080922-H-8sr&att.pdf — Long Beach City Council, August 16, 2022 (part 5 of 5)

C ITY O F L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

P:\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.10 Transportation.docx «03/14/22» 4.10-4 • (52) Orange Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway
• (54) Alamitos Avenue/7th Street
• (58) Alamitos Avenue/Shoreline Avenue-Ocean Boulevard • (76) Redondo Avenue/7th Street
• (80) Lakewood Boulevard/Carson Street
• (84) Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street
• (85) Pacific Coast Highway/Ximeno Avenue
• (92) Pacific Coast Highway/7th Street
• (100) Pacific Coast Highway/2nd Street
Senate Bill 743. On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law cleared the revised State CEQA Guidelines for use. Among the changes to the State CEQA Guidelines was removal of vehicle delay and LOS from consideration under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Lead agencies are allowed to opt in to the revised tra nsportation guidelines, but the new guidelines must be used starting July 1, 2020. The City's VMT CEQA Guidelines and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) requirements were presented to, and approved by, the Planning Commission on June 4, 2020, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743.

Senate Bill 99.On August 30, 2019, Section 65302 of the Government Code was amended to require the identification of residential developments in any identified hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes.

AB 747. On October 7, 2021, Section 8589.5 of the Government Code was amended to require the safety element to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios.

4.10.4.3 Local and Regional Policies and Regulations
City of Long Beach General Plan Mobility Element. In October 2013, the City approved the Mobility Element of the City’s General Plan. The Mobility Element seeks to guide development and improvements to the existing circulation system. As previously sta ted, the Mobility Element establishes several goals aimed at improving the existing transportation system so that it is responsive to all travel modes.

The following transportation/traffic goals and policies in the City’s Mobility Element are applicable to the proposed project:

GOAL 1: Create a safe, efficient, balanced, and multimodal mobility network.

Mobility of People (MOP) Policies:
• MOP Policy 1 -1: To improve the performance and visual appearance of Long Beach’s streets, design streets holistically using the “complete streets approach” which considers walking, those with mobility constraints, bicyclists, public transit users, and various other modes of mobility in parallel.

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

P:\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.10 Transportation.docx «03/14/22» 4.10-5 • MOP Policy 1 -12: Continue to assist Long Beach Transit in implementing a comp rehensive Citywide transit service that meets future needs.
• MOP Policy 1 -13: Increase multimodal access to major employers and educational institutions, including Long Beach City College.
• MOP Policy 1 -14: Use universal design techniques to accommodate pedestrians of all ages and abilities and ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. • MOP Policy 1 -17: Develop land use policies that focus development potential in locations best served by transit.
• MOP Policy 1 -18: Focus development densities for residential and nonresidential land uses around the eight Metro Blue Line stations within City boundaries. • MOP Policy 2-2: Design the character and scale of the street to support its street type and place- type designation and overlay networks (for exam ple, create a bike boulevard or bicycle-friendly retail district, transit street, or green street).
• MOP Policy 2 -15: Ensure that all new development is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Bicycle Master Plan.
• MOP Policy 5 -2: Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips through the use of alternative modes of transportation and Transportation Demand Management (TDM). • MOP Policy 6 -12: Promote transit -oriented development with reduced parking requirements around appropriate transit hubs and stations to facilitate the use of available transit systems.

City of Long Beach General Plan 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 syste m. The Land Use Element introduced the concept of “PlaceTypes,” which replaced the prior approach of segregating property within the City through traditional land use designations and zoning classifications.

The following strategies and policies are applicable to the analysis of transportation impacts for 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.

STRATEGY No. 7: Implement the major areas of change identified in this Land Use Plan (Map LU-20).

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 O F L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

P:\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.10 Transportation.docx «03/14/22» 4.10-6 • LU Policy 7 -6: Promote transit-oriented development around passenger rail stations and along major transit corridors.
• LU Policy 7 -7: Continue to develop the downtown into a city center that provides compact development, accommodates new growth, creates a walkable urban environment, allows for diversified businesses and is easily accessible to surrounding neighborhoods and regional facilities.
• LU Policy 7 -9: Focus infill development in the downtown, Multi -Family residential neighborhoods and transit-oriented development areas, and along specific corridors. • LU Policy 7 -11: Support infill and transit -oriented development projects by utilizing available tools, such as public-private partnerships and assistance with land assembly and consolidation.

