limited in duration due to the position of the sun and direction of the panels away from sen sitive receptors and would be subject to development standards in the L ong Beach Municipal Code, which includes specific requirements related to rooftop solar as described in Section 4.1.3 above . Future development projects that include solar panels would be required to comply with standards related to light and glare established under the General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements EIR (2019 Certified Program EIR) and in the City’s Municipal C ode. Other Building and Energy CAAP Actions would increase energy efficiency of existing facilities, electrify new residential and commercial buildings, and reduc e emissions from local oil and gas extraction .

Future projects that implement measures to supp ort these CAAP Actions are not anticipated to substantially alter or obstruct views from scenic vistas as these would be accomplished through minor improvement and retrofits to existing facilities, rather than development of new structures , and all improvements would be reviewed at the project level to determine if project- specific CEQA review is required . Future discretionary projects that may result in the development of l arger renewable energy facilities, such as projects that would promote community sol ar (BE-3), would be subject to project-specific CEQA review and would be evaluated for consistency with the standards of the adopted LUE and PlaceTypes . In addition, all future discretionary projects that utilize the CAAP Checklist for GHG streamlining wou ld also be reviewed for consistency with the adopted LUE through Step 1 of the CAAP Checklist . Therefore, Tier 1 measures that support CAAP Actions for Building and Energy are not anticipated to result in significant alterations to scenic vistas. Future discretionary projects would also be subject to project -specific mitigation measures, if applicable.

Although Building and Energy CAAP Actions such as increased use of solar power (BE -2 and BE-3) may result in changes to visual character from the installation of rooftop solar panels or other solar power facilities, future development needed to implement these actions would be designed for consistency with Policies LU 7-8, UD 14-1, and UD 14-2 related to compatibility of development with surrounding land uses, building scale, and transitions between land uses.

Tier 1 measures for the Transportation sector include trip reduction features to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), incorporation of pedestrian, bicycle, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and compliance with the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines. Tier 2 measures for the Transportation s ector include meeting the Transportation Screening Criteria and High -Density, Mixed -Use, Transit -Oriented, Walkable Infill Project Design. Implementation of Tier 1 measures would support the CAAP Actions for Transportation by improving transit service (T-1), providing bicycle, pedestrian, and electric vehicle infrastructure (T-2, T-3, and T-5), complying with City TDM requirements (T -7), and complying with the City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines to analyze VMT pursuant to Senate Bill ( SB) 743 (T-9).

Implementation of the Tier 2 measures would support CAAP Actions to increase employm ent and residential development along transit corridors and increased density and mixing of land uses (T -6 and T-8). Similar to the B uilding and Energy CAAP Actions above, future projects that include the development of new transit facilities and increased residential, commercial, and mixed -use development near transit facilities would be analyzed for consistency with the adopted LUE , Mobility Element, and PlaceTypes. The adopted PlaceTypes were established in order to allow for greater flexibility, density, and mix of compatible land uses, including increased density near transit.

Other Tier 2 measures to support the CAAP Actions for Transportation listed on the CAAP Checklist

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-29 are designed to focus increased housing and employment density along major transit corridors , increase rapid bus service, establishing bus -only lanes, and expanding electric -vehicle charging infrastructure to further reduce emissions. Mandatory Tier 1 measures related to bicycles and pedestrians would include improvements that are typically low-lying in nature (involving the ground surface only). Therefore, implementation of both Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures to support the CAAP Actions for Transportation as part of future discretionary projects is not anticipated to impact scenic vistas, and implementation of the proposed CAAP would help achieve the goals and policies of the adopted LUE and Mobility Element . Furthermore, all future discretionary projects would be designed for consistency wi th the adopted UDE, which encourages transitions of PlaceTypes while decreasing land use and visual conflicts.

Tier 1 measures required for the Waste sector include the recycling of appropriate materials and organics waste diversions . Tier 2 measures for the Waste sector include incorporation of on -site composting, mulching, and/or anaerobic digestion. Implementation of the Tier 1 measures would support CAAP Actions for Waste by requiring recycling (W-1) and organic waste diversion (W-2). The provision of recycling and compost bins to commercial and residential uses to help implement these actions would not result in changes to visual character that would be visible from or impede scenic vistas and would be subject to all screening requirements in the Long Beach Municipal Code. Other CAAP Actions for Waste supported by the measures listed on the CA AP Checklist would expand community-wide participation in organic waste collection and diversion. Future discretionary projects that might result in the development of organic waste facilities would be evaluated for consistency with the land uses and standards of the adopted LUE and resulting PlaceTypes , subject to project-specific CEQA review and project-specific mitigation measures, if applicable. Therefore, implementation of Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures to support the CAAP Actions related to Waste for future discretionary projects is not anticipated to result in significant alterations to scenic vistas, consistent with the adopted development standards.

Future discretionary projects will be required to demonstrate compliance with the CAAP Checklist for the purpose of meeting the City’s GHG reduction target, by documenting the incorporation of Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures, or equivalent replacement strategies that support the proposed CAAP Actions at a project level. All future discretionary projects will be reviewed in accordance with CEQA and for consistency with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan and development standards. The proposed project would also be consistent with the policies and goals of the adopted LUE and UDE aimed at guiding the aesthetic character of new development in a manner that would not significantly inhibit or obstruct scenic vistas in the planning area. Project applicants would be required to demonstrate consistency with goals, policies, and strategies outlined in the adopted LUE, UDE, and other General Plan policies aimed at preserving scenic vistas in the planning area.

Furthermore, these future discretionary projects do not constitute the proposed project , which is limited to adoption of the proposed CAAP as a planning/policy document. Potential impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

In addition to the measures to support the CAAP Actions to achieve the GHG emissions target of the CAAP, the proposed CAAP also identifies Adaptation Actions related to extreme heat, air quality, drought, and sea level rise/flooding . The Adaptation Actions provide general strategies that may be needed to lessen climate change impacts based on the CAAP Vulnerability Assessment . While

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-30 Adaptation Actions would not be required to meet the City’s GHG reduction targets , they are included on the CAAP Checklist because they may be applicable to future discretionary projects and would demonstrate consistency with the overall goals and strategies of the CAAP. Other Adaptation Actions are anticipated to be undertaken at a neighborhood or citywide scale, such as A daptation Actions to less en the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure and public facilities . The proposed CAAP provides an assessment of climate change vulnerabilities and recommends a suite of potential adaptation strategies for each climate change impact that would be accomplished through implementation of the Adaptation Actions There is not sufficient information at this time to analyze potential future physical improvements that may be needed to implement the proposed framework of Adaptation Actions in the CAAP, such as elevating infrastructure, as specific projects and locations are unknown. Additional analysis will be needed to develop specific adaptation approaches and projects at specific locations , and future improvements would be analyzed on a project level pursuant to CEQA and for consistency with policies and standards in the adopted LUE and UDE, intended to improve the overall visual character of the City through new development projects that would shape the urban environment of the City, while preserving existing development that defines its unique aesthetic character . Therefore, potential impacts of the Adaptation Actions on scenic vistas would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

It should also be noted that the GHG reduction goals o f the CAAP were informed by the development assumptions of the adopted LUE and the General Plan buildout conditions. The 2019 Program EIR concluded that the LUE would result in a less than significant impact related to effects on a scenic vista. As the proposed CAAP would not alter the land uses designations or development assumptions of the adopted LUE, the proposed project would not alter the less than significant impact identified in the 2019 Program EIR.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. The proposed pr oject also includes text changes to the Safety Element to bring the Safety Element up to date and into compliance with a number of S tate laws including relating to climate change and resiliency . These text amendments to the Safety Element represent a planning action intended to comply with State law. Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to scenic vistas.

Therefore, the Safety Element update would have no impact on scenic vistas, and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.1.2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no State- designated scenic highways in the planning area; however, as described in Section 4.1.3.2 above, PCH is considered to be an Eligible State Scenic Highway.

Although there are no State -designated scenic highways in the City, the City’s existing General Plan adopted UDE designates local scenic routes. Specifically, the UDE identifies Ocean Boulevard and Livingston Drive as a designated scenic route and identifies future expansion s. In addition, the City’s Open Space and Recreation Element requires protection of scenic features in the City, including

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-31 beaches, bluffs, wetlands, and water bodies. Due to their prevalence throughout the City, these scenic features are viewable from the established local scenic routes.