4.10.5 Methodology
This analysis is based on a review of the transportation and traffic information contained in the relevant planning documents for the planning area and the Climate Action and Adaption Plan Consistency Review Checklist: Technical Support Documentation (Appendix D) . Effects related to transportation and traffic are analyzed qualitatively and are focused on the proposed CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions and these future actions’ potential to impact existing transportation and traffic systems in the Planning Area . 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 GHG emissions and achieve the City’s GHG target for 2030. The proposed CAAP includes a ro admap for implementing new policies, 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 evaluat ing the effectiveness of the actions taken.

Proposed updates to the Safety Element will incorporate climate adaptation and resiliency considerations and strategies associated with the CAAP. Several CAAP Actions are related to traffic and transportation in order to address vehicular emissions and their impacts on climate change.

4.10.5.1 Analysis Approach
Because the proposed project under evaluation in this Draft SEIR includes both the proposed CAAP and 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 transportation effects of the proposed project are evaluated on a programmatic level based on the project’s consistency with goals and policies esta blished in the Land Use (2019), and the Mobility (2013) Elements of the City’s General Plan and whether or not transportation impacts would result from implementation of the proposed project.

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

P:\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.10 Transportation.docx «03/14/22» 4.10-7

4.10.6 Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds 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 transportation if it would:

Threshold 4.10.1: Conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; Threshold 4.10.2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b);
Threshold 4.10.3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or
Threshold 4.10.4: Result in inadequate emergency access.

4.10.7 Project Impacts
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 includes the proposed CAAP that was included as Mitigation Measure GHG-1 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 pot ential policies to ensure sustainable development consistent with the adopted Land Use Element (LUE. Adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development . The proposed project would be implemented through the application of the CAAP Consistency Checklist (Appendix D) to future discretionary projects to allow for CEQA GHG streamlining. In order to demonstrate consistency with the proposed CAAP, future projects would implement both mandatory (Tier 1) and 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 Tier 1 measures, equivalent measures for GHG emission reductions must be provided for the project to utilize the Checklist in lieu of a project-level GHG analysis.

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 O F L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

P:\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.10 Transportation.docx «03/14/22» 4.10-8 or equivalent alternative measures . Energy efficiency improvements such as rooftop solar and electric vehicle charging stations would require minor retrofits to existing facilities and would not result in substantial traffic -generating construction activities. Other Building and Energy CAAP Actions listed on the CAAP Checklist would increase energy efficiency of existing facilities, electrifying new residential and commercial buildings. Implementation of these measures to support the CAAP Actions with future discretionary projects would also not result in traffic -generating construction activities , as they are operational strategies to improve existing facilities and operations. Future discretionary projects that implement CAA P Actions would be evaluated for consistency with the adopted LUE for which impacts have already been analyzed in the 2019 Certified Program EIR. 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.

Therefore, f uture discretionary projects are not anticipated to result in additional circulation impacts beyond those anticipated in the 2019 Certified Program EIR but would be subject to project- specific CEQA review and project-specific mitigation measures, as applicable.

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 Sector 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 C ity TDM requirements (T -7), and complying with the City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines to analyze VMT pursuant to SB 743 (T -9).

Tier 1 measures required for the Waste sector include recyclable materials recycling and organics waste diversion. Tier 2 measures for the Waste sector include incorpor ation of on -site composting, mulching, and/or anaerobic digestion. Implementation of the Tier 1 measures would support CAAP Actions for Waste include actions that encourage recycling compliance (W -1) and organic waste diversion (W-2). Incorporation of sepa rated recycling and organics processes into the operations of future development projects is not anticipated to require any construction activities, as these programs would be implemented with in existing facilities. Any future facilities that may be

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

P:\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.10 Transportation.docx «03/14/22» 4.10-9 necessary to support the increase in recycling or organics processing would be evaluated at the project level pursuant to CEQA . Other CAAP Actions for Waste supported by the measures listed on the CAAP Checklist would expand communitywide participation in organi c waste collection and diversion.

As described above, measures to support the CA AP Actions would be implemented with future discretionary projects to ensure the City’s GHG reduction targets are met. Measures to support the CAAP Actions would involve retrofits to existing buildings , new transit and waste facilities, and changes to the existing streetscape such as expanded bicycle and pedestrian networks. Although specific details are unknown, 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 that could delay the m ovement of emergency vehicles. Construction that involve s minor changes to the existing streetscape could result in the temporary closure of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Depending on the intensity and magnitude of such activities, construction of fut ure facilities promoted by the CAAP could conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies related to the transportation circulation system temporarily during the construction period. However, these future improvements are not a part of the proposed CAAP, and all future discretionary projects that implement measures to support the CAAP Actions would be reviewed at the project level as required by CEQA and would also be required to undergo the Si te Plan Review process. Future discretionary projects that utilize the CAAP Checklist for streamlining would be reviewed on a project -by-project basis, and mitigation would be identified during project- level review as appropriate. It should be noted that t he construction of these future discretionary projects is not a part of the proposed project; they are future projects that would be incorporating measures to support the CAAP Actions, which in and of themselves do not involve the construction of buildings. 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.

As described above, the proposed project includes measure s to support the CAAP Actions related to Building and Energy designed to ensure that future discretionary projects contribute to a reduction in GHG emissions, such as through increased use of clean electricity or solar power, to ensure consistency with the CAAP to achieve the City’s overall GHG emissions goals. Other measures to support the CAAP Actions are designed to ensure reductions in the use of energy for existing buildings, such as through energy efficiency improvements and the increased use of solar power and clean electricity sources. These new facilities would be constructed within or on existing or proposed buildings (e.g., rooftops) and would not result in new land uses that would generate new vehicle trips from employees, residents, or visitors that could result in traffic impacts. Measures to support the CAAP Actions related to Transportation include measures that encourage improved transit service (T-1) and expanded pedestrian (T-2) and bicycle (T-3) networks , which would encourage a shift in the modes used for transportation and reduce travel demand . Future discretionary projects that implement measures to support the CAAP Actions related to increased transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would support the reduction in VMT. The measures to support the CAAP Actions for Waste include, but are not limited to, measures that encourage recycling compliance and

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 O F L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

P:\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.10 Transportation.docx «03/14/22» 4.10-10 expanded organic waste collection, which may result in new facilities for organic waste processing .

However, such new facilities would be subject to their own project-level CEQA review.

The proposed CAAP also identifies Adaptation Actions related to extreme heat, air quality, drought, and sea level rise/flooding. While the Adaptation Actions would not be required to meet the City’s GHG reduction targets, the Adaptation Actions that could be incorporated into future development projects would also be listed on the CAAP Checklist because they may be applicable to future discretionary projects. Adaptation Actions that make it more comfortable and safe to walk or take transit, such as through increased tree canopy and bus shelter amenities, will also promote alternative forms of transportation and lessen transportation impacts. There is not sufficient information at thi s time to analyze potential future physical improvements that are suggested as 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. Therefore, potential impacts of the Adaptation Actions would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

It should be noted 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 Certified Program EIR concluded that the LUE would result in a significant and unavoidable impact for transportation impacts related to arterial intersections, CMP intersections, Caltrans ramp intersections, and Caltrans arterial and freeway f acilities due to the proposed changes to existing land uses that would result from General Plan buildout conditions . However, as the proposed C AAP would not alter the land uses designations or development assumptions of the adopted LUE, the proposed project would not alter the significant and unavoidable impact identified in the 2019 Certified Program EIR. The proposed CAAP was included as Mitiga tion Measure GHG-1 for the 2019 Certified Program EIR in order to reduce GHG emissions associated with the General Plan buildout.

As such, the proposed CAAP would result in a less than significant impact related to the generation of GHG emissions as it wou ld serve to mitigate and reduce GHG emissions anticipated by the adopted LUE. No mitigation is required.

Therefore, the Safety Element Update would have no impact related to conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies related to the transportation circulation system , and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.10.2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)?
CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) provides revised criteria for analyzing transportation impacts consistent with SB 743, which has been interpreted as removing vehicle LOS from consideration under CEQA. In lieu of vehicle LOS, VMT must be adopted as the measure of transportation impact by July 1, 2020. As discussed above,

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

P:\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.10 Transportation.docx «03/14/22» 4.10-11 Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) allows a lead agency to choose how to evaluate a project’s VMT in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure.