The proposed project is a policy/planning action and approval of the CAAP at a programmatic level does not constitute approval of physical development necessary to implement CAAP Actions that would require project-level CEQA review, nor would it grant any entitlements for development that would result in the permanent obstruction of the scenic routes identified above. As described above, the proposed project would also be implemented through the application of the CAAP Checklist (Appendix D) to future discretionary projects to allow for CEQA streamlining. In order for future discretionary projects to demonstrate consistency with the CAAP, the CAAP Checklist includes Tier 1 measures that support CAAP Actions related to Building and Energy designed to ensure that future discretionary projects reduce GHG emissions, such as through the increased use of clean electricity or solar power, and ensure consistency with the CAAP to achieve the City’s overall GHG emissions goals. Other Tier 1 measures would support Building and Energy CAAP Actions by requiring energy efficiency improvements and increased use of solar power and clean electricity sources. The C AAP Checklist also includes Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures to support Transportation CAAP Actions including the expansion of the bicycle and pedestrian network and other measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) would result in beneficial improvements to City roadways and may also improve the visual character of local scenic routes. All Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures, or equivalent replacement strategies to support CAAP Actions, would be implemented through future City-initiated and discretionary projects. All future discretionary projects that would utilize the CAAP Checklist to demonstrate compliance with the City’s GHG reduction goals would be subject to review under CEQA and consistency with the City’s General Plan Mobility Element, the Urban Design Element, the Street Design Manual, and the Caltrans Scenic Highway Program.

As described above, in addition to the measures to support CAAP Actions related to Building and Energy, Transportation, and Waste that would apply to future development to achieve the GHG emissions target of the CAAP, the proposed CAAP also identifies Adaptation Actions related to extreme heat, air quality, drought, and sea level rise/flooding. While incorporation of Adaptation Actions strategies would not be required to meet the City’s GHG reduction targets, they are included on the CAAP Checklist for future discretionary projects to implement as applicable, and could help lessen the impacts of climate change on future development projects and the community . Other Adaptation Actions are anticipated to be undertaken at a neighborhood or citywide scale, such as Adaptation Actions related to lessen the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure and public facilities . The CAAP provides an assessment of climate change vuln erabilities and recommends a suite of potential adaptation strategies for each climate change impact . There is not sufficient information at this time to analyze potential future physical improvements that are suggested as A daptation Actions in the CAAP as specific projects and locations are unknown.

Additional analysis will be needed to develop specific adaptation approaches and projects at specific locations, and future discretionary improvements would be analyzed on a project level pursuant to CEQA, and project-specific mitigation for potential impacts to scenic resources within a State - designated scenic highway would be required, as applicable . Therefore, potential impacts of the Adaptation Actions would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-32 All future discretionary projects that would utilize the CAAP Checklist would be designed in accordance with all applicable regulatory ordinances and General Plan policies, which would aim at preserving scenic routes established throughout the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the sub stantial damage of scenic resources within a State -designated highway.

It should also be noted that the GHG reduction goals of the CAAP were informed by the development assumptions of the adopted LUE and the General Plan buildout conditions. The 2019 Program EIR concluded that the LUE would result in a less than significant impact related to the substantial damage of scenic resources within a State -designated highway. As the proposed CAAP would not alter the land uses designations or development assumption s of the adopted LUE, the proposed project would not alter the less than significant impact identified in the 2019 Program EIR.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. The proposed project also includes text changes to the Safety Element to bring the Safety Elem ent up to date and into compliance with a number of S tate laws including relating to climate change and resiliency . These text amendments to the Safety Element represent a planning action intended to comply with State law. Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to scenic resources within a State -designated scenic highway . Therefore, the Safety Element update would have no impact on scenic resources within scenic highway, and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.1.3: In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from p ublicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. A s previously noted, the planning area is curre ntly characterized as a built-out urban environment. The proposed project would be implemented by the City, other agencies, or private developers through CAAP Actions, which would include improvements that would be subject to project -level review under CEQ A to determine potential impacts. Application of the CAAP Checklist (Appendix D) for future discretionary projects would allow for CEQA streamlining in lieu of a project -specific GHG emissions analysis . These future discretionary projects may result in changes to visual character or to public views within the planning area. However, the proposed project is approval of the CAAP and does not constitute approval of any physical development of buildings or structures subject to project -level C EQA analysis, and all Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures, or equivalent replacement strategies required to support the CAAP Actions would be included in future discretionary projects in order to demonstrate consistency with the City’s GHG reduction targets. Future discretionary projects that utilize the CAAP Checklist for GHG analysis streamlining would still be subject to project -specific CEQA review and would be evaluated for consistency with the adopted LUE and PlaceType designations. Therefore, i mpacts to the v isual character of the planning area from future discretionary projects that include the required measures to demonstrate consistency with the CAAP, which may include development of renewable energy facilities, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or waste collection facilities , would be evaluated for consistency with the higher -density development in designated locations and the visual compatibility established by the adopted LUE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-33 and resulting PlaceTypes and adjacent land uses. In addition, these future discretionary projects that demonstrate consistency with the CAAP may result in changes within the built environment involving the replacement of existing structures with new structures (i.e., new renewable energy or transit facilities) includi ng high-quality materials and design required under the UDE. While these changes may be widespread over time, they would be subject to review under CEQA and are not considered degrading to the City’s visual character as intended by the meaning of the thres hold. In addition, in many circumstances , such updates and changes may result in improvements to the visual quality of the built environment.

Furthermore, the visual character and quality of the planning area would be preserved and enhanced through the future discretionary projects’ consistency with the goals, policies, strategies, and development standards outlined in the adopted LUE and UDE that are intended to guide the quality and aesthetic value of existing and future development in the City. Future d iscretionary projects within the City would also be required to submit detailed plans to the City to ensure consistency with the City’s design requirements aimed at improving the visual character of the planning area. For example, as the City works with tr ansit agencies to enhance transit service frequency at a transit stop (T -1) and existing neighborhoods, the policy framework is in place to ensure appropriate buffers to minimize impacts associated with shade/shadow on adjacent uses.

Therefore, the CAAP Actions supported by the Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures on the CAAP Checklist would not substantially degrade the visual character of the planning area nor conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and no mitigation is required.

The CAAP Checklist also includes Adaptation Actions, which are not required to meet the City’s GHG reduction targets, but rather provide general guidance as to the types, locations, and sequencing of more detailed studies and potential future projects that may be needed to lessen the impacts of climate change in particular locations throughout the City. While incorporation of Adaptation Actions strategies would not be required to meet the City’s GHG reduction targets, they are included on the CAAP Chec klist for future discretionary projects to implement as applicable and could help lessen the impacts of climate change on future development projects and the community . Other Adaptation Actions are anticipated to be undertaken at a neighborhood or citywide scale, such as Adaptation Actions related to lessen the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure and public facilities. The CAAP provides an assessment of climate change vulnerabilities and recommends a suite of potential adaptation strategies for each climate change impact. Additional analysis will be needed to develop specific adaptation approaches and projects at specific locations and future development would be analyzed on a project level for consistency with policies and standards in the adopted LUE and UDE . Those policies are intended to improve the overall visual character of the City through new development projects that would shape the urban environment of the City, while preserving existing development that define its unique aesthetic character.

Therefore, potential impacts of the Adaptation Actions related to scenic quality and visual character would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

It should also be noted that the GHG reduction goals of the CAAP were informed by the development assumptions of the adopted LUE and the General Plan buildout conditions. The 2019 Program EIR concluded that the LUE would result in a less than significant impact related to scenic quality and visual character. As the proposed CAAP woul d not alter the land uses designations or

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-34 development assumptions of the adopted LUE, the proposed project would not alter the less than significant impact identified in the 2019 Program EIR.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. The proposed project also incl udes text changes to the Safety Element, to bring the Safety Element up to date and into compliance with a number of S tate laws including relating to climate change and resiliency. These text amendments to the Safety Element represent a planning action int ended to comply with State law. Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to the visual character of the planning area or conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations g overning scenic quality. Therefore, the Safety Element update would have no impact on visual character and scenic quality, and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.1.4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. Existing sources of light in the project vicinity include headlights on nearby roadways; building facade and interior lighting; pole -mounted lighting in the parking areas; and lighting associated with regional serving uses such as the Port of Long Beach, th e Long Beach Airport, and entertainment activities at the Pike at Rainbow Harbor. Adjacent residential areas, public facility uses (including roadways and highways), commercial uses, and industrial uses also currently emit light and glare. Lighting from ex isting distant development within the region and surrounding cities also contributes to the background lighting within the City.

Future discretionary projects that utilize the CAAP Checklist and implement measures to support the CAAP Actions may result in light and glare impacts if they introduce highly reflective building materials that create glare or do not conform to applicable regulations related to glare. Reflective materials, such as large expanses of glass, are typically used in office and commercial uses that include large windows . Solar panels are typically developed with anti- reflective material but may also increase glare compared to existing conditions. Development associated with expanded pedestrian and bicycle facilities may also include additional lighting for safety.

Future discretionary projects that implement the measures to support the CAAP Actions would have the potential to introduce new sources of light to the City typical of development projects. Lighting proposed as part of future discretionary projects would vary by development type. Tier 1 measures that would occur in low-density residential areas such as bicycle and pedestrian improvements and provision of recycling and compost bins are anticipated to have a very minimal effect on nighttime lighting because these uses would be limited to security or ornamental lighting on supporting structures. Conversely, the largest nighttime lighting from new renewable energy facility development, new transit facilities, or development near existing transit facilities would occur in areas proposed for commercial, industrial, or high-density mixed-uses (e.g., high-rise buildings in the Downtown area), which already contain lighted signs and nighttime security lighting, and are often located near multifamily residential uses that have their own lighting requirements.