As described above, the proposed CAAP would promote a reduction of VMT , and a CAAP Action is designed to ensure the City implements SB743 (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 buildi ngs (e.g., 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 and other measures to reduce VMT, and increased housing an d 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 C ertified 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 in creased transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would also support reductions in VMT as analyzed in the 2019 Certified Program EIR . Measures to support 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 subject to their own project -level CEQA review.

The Tier 1 measures to support the CAAP Actions for Transportation included on the CAAP Checklist include measures that improve transit service (T-1). According to the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Consistency Review Checklist: Technical Support Documentation (ESA 2021), the CAAP calculated GHG emission reductions for T -1 assuming a citywide reduction in light -duty VMT of one percent above all other assumed reductions including those anticipated by the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy ( RTP/SCS). Transit impr ovements would influence vehicle travel patterns for both existing and new development, but new development would have the opportunity to better utilize transit improvements than much of the built environment in the City. For example, new development would locate jobs and residents near transit, offer transit subsidies, limit available parking, offer parking cash -out, and provide other design features and incentives to maximize transit use by future occupants, employees, and visitors.

Consequently, new deve lopment is assumed to reduce total VMT by five percent compared to the General Plan LUE scenario, with implementation of the vehicle trip reduction features included in the proposed CAAP . This reduction w ould be achieved by a number of actions and design features included in the CAAP , such as through transportation demand management ( TDM) plans. New development from 2015 to 2030 is estimated to produce an average light -duty VMT of 9.4 per service population or an average of approximately 266,000 total daily VMT. A five percent reduction in the 266,000 total daily VMT is equal to approximately 13,000 total daily VMT. In addition, as described above, the Adaptation Actions that would lessen the impacts of climate change are not anticipated to result in new development that would generate VMT. Adaptation Actions that make it more comfortable and safe to walk or take transit, such as through increased tree canopy and bus shelter amenities, will also promote alternative forms of transportation and lessen transpor tation

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 O F L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

P:\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.10 Transportation.docx «03/14/22» 4.10-12 impacts. All future discretionary projects that implement Adaptation Actions would be subject to project-level CEQA review.

Because the proposed measures to support the CAAP Actions implemented with future discretionary projects would result in a decrease in VMT from existing conditions and compared to the adopted LUE , implementation of the proposed CAAP would have a less than significant impact related to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b). No mitigation is required.

Therefore, the Safet y Element U pdate would not result in any changes to VMT within the planning area and would have no impact related to conflicts with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b). No mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.10.3: Would the project s ubstantially 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. As discussed previously, adoption of the proposed CAAP does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development , nor would it grant any entitlements for development that would result in increased design hazards. As described above, the proposed CAAP includes measures to support the CAAP Actions relat ed to Building and Energy designed to ensure that future discretionary projects contribute to a reduction in GHG emissions, such as through increased use of clean electricity or solar power, to ensure consistency with the CAAP to achieve the City’s overall GHG emissions goals. Other measures to support the CAAP Actions are designed to ensure reductions in the use of energy for existing buildings, such as through energy efficiency improvements and the increased use of solar power and clean electricity sources. Measures to support the CAAP Actions related to Transportation include expansion of the bicycle and pedestrian network and other measures to reduce VMT, and increased housing and employment along major transit corridors and increased density and mixing of land use. Measures to support the CAAP Actions for Waste include encouraging recycling compliance and expanded organic waste collection.

As noted above, most of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures, or equivalent replacement strategies required to support the CAAP Actions that would be implemented with future discretionary projects would be constructed within or on existing or proposed buildings (e.g., rooftops). These minor improvements to existing or proposed structures
would not change the existing area ro adways and
would therefore not cause a substantial increase in hazards due to design features or incompatible uses.

Several measures to support the CA AP Actions encourage a shift in the modes used for transportation to reduce travel demand. These measures to support the CAAP Actions promote minor changes to the existing streetscape, such as adding transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities to promote increased transit accessibility. In general, these roadways and transit improvements would

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

P:\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.10 Transportation.docx «03/14/22» 4.10-13 decrease vehicle , bicyclists, and pedestrian conflicts. Any streetscape improvements involving transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities would be required to comply with applicable design guidelines for roadways and transportation facilities. With compliance with State and local regulations and design guidelines, roadways and transit improvements promoted by the CA AP would not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses.

Future discretionary projects that would implement measures to support the CAAP Actions related to solid waste or similar facilities would not likely change the existing area roadways causing a substantial increase in hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. Although the locations of these facilities are currently unknown , all future discretionary projects that would implement measures to support the CAAP Actions would be subject to project-level review under CEQA and required to comply with any requirements in effec t when the review is conducted. Future discretionary project s that implement measures to support the CAAP Actions 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 are not a part of the CAAP project; they are future projects that utilize the CAAP Checklist for GHG analysis streamlining . Therefore, impacts related to potential hazards due to incompatible uses are considered to be less than significant , and no mitigation is required.

The CAAP Checklist also include s Adaptation Actions, which provide general strategies for potential future projects that may lessen climate change impacts in particular locations throughout the City.

While the A daptation Actions are not required for future discretionary projects to meet the City’s GHG reduction goals , they would be enc ouraged on the CAAP Checklist because they may be applicable to future discretionary projects so that future discretionary projects are encouraged to incorporate relevant Adaptation Actions . Additional analysis will be needed to develop specific adaptation approaches and projects at specific locations , and future discretionary projects would be analyzed on a project level for consistency with local design guidelines for roadways and transportation facilities as applicable . Therefore, potential design -related hazard impacts of the Adaptation Actions would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

In addition, it should be noted the GHG reduction goals of the CAAP were informed by the development assumptions of the adopted LUE and the General Pl an buildout conditions. The 2019 Certified Program EIR concluded that the LUE would result in less than significant impacts related to potential design-related hazards. 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 Certified Program EIR. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update : No Impact. 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. Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in potential hazards .

Therefore, the Safety Element Update would have no impact related to potential hazards due to incompatible uses, and no mitigation is required.

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 O F L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

P:\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.10 Transportation.docx «03/14/22» 4.10-14 Threshold 4.10.4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? As discussed previously, adoption of the proposed CAAP does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development , nor would it grant any entitlements for development that would result in inadequate emergency access.

As noted above, most of the measures to support the CAAP Actions that would be implemented with future discretionary projects would be constructed within or on existing or future buildings (e.g., rooftops). These minor improvements to existing or future structures would not result in inadequate emergency ac cess as these facilities would be additions to existing structure s, or facilities included as part of proposed structures . Further, there are several measures to support the CAAP Actions that encourage improved transit service (T -1) and expanded pedestrian (T-2) and bicycle (T -3) networks , which would encourage a shift in the modes used for transpor tation and reduce travel demand. These measures to support the CA AP Actions promote minor changes to the existing streetscape, such as expanded bicycle and pedes trian networks and transit improvements .

In general, these transit , pedestrian, and bicycle improvements would not deteriorate accessibility or result in inadequate emergency access but instead would promote alternatives to single- occupancy vehicle travel. Additionally, the CAAP promotes a red uction of VMT, which would reduce regional traffic, thus reducing congestion on major arterials and highways, which would ease response times for emergency vehicles in general. Furthermore, the future discretionary pro jects that implement Adaptation Actions may improve infrastructure for resiliency to sea level rise and climate change impacts, which may improve emergency access. Therefore, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

In addition, 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 resu lt in less than significant impacts related to emergency access. 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 Certified Program EIR. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. 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 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 develo pment that would result in emergency access impacts. Furthermore, updates to the Safety Element reflect the requirements of SB 99 and AB 474, described in Section 4.10.4 above, related to identification of residential developments in any identified hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes and identification of evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios. One of the amendments to the Safety Element is a policy that requires new developments to be evaluated and conditioned, as necessary, to provide adequate emergency access and evacuation routes, including at least two directions of ingress and egress for all structures or groupings of structures.

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

P:\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.10 Transportation.docx «03/14/22» 4.10-15 Therefore, the Safety Element Update would have no impact related to emergency access , and no mitigation is required.

4.10.8 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 transportation.

4.10.9 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to transportation are required for the proposed project.