All future discretionary projects that utilize the CAAP Checklist and implement measures to support the CAAP Actions to demonstrate consistency with the City’s GHG emissions targets would be reviewed under CEQA and would be required to comply with the design standards established in the

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-35 adopted UDE and the City’s Municipal Code. Any other future discretionary projects implemented by the City, other agencies, or private developers that would help achieve the goals of the CAAP would also be subject both to project -specific CEQA review and the City’s Municipal Code requirements.

For example, all parking area and structure lighting would be designed with lights directed and shielded to prevent light and glare from intruding onto adjacent sites (Long Beach Municipal Code, Section 21.41.259, Parking areas —Lighting). On -site landscaping proposed as part of new development projects would further reduce glare and would serve to screen light sourc es to reduce the visual impact of lighting from buildings and parking lots. The City would review site plans and architectural renderings for new projects with an emphasis on the presence of reflective materials and proposed lighting to minimize potential impacts related to light and glare, and propose mitigation, if necessary. Potential mitigation measures could require the project applicant to prepare a lighting plan, a photometric study for review and approval, or undergo a lighting inspection. These measures are intended to minimize the impacts of new sources of light and glare on adjacent land uses, limit lighting to that necessary for security, and ensure that lighting is shielded to reduce glare and spill lighting effects to residential areas.

Although future development may introduce new sources of light that would contribute to the light visible in the night sky and surrounding area, the planning area is located within a highly urbanized area that is currently characterized by significant nighttime lighting. In addition , the proposed project does not include any physical development of buildings or structures , and any future discretionary projects that utilize the C AAP Checklist and that implement the measures to support the CAAP Actions would be sub ject to project-specific CEQA review as required . Therefore, the proposed project’s impact related to light and glare would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.

In addition to t he Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures to support the CAAP Actions, the CAAP Checklist also includes Adaptation Actions, which are not required to meet the City’s GHG reduction targets , but rather provide a general vision of the types , locations, and sequencing of more detailed studies and potential future projects that may be needed to lessen the impacts of climate change in particular locations throughout the C ity. While the Adaptation Actions are not required for future discretionary projects to meet the City’s GHG reduction targets , they are encouraged through the CAAP Checklist because they may be applicable to future discretionary projects and could help lessen the impacts of climate change on future development projects and the community . Other Adaptation Actions are anticipated to be undertaken at a neighborh ood or citywide scale, such as Adaptation Actions related to lessen the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure and public facilities . The CAAP provides an assessment of climate change vulnerabilities and recommends a suite of potential adaptation strategies for each climate change impact . Additional analysis will be needed to develop specific adaptation approaches and projects at specific locations , and future projects would be subject to CEQA and would be analyzed on a project level for consistency with policies and standards in the adopted LUE and UDE . Those policies are intended to improve the overall visual character of the City through new development projects that would shape the urban environment of the City, while preserving existi ng development that define s its unique aesthetic character. Therefore, potential impacts of the Adaptation Actions related to light and glare would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-36 It should also be noted that the GHG reduction goal s of the CAAP were informed by the development assumptions of the adopted LUE and the General Plan buildout conditions. The 2019 Program EIR concluded that the LUE would result in a less than significant impact related to light and glare impacts. As the pr oposed CAAP would not alter the land uses designations or development assumptions of the adopted LUE, the proposed project would not alter the less than significant impact identified in the 2019 Program EIR.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. The proposed p roject also includes text changes to the Safety Element, to bring the Safety Element up to date and into compliance with a number of S tate laws including relating to climate change and resiliency. These text amendments to the Safety Element represent a planning action intended to comply with State law. Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts from light and glare. Therefore, the Safety Element update would have no impact from light and glare , and no mitigation is required.

4.1.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to scenic vistas, visual quality and character, and light and glare, and no mitigation is required.

4.1.8 Compliance Measures and Project Design Features
The proposed project does not include any physical development of any buildings or structures, would not be required to adhere to any compliance measures, and as a planning action does not include any project design features related to aesthetics.

4.1.9 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for the proposed project.

4.1.10 Level of Significance after Mitigation
There would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to aesthetics, and no mitigation is required.

4.1.11 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines , cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for aesthetics. The proposed project does not include physical improvements or development. Future projects to implement CAAP actions would be subject to project -level CEQA review as required. Because the proposed project is a citywide policy/planning action that includes strategies and measures that would apply to future discretionary projects throughout the entire City, the proposed project itself is cumulative in nature.

Cumulative visual impacts would occur if the visual character of the planning area or the immediately adjacent areas would be degraded by the proposed project in combination with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, thereby having a substantial negative effect on

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-37 the surrounding aesthetics, including visual character, views, and light/glare and shade/shadow conditions. The cumulative study area for visual resources for the proposed project is the City’s viewshed. The viewshed from the planning area includes vantage points with views of the Pacific Ocean, the Port of Long Beach, the Long Beach marinas, the San Gabriel Mountains, and the Santa Ana Mountains.

As described previously, the CAAP Checklist that will apply to future discretionary projects translates the programmatic CAAP Actions into Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures for incorporation at the project level. Tier 1 measures, or equivalent strategies, are required for all future discretionary projects to ensure that new development and other improvements substantially contribute to the City’s GHG reduction pathway quantified in the CAAP and collectively achieve the City’s emissions target. Tier 1 measures in th e CAAP Checklist ensure implementation of quantified CAAP A ctions related to Building and Energy, Transportation, and Waste in order to demonstrate consistency with the CAAP in lieu of a project -specific GHG analysis. The C AAP Checklist also includes Tier 2 measures that would support non-quantified CAAP Actions, as well as the Adaptation Actions. Future discretionary projects that implement these measures to support CAAP Actions or Adaptation Actions are not anticipated to substantially alter the visual character of the planning area, as compared to existing conditions. The site design, landscaping, and architectural design of future discretionary projects that would utilize the CAAP Checklist to demonstrate consistency with the CAAP, and subse quently implement the measures identified in the Checklist , would be required to be consistent with goals, policies, strategies, and development standards established by the adopted UDE, which are intended to avoid, reduce, offset, or otherwise minimized i dentified potential adverse impacts of the proposed project or provide significant benefits to the community and/or to the physical environment. In addition, all future discretionary projects would also be required to go through project-specific CEQA environmental, as well as design and site plan review and approval processes.

Furthermore, future discretionary projects that utilize the CAAP Checklist and subsequently implement the measures required to demonstrate consistency with the CAAP would also be evaluated for consistency with policies and standards in the adopted LUE and UDE , which are intended to improve the overall visual character of the City through new development projects that would shape the urban environment of the City, while preserving existing development that define its unique aesthetic character. Implementation of solar panels, energy-efficiency retrofits, and other improvements included in the measures that would support the CAAP Actions are not expected to be obtrusive so as to significantly affect views from vistas or alter the visual character of the planning areas. In addition, the proposed project does not include any physical development of buildings or structures, and would therefore not cumulatively contribute to visual impacts. No mitigation is required.

In addition, the Adaptation Actions would not be required to meet the City’s GHG reduction targets, but are included in the CAAP Checklist as they may be applicable to future discretionary projects and would also help lessen the impacts of climate change on the City . Additional analysis will be needed to develop specific adaptation approaches and projects at specific locations , and future discretionary projects to implement Adaptation Actions would be analyzed on a project level f or consistency with policies and standards in the adopted LUE and UDE. As those policies are intended to improve the overall visual character of the City, potential impacts of the Adaptation Actions would therefore not cumulatively contribute to visual impacts, and no mitigation is required.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Aesthetics.docx (03/15/22) 4.1-38 Future discretionary projects that utilize the CAAP Checklist, and subsequently implement the measures required to demonstrate consistency with the CAAP, may result in the introduction of new sources of light and glare within the planning area. As previously stated, measures to support the CAAP Actions that would introduce more lighting, such as safety lighting for pedestrian and bicycle facilities or glare due to additional solar panels , would be implemented consistent with the lighting and development standards in the City’s Municipal Code . The City is currently characterized as an urban environment with existing high levels of light pollution, and light and glare emitted by future discretionary projects would be evaluated under CEQA to determine whether it would result in a cumulatively significant visual impact. The proposed project does not include any physical development of buildings or structures, and would therefore not cumulatively contribute to light and glare impacts. No mitigation is required.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-1

4.2 AIR QUALITY
This section discusses potential air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and Safety Element Update Project (proposed project) . The analysis contained in this section is based on the Draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (Appendix B), the Draft Safety Element (Appendix C), and the Climate Action and Adaption Plan Consistency Review Checklist (CAAP Checklist) : Technical Support Documentation (ESA 202 2) (Appendix D). As described in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project is the adoption of the proposed CAAP and Safety Element Update and is considered a policy/planning action . The proposed project does not include physical improvements or development , and impacts from implementation of all future CAAP Actions at this time would be speculative. Any future discretionary projects would also be subject to project -level CEQA as required. Therefore, the analysis in this Subsequent Env ironmental Impact Report (SEIR) focuses on the potential programmatic level impacts of the CAAP, which includes both CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions, potential impacts from the measures that support the CAAP Actions required for future discretionary projects that would utilize the CAAP Checklist for CEQA GHG streamlining , and the potential programmatic level impacts of the Safety Element Update.