4.10.10 Level of Significance after Mitigation
There would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to transportation , and no mitigation is required.

4.10.11 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in Section 15130 of 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 potential future projects within the cumulative impact area for traffic and circulation. Because the proposed project is a c itywide policy action, the proposed project i tself is cumulative in nature.

Therefore, the cumulative area for transportation impacts includes the planning area, which covers the entire 50 square miles within the limits of the City of Long Beach.

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 . The proposed project would be implemented through community and neighborhood scale actions that will be reviewed at the project level pursuant to CEQA once enough information is available, as well as through the application of the CAAP Checklist (Appendix D) to future discretionary projects to allow for CEQA GHG streamlining. In order to demonstrate consistency with the proposed CAAP, future projects would implement both mandatory (Tier 1) and encouraged (Tier 2) measures that support the CAAP Actions and would help achieve the City’s GHG emissions targets. T here are several measures to support the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions that would be implemented with future discretionary projects that would include the construction of new facilities or retrofits to existing buildings, new transit and waste facilities, and changes to the existing streetscape. Although the locations of these future discretionary projects are unknown, if the construction of a nearby project occurs at the same time as the construction of a project that would implement measures to support a CAAP Action or Adaptation Actions , 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 cumulativ e impacts would be addressed through project -level environmental review and permitting.

Additionally, as stated previously, measures to support the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions would be implemented with future discretionary projects that would be evaluated for consistency

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 O F L ONG B EACH
M ARCH 2022

P:\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.10 Transportation.docx «03/14/22» 4.10-16 with the adopted LUE through Step 1 of the CAAP Checklist . The overall intent of the CAAP as a mitigation measure of the 2019 Certified Program EIR is to allow for the City to meet its GHG reduction targets while accommodating the development anticipated in the adopted LUE. The proposed measures to support the CAAP Actions related to Transportation includ e the expansion of the bicycle and pedestrian network , increased housing and employment along major transit corridors, and the increased density and mixing of land uses and other measures to reduce VMT.

The CAAP promot es a reduction of VMT, which would reduce regional traffic, thus reducing congestion on major arterials and highway s. Adaptation Actions that make it more comfortable and safe to walk or take transit, such as through increased tree canopy and bus shelter amen ities, will also promote alternative forms of transportation and lessen transportation impacts. Additionally, the proposed CAAP would not generate substantial increases in traffic or a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional traffic as it does not result in physical development. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is less than cumulatively s ignificant, and 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\4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (03/15/22) 4.11-1

4.11 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates the potential for the proposed Climate Action and A daptation Plan (CAAP) and Safety Element Update (proposed project) to impact tribal cultural resources. The analysis in this section summarizes the results of Native American tribal consultation per the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The records of c onsultation are also provided in Appendix F of this SEIR. 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 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.

4.11.1 Scoping Process
The City o f 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 SEIR. One comment letter included comments related to tribal cultural resources.

The letter from the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) received on August 23 , 2021, recommended Native American consultation with tribes that are c ulturally affiliated with the project site pursuant to the requirements of AB 52 and SB 18 . The results of the Native American consultation process pursuant to these regulations are described in Section 4.11.6 below.

4.11.2 Existing Environmental Setting
Tribal cultural resources are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe.” Additionally, a lead agency can, at its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, choose to treat a resource as a tribal resource. AB 52 requires lead agencies to conduct formal consultations with California Native American tribes during the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process to identify tribal cultural resources that may be subject to significant impacts by a proposed project.

The 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 enc ompasses 50 square miles (approximately 33,000 acres) within the limits of 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 Gardens, Cypress, Los Alamitos, and Seal Beach. Additionally, the City of Signal Hill is centrally located within th e planning area and is completely surrounded by development 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\4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (03/15/22) 4.11-2 The following tribes have been identified by the NAHC as affiliated with the planning area:
• Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
In addition, the following tribes have requested consultation with the City of Long Beach:
• Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians

4.11.3 Regulatory Setting

4.11.3.1 Federal Regulations
Archaeological Resources Protection Act. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act was enacted in 1979 with the purpose of securing the protection of archaeological resources and sites on public lands and Native American lands, and to foster increased co operation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed in 1990 with the purpose of outlining a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items, such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, to lineal desc endants, and culturally affiliated Native American tribes. NAGPRA also establishes procedures for the inadvertent discovery or planned excavation of Native American cultural items on federal or tribal lands. While these provisions do not apply to discovery or excavations on private or State lands, the collections portions of NAGPRA may apply to cultural items if they are under the control of an institution that receives federal funding. NAGPRA also makes it a criminal offense to traffic in either Native American human remains without right of possession or cultural items obtained in violation of NAGPRA.

4.11.3.2 State Regulations
Native American Heritage Commission . In 1976, the California State Government passed AB 4239, creating the Native American Heritage Commiss ion (NAHC). The NAHC is responsible for identifying and categorizing Native American cultural resources as well as preventing damage to designated sacred sites and associated artifacts and remains. Legislation passed in 1982 authorized the NAHC to identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) when Native American remains are found outside the boundaries of a designated cemetery. An MLD has the authority to make recommendations in regards to the treatment and disposition of the discovered remains.

California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9–5097.991. California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 5097.9–5097.991 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources (including sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious sites, or sacred shrines) and sacred sites and gives the NAHC enforcement authority.

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\4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (03/15/22) 4.11-3 Specifically, California PRC Section 5097.98 outlines procedures that must be followed in the event that human remains are discovered. The Los Angeles County Coroner shall make a determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or designee, notifies the County Coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the County Coroner identifies the remains to be of Native American origin or has reason to believe that the remains are those of Native American origin, the County Coroner must contact the California NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC representative will then alert a Native American MLD to conduct an inspection of the site an d to determine the ensuing course of treatment and action. Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 sets forth a procedure if human remains are found on land outside of federal jurisdiction.

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code protects Native American burials, remains, and associated grave artifacts in the event that they are discovered in any location other than a designated cemetery. The Health and Safety Code mandates t he immediate stop of excavation in the site as well as any adjacent or overlying area where the remains or associated items are found and provides for the sensitive disposition of those remains. Should remains be discovered, the County Coroner must determine that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treat ment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or designee, in the manner provided in PRC Section 5097.98.

The Native American Historic Resource Protection Act. The Native American Historic Resource Protection Act, or AB 52, defines guidelines for reducing conflicts between Native Americans and development projects and activities. Projects are subject to AB 52 if a notice of preparation for an EIR is filed or a notice of intent to adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015 . “Tribal cultural resources” are protected under CEQA and are defined as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape (must include the size and scope of landscape), sacred place, or object with a cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or included in a local register of historical resources. At the lead agency’s discretion, a resource can be treated as a tribal cultural resource if a Native American Tribe provides substantial evidence.

Additionally, AB 52 allows tribes to engage in consultation with lead agencies and sets guidelines for such consultation.

Senate Bill 18. Senate Bill (SB) 18 (Government Code Section 65352.3) requires planning agencies to incorporate protection of California traditional tribal cultural places into land use planning for cities and counties, and to contact, refer plans to , and consult with California Native American tribes as part of the adoption or amendment of any general or specific plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005. SB 18 also requires planning agencies to notify tribes listed on the NAHC’s SB 18 Tribal Consultation list within the geographical areas affected by the proposed changes. Tribes must respond to a local government notice within 90 days (unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed upon by the tribe), indicating whether or not they want to consult with the local government.

Consultations are for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts on places, features, and

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\4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (03/15/22) 4.11-4 objects described in PRC Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 that may be affected by the proposed adoption of or amendment to a general or specific plan.

4.11.3.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations that are applicable to tribal cultural resources relevant to the proposed project.

4.11.3.4 Local Regulations
City of Long Beach General Plan. The City’s Historic Preservation Element ( 2010) addresses protection of the City’s heritage and cultural resources. The following goal related to cultural resources is presented in the Historic Preservation Element:

Policy P.1.1: The City shall comply with City, State, and Federal historic preservation regulations to ensure adequate protection of the City’s cultural, historic, and archaeological resources.

4.11.4 Methodology
In order to identify tribal cultural resources on the project site and analyze potentially significant impacts associated with construction and impleme ntation of the proposed project, the City conducted Native American consultation in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18 requirements.