4.2.1 Scoping Process
The City of Long Beach (City) received five comment letters during the public review period of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP). For copies of the IS/NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A of this Draft SEIR. One comment letter included comments related to air quality.

The letter from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) received on September 22, 2021, suggested that the LACSD facilities must be sized and phased in a manner that is consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments ’ (SCAG) regional growth forecasts , as these forecasts are incorporated into the clean air plan s prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This comment letter did not include any specific requests for topics to be analyzed in this SEIR; however , consistency with applicable air plans is discussed in Section

4.2.7, below, under Threshold 4.2.1.

4.2.2 Existing Environmental Setting
The following discussion provides an overview of existing air quality conditions in the region and in the City. Ambient air q uality standards and the regulatory framework are summarized and climate, air quality conditions, and typical air pollutant types and sources are also described.

4.2.2.1 Existing Planning Area
The proposed CAAP and Safety Element Update address all land within the City’s jurisdictional limits.

Throughout this Draft SEIR, these areas are referred to as the “planning area.” The planning area encompasses approximately 50 square miles within the limits of the City of Long Beach (excluding the City of Signal Hill, which is completely surrounded by the City of Long Beach) in the southern region of Los Angeles County. The planning area is bordered on the west by the Cities of Carson and Los Angeles (including Wilmington and the Port of Los Angeles); on the north by the Cities of Compton, Paramount, and Bellflower; and on the east by the Cities of Lakewood, Hawaiian

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-2 Gardens, Cypress, Los Alamitos, and Seal Beach. As mentioned , the City of Signal Hill is centrally located within the planning area and is completely surrounded by development in the City of Long Beach.

The planning area is currently developed and consists of a mix of residential, commercial, medical, institutional, industrial, and open space and recreation uses. These uses currently generate criteria air pollut ants from natural gas and electricity use for energy, heating and cooking, vehicle trips associated with each land use, and area sources such as landscaping equipment and consumer cleaning products.

4.2.2.2 Regional Air Quality
The planning area is located within the South Coast Air Basin ( Basin). The Basin is an approximately 6,745-square-mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Basin consists of Orange County, Los Angeles County (excluding the Antelope Valley portion), and the western, non-desert portions of San Bernardino and Riverside C ounties, in addition to the San Gorgonio Pass area in Riverside County. The terrain and geographical location determine the distin ctive climate of the Basin, as it is a coastal plain with broad valleys and low hills. The Basin lies in the semi- permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific Ocean. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted by periods of hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds.

The extent and severity of pollutant concentrations in the Basin is a function of the area’s natural physical characteristics (weather and topography) and man-made influences (development patterns and lifestyle). Factors s uch as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and topography all affect the accumulation and dispersion of pollutants throughout the Basin, making it an area of high pollution potential. The Basin’s meteorological conditions, in combination with regional topography, are conducive to the formation and retention of ozone, which is a secondary pollutant that forms through photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Thus, the greatest air pollution impacts throughout the Basin typically occur from June through September. This condition generally is attributed to the emissions occurring in the Basin, light winds, and shallow vertical atmospheric mixing. These factors reduce the potential for pollutant dispersion causing elevated air pollutant levels. Pollutant concentrations in the Basin vary with location, season, and time of day.

Concentrations of ozone, for example, tend to be lower along the coast, higher in the near inland valleys, and lower in the far inland areas of the Basin and adjacent desert.

4.2.2.3 Air Pollutants and Health Effects
Both State and federal governments have established health-based ambient air quality standards for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O 3), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride , and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable marg in of safety. Two criteria pollutants, O3 and NO2, are considered regional pollutants because they (or their precursors) affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, SO 2, and Pb are considered local pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-3 The primary pollutants of concern in the planning area are O 3, CO, and suspended particulate matter. Significance thresholds established by an air quality district are used to manage total regional and local emissions within an air basin based on the air basin’s attainment status for criteria pollutants. These emission thresholds were established for individual development projects that would contribute to regional and local emissions and could adversely affect or delay the air basin’s projected attainment target goals for nonattainment criteria pollutants.

Because of the conservative nature of the significance thresholds, and the basin -wide context of individual development project emissions, there is no direct correlation between a single p roject and localized air quality -related health effects. One individual project that generates emissions exceeding a threshold does not neces sarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity. This condition is especially true w hen the criteria pollutants exceeding thresholds are those with regional effects, such as ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides (NO X) and reactive organic gases (ROG).

Further, by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to by itself result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cum ulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the air quality districts have considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

Occupants of facilities such as schools, daycare centers, parks and play grounds, hospitals, and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air pollutants because these population groups have incr eased susceptibility to respiratory disease.

Persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality.

Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions, compared to commercial and industrial areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, with greater associated exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive compared to commercial and industrial uses due to greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions associated with exercise. These populations are referred to as sensitive receptors.

Air pollutants and their health effects, and other air pollution -related considerations are summarized in Table 4.2.A and are described in more detail below.

Ozone. Ozone (O
3) is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NO X. The main sources of ROG and NO x, often referred to as ozone precursors, are combustion processes (including combustion in motor vehicle engines) and the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels. Automobiles are typically the largest source of ozone precur sors. Ozone is referred to as a regional air pollutant because its precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with ozone production through the photochemical reaction process. Ozone causes eye irritation, airway constriction, and shortnes s of breath and can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-4 Table 4.2.A: Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants Pollutants Sources Primary Health Effects
Ozone (O3)  Precursor sources: 1 motor vehicles,
industrial emissions, and consumer
products.
 Respiratory symptoms.
 Worsening of lung disease leading to
premature death.
 Damage to lung tissue.
 Crop, forest, and ecosystem damage.
 Damage to a variety of materials, including
rubber, plastics, fabrics, paints, and metals.

Particulate Matter Less
than 2.5 Microns in
Diameter (PM2.5)
 Cars and trucks (especially diesels).
 Fireplaces, woodstoves.
 Windblown dust from roadways,
agriculture, and construction.
 Premature death.
 Hospitalization for worsening of cardiovascular
disease.
 Hospitalization for respiratory disease.
 Asthma-related emergency room visits.
 Increased symptoms, increased inhaler usage.

Particulate Matter Less
than 10 Microns in
Diameter (PM10)
 Cars and trucks (especially diesels).
 Fireplaces, woodstoves.
 Windblown dust from roadways,
agriculture, and construction.
 Premature death and hospitalization, primarily
for worsening of respiratory disease.
 Reduced visibility and material soiling.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)  Any source that burns fuels such as cars, trucks, construction and
farming equipment, and residential
heaters and stoves.
 Lung irritation.
 Enhanced allergic responses.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)  Any source that burns fuels such as cars, trucks, construction and
farming equipment, and residential
heaters and stoves.
 Chest pain in patients with heart disease.
 Headache.
 Light-headedness.
 Reduced mental alertness.

Sulfur Oxides (SOX)  Combustion of sulfur-containing
fossil fuels.
 Smelting of sulfur -bearing metal
ores.
 Industrial processes.
 Worsening of asthma: increased symptoms,
increased medication usage, and emergency
room visits.

Lead (Pb)  Contaminated soil.  Impaired mental functioning in children.  Learning disabilities in children.
 Brain and kidney damage.

Toxic Air Contaminants
(TACs)
 Cars and trucks (especially diesels).
 Industrial sources, such as chrome
platers.
 Neighborhood businesses, such as
dry cleaners and service stations.
 Building materials and products.
 Cancer.
 Reproductive and developmental effects.
 Neurological effects.

Source: California Air Resources Board (2018).
1 Ozone is not generated directly by these sources. Rather, chemicals emitted by these precursor sources react with sunlight to form ozone in the atmosphere.

Carbon Monoxide. CO is an odorless, colorless gas usually formed as the result of the incomplete combustion of fuels. The single largest source of CO is motor vehic les. CO transport is limited – it disperses with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways or intersec- tions may reach unhealthful levels that adversely affect local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-5 with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS) or with extremely high traffic volumes. Exposure to high concentrations of CO reduces the oxygen -carrying capacity of the blood and can cause headaches, nausea, dizziness, and fatigue, impair central nervous system function, and induce angina (chest pain) in persons with serious heart disease. Extremely high levels of CO, such as those generated when a vehicle is running in an unventilated garage, can be fatal.

Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is a class of air pollutants that consists of heterogeneous solid and liquid airborne particles from humanmade and natural sources. Particulate matter is categorized in two size ranges: PM
10, for particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and PM2.5, for particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Motor vehicles are the primary generators of par- ticulates, through tailpipe emissions as well as brake pad, tire wear, and entrained road dust. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves, industrial facilities, and ground -disturbing activities such as construction are other sources of such fine particulates. These fine particulates are small enough to be inhaled into the deepest parts of the human lung and can cause adverse health effects. According to the California Air Resources Board ( CARB), studies in the United States and elsewhere have demonstrated a strong link between elevated particulate levels and prema ture deaths, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and asthma attacks, and studies of children’s health in California have demo nstrated that particle pollution may significantly reduce lung function growth in children.
1 The International Agency for Research on Cancer published a review in 2015 that concluded that particulate matter in outdoor air pollution causes lung cancer. 2 Statewide attainment of particulate matter standards could reduce premature deaths, hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory disease , asthma-related emergency room visits, and episodes of respiratory illness in California.

Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2 is a reddish-brown gas that is a byproduct of combustion processes. Automo- biles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO 2. Aside from its contribution to ozone formation, NO2 also contributes to other pollution problems, including a high conc entration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition. NO 2 may be visible as a coloring compo nent on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. NO 2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection.

Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is a colorless acidic gas with a strong odor. It is produced by the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels such as oil, coal, and diesel. SO 2 has the potential to damage materials and can cause health effects at high concentrations. It can irritate lung tissue and increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease. SO 2 also reduces visibility and the level of sunlight at the ground surface.

Lead. Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions.

1 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM 2.5 and PM 10).

Website: ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health (accessed August 2021). 2 World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2015. Outdoor Air Pollution, Volume 109. IARC Monographs on the Evaluatio n of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans. December 17, 2015.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-6 The highest levels of lead in air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead -acid battery factories. Twenty years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the air. In the early 1970s, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. The USEPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995. As a result of USEPA regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector and levels of lead in the air decreased dramatically.

Toxic Air Contaminants. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. Some examples of TACs include:
benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, and hydrogen sulfide. Potential human health effects of TACs include birth defects, neurological damage, cancer, and death. There are hundreds of different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Individual TACs vary greatly in the health risk they present; at a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another.

TACs do not have ambient air quality s tandards, but are regulated by the USEPA, CARB, and the SCAQMD. In 1998, the CARB identified particulate matter from diesel- fueled engines as a TAC . The CARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities and land uses that are characterized by use of diesel- fueled engines. 3 High volume
freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers, truck stops) were identified as posin g the highest risk to adjacent receptors.

Other facilities associated with increased risk include warehouse distribution centers, large retail or industrial facilities, high volume transit centers, and schools with a high volume of bus traffic. Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure.

Unlike TACs emitted from industrial and other stationary sources noted above, most diesel particulate matter is emitted from mobile sources —primarily “off- road” sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and truck -mounted refrigeration units, as well as trucks and buses traveling on freeways and local roadways.

Although not specifically monitored, recent studies indicate that exposure to diesel parti culate matter may contribute significantly to a cancer risk (a risk of approximately 500 to 700 in 1,000,000) that is greater than all other measured TACs combined.
4 The C ARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan is
intended to substantially reduce diesel particulate matter emissions and associated health risks through intro duction of ultra -low-sulfur diesel fuel —a step already implemented —and cleaner- burning diesel engines. 5 The technology for reducing diesel particulate matter emissions from

3 CARB. 2000. Fact Sheet – California’s Plan to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions . October.

Website: www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/factsheets/rrpfactsheet.pdf (accessed August 2021). 4 Bay Area Air Q uality Management District (BAAQMD). 2015. Toxic Air Contaminant Control Program Annual Report, Volume 1. May. Website: www.baaqmd.gov/research -and-data/air-toxics/annual-report (accessed August 2021).
5 CARB. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel -Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October. Prepared by the Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source Control Division.

Website: www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf (accessed August 2021).

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-7 heavy-duty trucks is we ll established, and both State and federal agencies are moving aggressively to regulate engines and emission control systems to reduce and remediate diesel emissions.

High Volume Roadways. Air pollutant exposures and their associated health burdens vary considerably within places in relation to sources of air pollution. Motor vehicle traffic is perhaps the most important source of intra -urban spatial variation in air pollution concentration s. Air quality research consistently demonstrates that pollutant levels are substantially higher near freeways and busy roadways, and human health studies have consistently demonstrated that children living within 100 to 200 meters (328 to 656 feet) of fre eways or busy roadways have reduced lung function and higher rates of respiratory disease. At present, it is not possible to attribute the effects of roadway proximity on non -cancer health effects to one or more specific vehicle types or vehicle pollutants. Engine exhaust, from diesel, gasoline, and other combustion engines, is a complex mixture of particles and gases, with collective and individual toxicological characteristics.

4.2.2.4 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Both State and federal governments have established health-based ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health.

Both the USEPA and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards for the following common pollutants: CO, O
3, NO2, SO2, Pb, and suspended particulate matter . In addition, the State has se t standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility -reducing particles.

These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant.

Federal standards include both primary and secondary standards. Primary standards establish limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive popu lations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. 6 State and federal standards for the criteria air pollutants are listed in Table 4.2.B.

Table 4.2.B: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards 1 Federal Standards 2
Concentration 3 Method 4 Primary 3,5 Secondary 3,6 Method 7 Ozone
(O3)8
1-Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
– Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry 8-Hour 0.07 ppm
(137 μg/m3)

0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)9
24-Hour 50 μg/m3
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150 μg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 μg/m3 –

6 United States En vironmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. Criteria Air Pollutants. October. Website:
www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants (accessed August 2021).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-8 Table 4.2.B: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards 1 Federal Standards 2
Concentration 3 Method 4 Primary 3,5 Secondary 3,6 Method 7 Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)9
24-Hour – 35 μg/m3 Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation 12.0 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
8-Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3) – Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
1-Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
8-Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3) – –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)10
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean

0.03 ppm
(57 μg/m3) Gas Phase
Chemi-
luminescence
53 ppb
(100 μg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Gas Phase
Chemi-
luminescence 1-Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3)
100 ppb
(188 μg/m3) –
Lead
(Pb)12,13
30-Day
Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic
Absorption
– –
High-Volume
Sampler and
Atomic
Absorption
Calendar
Quarter – 1.5 μg/m3
(for certain areas)l Same as
Primary
Standard
Rolling 3-
Month
Average i
– 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)11

24-Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence

0.14 ppm
(for certain areas) –
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectro-
photometry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3-Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1300 μg/m3)
1-Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3)
75 ppb
(196 μg/m3)11 –
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
–

0.030 ppm
(for certain
areas)11
–
Visibility-
Reducing
Particles 12
8-Hour See footnote 14
Beta Attenuation
and
Transmittance
through Filter
Tape
No

Federal

Standards

Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion
Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloride 10 24-Hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Gas
Chromatography
Source: Ambient Air Quality Standards (California Air Resources Board 2016).

Table notes continued on the following page

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-9 1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8 -hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 - and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM 10, PM 2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2 National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded m ore than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8 -hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24 -hour average concentration above 150 μg/m 3 is equal to or less than one. Fo r PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the st andard.

Contact USEPA for further clarification and current national policies. 3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4 Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the CARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.
5 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the pub lic welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
7 Reference method as described by the USEPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the USEPA. 8 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. 9 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM 2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m 3 to 12.0 μg/m3. The existing national 24- hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. 10 To attain the 1 -hour national standard, the three -year average of the annual 98 th percentile of the 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1 -hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb).

California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare th e national 1 -hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. 11 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established, and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the three-year average of the annual 99 th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO 2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm).

To directly compare the 1 -hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
12 The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determin ed. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
13 The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008, to a rolling 3 -month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas d esignated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
14 In 1989, the CARB converted both the general S tatewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30 -mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kil ometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the S tatewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
°C = degrees Celsius
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
CARB = California Air Resources Board
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
ppb = parts per billion
ppm = parts per million
USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

4.2.2.5 Existing Climate and Air Quality
The following provides a discussion of the local and regional air quality and climate in the City of Long Beach.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-10 Climate and Meteorology . Air quality in Long Beach is affected by various emission sources (e.g., mobile and industry) as well as atmospheric conditions (e.g., wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and rainfall). The combination of topography, low mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the second largest urban area in the United States gives the Basin some of the highest pollutant concentrations in the country.

The annual average temperature varies throughout the Basin, ranging from the low - to middle-60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit ( °F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas, including the City of Long Beach, show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. December is typically the coldest mont h, and July and August are typically the warmest months in this area of the Basin. 7 The majority of annual rainfall in the Basin occurs between November and April. Summer rainfall is minimal and is generally limited to scattered thunderstorms in coastal re gions and slightly heavier showers in the eastern portion of the Basin and along the coastal side of the mountains. The monthly average rainfall in Long Beach typically varies from 2.90 inches in January February to 0.02 inch in July with an annual total o f 12.01 inches.
8 Patterns in monthly and yearly rainfall totals are
unpredictable due to fluctuations in the weather.

The Basin experiences a persistent temperature inversion (increasing temperature with increasing altitude) as a result of the Pacific high , which is the semi-permanent high-pressure area of the north Pacific Ocean and is the dominating factor in California weather. This inversion limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. As the sun warms the ground and the lower air layer, the temperature of the lower air layer approaches the temperature of the base of the inversion (upper) layer until the inversion layer finally breaks, allowing vertical mixing with the lower layer. This phenomenon is observ ed in mid -afternoon to late afternoon on hot summer days when the smog appears to clear up suddenly. Winter inversions frequently break by midmorning.

Winds in Long Beach blow predominantly from the west –northwest, with relatively low velocities. 9 Wind spe eds in Long Beach average between 7 miles per hour (mph) and 4 mph. Summer wind speeds average slightly higher than winter wind speeds. Low average wind speeds, together with a persistent temperature inversion, limit the vertical dispersion of air pollutants throughout the Basin.

Strong, dry, north, or northeasterly winds, known as Santa Ana winds, occur during the fall and winter months and disperse air contaminants. The Santa Ana conditions tend to last for several days at a time.
10 7 Western Regional Climate Center, 2015. Website: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca5085 (accessed August 25, 2021).
8 Ibid.
9 Iowa Environmental Mesonet. 2021. Windrows. Website: https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/ windrose.phtml?—network=CA_—ASOS&station=LGB. (accessed August 25, 2021). 10 Ibid.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-11 The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollution concentrations are the lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants g enerated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. In the winter, the greatest pollution problems are CO and NO x because of extremely low
inversions and air stagnation during the night and early mo rning hours. In the summer, the longer daylight hours and the brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and NOX to form photochemical smog or ozone.

Attainment Status. CARB is required to designate areas of the S tate as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for all State standards. An attainment designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A nonattainment designation indicates that a pollutant co ncentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. An unclassified designation signifies that data do not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The USEPA designates areas for O
3, CO, and NO2 as one of the following: does not meet the primary standards, or cannot be classified, or better than national standards. For SO 2, areas are designated as: does not meet the primary standards, does not meet the secondary standards, cannot be classified, o r better than national standards. Table 4.2.C provides a summary of the attainment status for the Basin with respect to National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).

Table 4.2.C: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Federal
O3 1 hour Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
O3 8 hour Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment/Maintenance
PM2.5 Nonattainment Serious Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
NO2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance
SO2 N/A Attainment/Unclassified
Lead Attainment Attainment1
All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (2016). 1 Except in Los Angeles County.

CO = carbon monoxide
N/A = not applicable
NO2 = nitrogen dioxide
O3 = ozone
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size SO2 = sulfur dioxide

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-12 Air Quality Monitoring Results . Air quality monitoring stations are located throughout the nation and are maintained by the local air pollution control district and State air quality regulating agencies.

The SCAQMD, together with CARB, maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Basin.

The air quality monitoring stations closest to and within the project area are the 2425 Webster Street ambient air quality monitoring station, the 1710 E. 20th Street ambient air quality monitoring station, and the 1305 E. Pacific Coast Highway ambient air quality monitoring station in Long Beach, because they monitor the most air pollutant data in the City.

Pollutant monitoring results fo r years 2018 to 2020 at the Long Beach ambient air quality monitoring stations, shown in Table 4.2.D, indicate that air quality in the vicinity of the City has generally been good. As indicated in the monitoring results, the federal PM 10 standard had no
exceedances in 2018, one exceedance in 2019, and no exceedance s in 2020. The State PM 10 standard was exceeded four times in 2018, four times in 2019, and three times in 2020. PM 2.5 levels exceeded the federal standard seven times in 2018, with no exceedance s in 2019, and ten exceedances in 2020. Neither State nor federal 1 -hour ozone standards nor the State 8 -hour ozone standards were exceeded in 2018 or 2019, but both the State and federal ozone 1 -hour and 8-hour standards were exceeded four times in 2020. In addition, the CO, SO 2, and NO2 standards were also not exceeded in this area during the 3-year period.

Existing City of Long Beach Criteria Pollutant Emissions Inventory. Table 4.2.E identifies the existing criteria air pollutant emissions inventory of the City of Long Beach using emission rates for the year 2018 (existing conditions) as included in the Land Use and Urban Design Elements Environmental Impact Report (2019 Certified Program EIR). The inventory is based on demographics in the City. The year 2018 inventory represents the estimated emissions generated by the existing land uses using the baseline year 2018 emission factors for on-road vehicles, energy sources, and area sources. Area emissions refer to emissions occurring from hearths, consumer products, area architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. Energy use emissions refer to emissions occurring from building electricity and non-hearth natural gas usage.

Toxic Air Contaminant Trends. In 1984, the CARB adopted regulations to reduce TAC emissions from mobile and stationary sources, as well as consumer products. A CARB study showed that ambient concentrations and emissions of the seven TACs responsible for the most cancer risk from airborne exposure declined by 76 percent between 1990 and 2012. 11 Concentrations of diesel particulate matter, a key TAC, declined by 68 percent between 1990 and 2012, despite a 31 percent increase in State population and an 81 percent increase in diesel vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as shown on Figure 4.2-1, below. The study also found that th e significant reductions in cancer risk to California residents from the implementation of air toxics controls are likely to continue.

The USEPA and the CARB regulate direct emissions from motor vehicles. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency primarily responsible for regulating air pollution emissions from stationary sources (e.g., factories) and indirect sources (e.g., traffic associated with new development), as well as monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations.

11 Propper, Ralph, et al. 2015. Ambient and Em ission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California.

American Chemical Society: Environmental Science & Technology . Website: pubs.acs.org/ doi/full/

10.1021/acs.est. 5b02766 (accessed August 2021).

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-13 Table 4.2.D: Ambient Air Quality at the Long Beach Monitoring Stations Pollutant Standard 2018 2019 2020
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 4.7 3.0 ND
Number of days exceeded: State: > 20 ppm 0 0 ND
Federal: > 35 ppm 0 0 ND
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 2.1 2.1 ND
Number of days exceeded: State: > 9 ppm 0 0 ND
Federal: > 9 ppm 0 0 ND
Ozone (O3)1
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.074 0.075 0.105
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.09 ppm 0 0 4
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.063 0.068 0.083
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.07 ppm 0 0 4
Federal: > 0.07 ppm 0 0 4
Coarse Particulates (PM10)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 84.0 155.8 61.6
Number of days exceeded: State: > 50 µg/m3 4 4 3
Federal: > 150 µg/m3 0 1 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 32.5 29.5 31.8 Exceeded for the year: State: > 20 µg/m3 Yes Yes Yes
Federal: > 50 µg/m3 No No No
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)2
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 77.3 31.2 72.6
Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 35 µg/m3 7 0 10
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 11.6 10.6 12.2 Exceeded for the year: State: > 12 µg/m3 No No Yes
Federal: > 15 µg/m3 No No No
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)1
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.085 0.082 0.075
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.250 ppm 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.017 0.016 0.013 Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.053 ppm No No No
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.011 0.009 ND
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.25 ppm 0 0 ND
Maximum 24-hour concentration (ppm) 0.002 0.002 ND
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.04 ppm 0 0 ND
Federal: > 0.14 ppm 0 0 ND
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.0009 0.0007 ND Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.030 ppm No No ND
Sources: CARB (2021) and USEPA (2021).
1 2018 and 2019 data were taken from the 2425 Webster Street Long Beach monitoring station , and 2020 data were taken from the 1710 E. 20th Street Long Beach monitoring station.
2 Data were taken from the 1305 E. Pacific Coast Highway Long Beach monitoring station. µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
CARB = California Air Resources Board
ND = No data. There were insufficient (or no) data to determine the value. ppm = parts per million
USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-14 Table 4.2.E: Ambient Air Quality at the Long Beach 2425 Webster Street Monitoring Station
Sector Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Existing Year 2018
Transportation (2018 emission factors)1 4,123 38,622 8,474 85 1,827 541 Energy: Residential2 83 838 357 7 58 58
Energy: Commercial + Industrial2 24 106 89 1 7 7
Energy: Public Facilities/Institutional2 7 65 55 0 5 5
Area Source: Residential3 8,837 2,990 46,580 82 5,478 5,478 Area Source: Commercial + Industrial3 952 1 1 0 1 1
Area Source: Public Facilities/Institutional3 295 0 1 0 0 0 Total Emissions for Existing Land Uses 14,321 42,621 55,556 174 7,377 6,091 Source: Compiled by LSA (March 2019).
1 EMFAC2017 based on daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provided by LSA. 2 Energy use calculated using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 3 Estimated using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Area source emissions include landscaping and consumer product emissions. Various industrial and commercial processes (e.g., manufacturing, dry cleaning) allowed under the Land Use Element would require perm itting and would be subject to further study pursuant to SCAQMD Regulation XIII, New Source Review. Because the nature of those emissions cannot be determined at this time and are subject to further regulation and permitting, they are not considered for purposes of this analysis.

CalEEMOD = California Emissions Estimator Model
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOC = volatile organic compound

Figure 4.2-1: California Population, Gross State Product (GSP), Diesel Cancer Risk, and Diesel Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Regulatory Context

Source: Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California (Propper, Ralph, et al. 2015).

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-15

4.2.3 Regulatory Framework
The USEPA and CARB regulate direct emissions from motor vehicles. The SCAQMD is the regional agency primarily responsible for regulating air pollution emissions from stationary sources (e.g., factories) and indirect sources (e.g., traffic associated with new development), as well as monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations.

The applicable federal, State, regional, and local regulatory framework is discussed below.

4.2.3.1 Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act. At the federal level, the USEPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The USEPA air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), which was enacted in 1963. The FCAA was amended in 1970, 1977, and 1990.

The FCAA required the USEPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS and required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The FCAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The USEPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformity with the mandates of the FCAA and determine if implementation will achieve air quality goals. If the USEPA determines a SIP t o be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) may be prepared for the nonattainment area, which imposes additional control measures.

Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within the mandated timeframe may result in sanctions on transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.

The USEPA is also required to develop National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, which are defined as those which may reasonably be anticipated to result in increased deaths or serious illness, and which are not already regulated. An independent science advisory board reviews the health and exposure analyses conducted by the USEPA on suspected hazardous pollutants prior to regulatory development.

4.2.3.2 State Regulations
California Clean Air Act . The California Clean Air Act ( CCAA), adopted in 1988, requires that all air districts in the State achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts should focus on reducing the emissions from all air pollutant emission sources and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.

California Air Resources Board . The California Air Resources Board ( CARB), a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and State air pollution control programs within California, including implementation of the CCAA described above. In this cap acity, CARB conducts research, sets the CAAQS (see Table 4.2-D), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. The CARB is also primarily responsible for developing and implementing air pollut ion control plans to achieve and maintain the NAAQS. The CARB is primarily responsible for statewide

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-16 pollution sources and produces a major part of the SIP. Local air districts provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction. The CARB co mbines th ese data and submits the completed SIP to the USEPA.

In 2004, CARB adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to limit heavy -duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel PM and other TACs (13 CCR Section 2485).

In 2008, CARB approved the Truck and Bus regulation to reduce NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from existing diesel vehicles operating in California (13 CCR Section 2025). CARB also promulgated emissions standards for off-road diesel construction equipment of greater than 25 horsepower, such as bulldozers, loaders, backhoes, and forklifts, as well as many other self- propelled off-road diesel vehicles. The regulation adopted by the CARB on July 26, 2007, a ims to reduce emissions by the installation of diesel soot filters and encouraging the retirement, replacement, or repowering of older, dirtier engines with newer emission -controlled models (13 CCR Section 2449). In 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean C ars Program, which includes low -emission vehicle (LEV) and zero - emission vehicle regulations that reduce criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from light - and medium-duty vehicles.

Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control and air quality management districts), establishing CAAQS (which are more stringent than the NAAQS), determining and updating area designations and maps, and setting emissions standards for mobile sou rces, consumer products, small utility engines, and off - road vehicles. The CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan is intended to substantially reduce diesel particulate matter emissions and associated health risks through introduction of ultra- low-sulfur diesel fuel, a step already implemented, and cleaner-burning diesel engines. 12 Because of the robust evidence relating proximity to roadways and a range of non -cancer and cancer health effects, the CARB also created guidance for avoiding air quality conflicts in land use planning in its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Air Quality and Land Use Handbook ).13 In its guidance, the CARB advises that new sensitive uses (e.g., residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, and hospitals) not be located within 500 feet of a freeway or urban roads carrying 100,000 vehicles per day, or within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (warehouse) that accommodates more than 100 trucks or more than 90 refrigerator trucks per day.

The CARB guidance suggests that the use of these guidelines be customized for individual land use decisions and take into account the context of proposed development projects. The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook specifically states that these recommendations are advisory and acknowledges that land use agencies must balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues.

Diesel Commercial Vehicle Idling and Engine Regulations . Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2485 requires the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction to be limited to five minutes at any location. In addition,

12 CARB. 2000b, op. cit.
13 California Environmental Pr otection Agency and CARB . 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook : A Community Health Perspective. April. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed August 2021).

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-17 Section 93115 of Title 17 of the regulations states that operations of any stationary, diesel -fueled, compression-ignition engines shall meet specified fuel and fuel additive requirements and emissions standards.

Nuisance Regulations. California Health and Safety Code Section 41700 states, “a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any of those persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. ” This section also applies to objectionable odors.

4.2.3.3 Regional Regulations
South Coast Air Quality Management District . The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over most air quality matters in the Basin. This area includes all of Orange County, Los Angeles County except for the Antelope Valley, the non -desert portion of western San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. Los Angeles County is a subregion of the SCA QMD jurisdiction. The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin and is tasked with implementing certain programs and regulations required by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and the California Clean A ir Act (CCAA). The SCAQMD prepares plans to attain State and NAAQS. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point) sources. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects emi ssions sources, and enforces such measures though educational programs or fines, when necessary.
• Regulation IV - Prohibitions: This regulation sets forth the restrictions for visible emissions, odor nuisance, fugitive dust, various air pollutant emissions, fuel contaminants, start -up/shutdown exemptions, and breakdown events.
• Regulation XI - Source Specific Standards: Regulation XI sets emissions standards for different sources including, but not limited to , coating of metal parts, architectural coatings, restaurant operations, and solvent cleaning operations.
• Regulation XIV – Toxics and Other Non- Criteria Pollutants: Regulation XIV sets limits for sources that emit toxic air contaminants (TACs), including asbestos e missions, emissions from cooling towers, fumigation processes, medical waste incinerators, lead, and other sources of non-criteria pollutants.

The SCAQMD is responsible for demonstrating regional compliance with ambient air quality standards but has limite d direct involvement in reducing emissions from fugitive, mobile, and natural sources. To that end, the SCAQMD works cooperatively with CARB, SCAG, county transportation commissions, local governments, and other federal and State government agencies.

It ha s responded to this requirement by preparing a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD and SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin. The main purpose of an AQMP is to bring the area into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. Every seve ral years, SCAQMD

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-18 prepares a new AQMP, updating the previous plan and the 20-year horizon.14 The Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan is the current ly adopted AQMP. Key elements of the Final 2016 AQMP include the following:
• Calculating and taking credit for co -benefits from other planning efforts (e.g., climate, energy, and transportation)
• A strategy with fair-share emission reductions at the federal, State, and local levels • Investment in strategies and technologies meeting multiple air quality objectives • Seeking new partnerships and significant funding for incentives to accelerate deployment of zero-emission and near-zero emission technologies
• Enhanced socioeconomic assessment, including an expanded environmental justice analysis • Attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2019 with no additional measures • Attainment of the annual PM 2.5 standard by 2025 with implementation of a portion of the O 3 strategy
• Attainment of the 1-hour O3 standard by 2022 with no reliance on “black box” future technology (Federal Clean Air Act [FCAA] Section 182(e)(5) measures) SCAQMD Air Quality Guidance Documents. SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) provides local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating project -specific air quality impacts, including standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses in EIRs. The analysis set forth in this Draft SEIR is a programmatic-level analysis for the CAAP and Safety Element Update. Therefore, the CEQA Air Quality Handbook was not utilized in the preparation of this programmatic analysis; however, it would be used in the preparation of project-level analysis for future discretionary projects that would implement components of the CAAP, such as CAAP Actions, Adaptation Actions, or new development that would utilize the CAAP Checklist for CEQA GHG streamlining.

SCAQMD has adopted two rules to limit cancer and non-cancer health risks from facilities located within its jurisdiction. Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants) regulates new or modified facilities, and Rule 1402 (Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources) regulates facilit ies that are already operating. Rule 1402 incorporates the requirements of the Assembly Bill (AB) 2588 program, including implementation of risk reduction plans for significant risk facilities.

Southern California Association of Governments. SCAG is a council of governments for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, and Ventura Counties. It is a regional planning agency

14 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2016. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan.

March.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-19 and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy and community development, and the environment. SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the majority of the southern California region and is the largest MPO in the nation. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG prepares the Regional Trans portation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which address regional development and growth forecasts and form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP and are utilized in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. The RTP, RTIP, and AQMP are based on projections originating within local jurisdictions.

Although SCAG is not an air quality management agency, it is responsible for developing transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures that affect air quality. SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) provides growth forecasts that are used in the development of air quality-related land use and transportation control strategies by the S CAQMD. The RCP is a framework for decision -making for local governments, assisting them in meeting federal and State mandates for growth management, mobility, and environmental standards, while maintaining consistency with regional goals regarding growth and changes. Policies within the RCP include consideration of air quality, land use, transportation, and economic relationships by all levels of government.

On April 7, 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016 –2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Using growth forecasts and economic trends, the RTP provides a vision for transportation throughout the region for the next 20 years. It considers the role of transportation in the broader context of economic, environmental, and quality -of-life goals for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs. The SCS is a newly required element of the RTP, which integrates land use and transportation strategies to achieve CARB emissions reduction targets. The inclusion of the SCS is required by Senate Bill (SB) 375, which was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing, and environmental planning. The RTP/SCS would successfully achieve and exceed the GHG emission -reduction targets set by CARB by achieving an 8 percent reduction by 2020, an 18 percent reduction by 2035, and a 21 percent reduction by 2040 compared to the 2005 level on a per capita basis. This RTP/SCS also meets criteria pollutant emission budgets set by the USEPA.

SCAG recently adopted an updated strategy, the 2020 -2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal) on September 3, 2020. Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. Connect SoCal is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding , and takes into account operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness.

Connect SoCal, the updated 2020 –2045 RTP/SCS, was adopted by SCAG in September 2020. While this version is the most up to date, the 2016–2040 RTP/SCS was the applicable plan at the time that the City’s emissions inventory was undertaken.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-20

4.2.3.4 Local Regulations
City of Long Beach General Plan Air Quality Element. The adopted City of Long Beach General Plan addresses air quality in the Air Quality Element and contains goals and policies and actions in relation to government organization roles and responsibilities, ground transportation, air transportation, land use, particulate emissions, energy conservation, and education. The following goals and policies related to air quality are presented in the Air Quality Element 15 and are applicable to the proposed project:

GOAL 1: Effective coordination of air quality improvement efforts in the South Coast Air Basin, the Southeast Los Angeles County (SELAC) subregion of SCAG, and other agencies. • Policy 1.1: Establish a Coordinated Approach. Coordinate with other jurisdictions in the South Coast Air Basin a continuation of the consortium to establish air quality plans and implementation programs where practical.
• Policy 1.2: Encourage Comm unity Participation. Involve environmental groups, the business community, special interests, and the general public in the formulation and implementation of programs that effectively reduce airborne pollutants.

GOAL 2: A diverse and efficient ground tran sportation system that minimizes air pollutant emissions.
• Policy 2.1.1: Reduce Vehicle Trips. Use incentives, regulations, and transportation demand management techniques, in cooperation with other jurisdictions in the South Coast Air Basin to eliminate vehicle trips that would otherwise occur.
• Policy 2.1.2: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Use incentives, regulations, and transportation demand management in cooperation with other jurisdictions in the South Coast Air Basin, to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
• Policy 2.1.3: Increase Cost -Effectiveness of Transportation and Parking Systems. Make cost - effective improvements to transportation and parking systems that will reduce traffic congestion and resulting emissions.
• Policy 2.3.1: Expand Transit in the City and the Region. Cooperate in efforts to expand all forms of mass transit within the City and the South Coast Air Basin. • Policy 2.4.1: Promote Non -Motorized Transportation. Promote convenient and continuous bicycle paths and pleasant pedestrian environments th at will encourage non -motorized travel within the City.

15 City of Long Beach. 1996. Long Beach General Plan. December. Website: https://www.longbeach.gov/ lbds/planning/advance/general-plan/ (accessed August 2021).

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-21 • Policy 2.6.2: Fleet Conversion to Clean Fuels. Play a leadership role in the conversion to clean fuels by promoting the increased use of compressed natural gas (CNG), electric vehicles, and other alternative fuels.

GOAL 5: A pattern of land uses that can be efficiently served by a diversified transportation system and that directly and indirectly minimizes air pollutants. • Policy 5.1: Manage Growth. Regulate land use and promote development in a manner that will support established transit services and reduce the need for the automobile. • Policy 5.2: Balance Growth. Improve the balance between jobs and housing to create a more efficient urban form.

GOAL 7: Reduce emissions through reduced energy consumption. • Policy 7.1: Energy Conservation. Reduce energy consumption through conservation improvements and requirements.
• Policy 7.2: Recycle Wastes. Promote local recycling of wastes and the use of recycled materials.

City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use E lement. The General Plan LUE16 is intended to guide growth and future development through horizon year 2040. Implementation of the LUE is centered on developing and adopting a new set of zones to implement the policy direction of the LUE in order to guide Long Beach to a more sustainable future, improve mobility choices, expand transit access, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and accommodate growth projections, in accordance with State law. The following goals, strategies, and policies related to air quality are presented in the LUE and are applicable to the proposed project.

STRATEGY No. 1: Support sustainable urban development patterns. • LU Policy 1-1: Promote sustainable development patterns and development intensities that use land efficiently and accommodate and encourage walking. • LU Policy 1 -3: Require sustainable design strategies to be integrated into public and private development projects.
• LU Policy 1 -4: Require electric vehicle charging stations to be installed in new commercial, industrial, institutional, and multiple -family residential development projects. Require that all parking for single -unit and two -unit residential development projects be capable of supporting future electric vehicle supply equipment.

16 City of Long Beach. 2019. Long Beach Ge neral Plan Land Use Element. December. Website: https://www. longbeach.gov/lbds/planning/advance/general-plan/ (accessed July 19, 2021).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-22 • LU Policy 1 -6: Require that new building construction incorporate solar panels, vegetated surface, high albedo surface, and/or similar roof structures to reduce net energy usage and reduce the heat island effect.
• LU Policy 1 -7: Encourage neighborhood -serving retail, employm ent, and entertainment destinations in new mixed-use projects to create local, walkable daily trip destinations.

STRATEGY No. 11: Create healthy and sustainable neighborhoods. • LU Policy 11 -2: Provide for a wide variety of creative, affordable, and sustainable land use solutions to help resolve air, soil, and water pollution, energy consumption, and resource depletion issues.
• LU Policy 11 -5: Ensure neighborhoods are accessible to open spaces, parks, trails, and recreational programs that encourage physical activity and walkability.

STRATEGY No. 16: Protect neighborhoods from adverse environmental conditions. • LU Policy 16-2: Continue to work with the State, the Port of Los Angeles, and other agencies and organizations to improve air quality around the ports and reduce vessel, truck, rail, and other equipment emissions from port operations.
• LU-M-55: Continue to develop and implement innovative p rograms aimed at reducing the air pollutants from port operations (e.g., San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan, Clean Truck Programs, Main Engine Low-Sulfur Fuel Incentive Program, and Shoreside Electricity).

4.2.4 Thresholds of Significance
The following threshol ds of significance are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines .

Based on these thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact with respect to air quality if it would:

Threshold 4.2.1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Threshold 4.2.2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard;
Threshold 4.2.3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or Threshold 4.2.4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPTATION P LAN AND S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Air Quality.docx (03/15/22) 4.2-23

4.2.5 Project Impacts
Section 3.4.3 of Chapter 3.0 (Project Description), provides an overview of the CAAP, including a list of proposed GHG emission reduction actions (CAAP Actions) that would be implemented by the CAAP, a description of the CAAP Checklist , which includes measures to support CAAP Actions for future discretionary projects, and types of future improvements identified as Adaptation Actions .

None of the actions or measures described in the CAAP or CAAP Checklist indicate where specific improvements would be constructed, th eir size, or their specific characteristics. As a program matic document, this Draft SEIR does not speculate on the individual environmental impacts of specific projects that would implement the proposed CAAP, and future discretionary projects to implement the CAAP would be subject to project -level CEQA review as required . However, implementation of the CAAP is considered as part of this analysis to the degree specific information about implementation is known. Consistent with the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, this Draft SEIR provides a program-level discussion of the impacts of implementing the CAAP, including CAAP Actions, Adaptation Actions, and the CAAP Checklist, that could result, rather than project-level or site-specific physical impacts of individual future projects that may be facilitated by the proposed CAAP.

While adoption of the CAAP would result in long-term reductions in GHG emissions, which may also result in long-term reductions in operational air pollutant emissions, future discretionary projects to support CAAP Actions implemented by the City, private developers, or other entities may facilitate the construction of new or remodeled buildings and facilities that could result in short -term construction-related air pollut ant emissions. Implementation of the CAAP may also lead to construction of new facilities or programs that may have the potential to produce operational air pollutant emissions.

Threshold 4.2.1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The planning area of the proposed project is located within the Basin and is within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Basin -wide air pollution levels are monitored by the SCAQMD through the AQMP. The current regional AQMP is the 2016 AQMP , approved by the SCAQMD on March 3, 2017. Key elements of the 2016 AQMP include the following:
• Calculating and taking credit for co -benefits from other planning efforts (e.g., climate, energy, and transportation)
• A strategy with fair-share emission reductions at the federal, State, and local levels • Investment in strategies and technologies meeting multiple air quality objectives • Seeking new partnerships and significant funding for incentives to ac celerate deployment of zero-emission and near-zero emission technologies
• Enhanced socioeconomic assessment, including an expanded environmental justice analysis