A list of potential Native American contacts for consultation was requested from the NAHC . In its response to the City, the NAHC recommended contact and consultation with the Gabrieli no-Tongva Tribe, the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The NAHC also provided a Tribal Consultation List that included the following 6 Native American representatives to be contacted:
• Charles Alvarez, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Linda Candelaria, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Robert Dorame, Gabrielino-Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council • Sandonne Goad, Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
• Anthony Morales, Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Andrew Salas, Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation In addition, two tribes have sent letters to the City of Long Beach requesting consultation:
• Michael Mirelez, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians • Joseph Ontiveros, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
The City sent letters for the purposes of AB 52 and SB 18 consultation to individuals on the City’s AB 52 list, and those individuals provided on the NAHC list, as described above, on July 14, 2021, via certified mail to confirm receipt.

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\4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (03/15/22) 4.11-5 No responses or requests for consultation have been received to date. A record of Native American consultation efforts is provided in Appendix F of this SEIR.

4.11.5 Thresholds of Significance
The thresholds for tribal cultural resources impacts used in this analysis are consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines . The proposed p roject may be deemed to have a significant impact with respect to tribal cultural resources if it would:

Threshold 4.11.1: 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 la ndscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Threshold 4.11.1(i): Listed or eligible for listin g in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resource s as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k).

Threshold 4.11.1(ii): A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant 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 significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

4.11.6 Project Impacts
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, pl ace, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the s ize 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 listin g 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 adv erse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined i n Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, pl ace, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the s ize 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 significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code

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\4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (03/15/22) 4.11-6 Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 50 24.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

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 while also minimizing the impacts of climate change on the community. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and 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 also would be implemented through the application of the CAAP Checklist (Appendix D) to future discretionary projects to allow for CEQA streamlining for GHG analysis. In order to demonstrate consistency with the proposed CAAP, future projects would implement both mandatory (Tier 1) and encouraged (Tier 2) measures that support the CAAP Actions and would help 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 f or GHG emission reductions backed by substantial evidence must be provided for the project to utilize the 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, and as required for compliance with regulatory requirements. Tier 1 measures required for the Building and Energy 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 these 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. Other Building and Energy CAAP Actions supported by the measures listed on the CAAP Checklist would increase energy efficiency of existing facilities and electrify new residential and commercial buildings. 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 sector 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

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\4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (03/15/22) 4.11-7 complying with the City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines to analyze VMT pursuant to SB 743 (T-9).

Implementation of the Tier 2 measures would support CAAP Actions to increase employment and residential development al ong transit corridors and increased density and mixing of land uses (T -6 and T-8). Other Tier 2 measures to support the CAAP Actions for Transportation listed on the CAAP Checklist are designed to focus increased housing and employment density along major transit corridors, increase rapid bus service, establish bus -only lanes, and expand electric -vehicle charging infrastructure to further reduce emissions. Tier 1 measures required for the Waste sector include the recycling of appropriate materials and organ ic waste diversion. 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 compliance (W -1) a nd organic waste diversion (W-2). Such actions would not require any construction activities, but rather are programs that would be implemented with existing facilities.

Any new construction required to facilitate such actions would be subject to project -level CEQA review. Other CAAP Actions for Waste supported by the measures listed on the CAAP Checklist would expand communitywide participation in organic waste collection and diversion.

As described above, t here are several measures to support the CA AP Actions that would be implemented with future discretionary projects that would involve retrofits to existing buildings . In addition, other future discretionary projects that would implement measures to support the CAAP Actions may be sited in locations th at would result in potential impacts to tribal cultural resources.

All future discretionary projects that utilize the CAAP Checklist to achieve the City’s GHG emissions targets would be reviewed as required by CEQA and would also be required to undergo the Site Plan Review process. 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. In addition, all future discretionary projects would be subject to the requirements of AB 52 for Native American consultation; SB 18 is also applicable if the project includes a General Plan Amendment or a new Specific Plan or Amendment. Through project- specific consultation, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources determined to be significant by the lead agency would be identified and addressed accordingly. Future discretionary projects that implement measures to support the CAAP Actions could result in potential impacts to tribal cultural resources listed on the California Register or local register or determined by the lead agency to be significant under Public Resource s Code Section 5024.1 . However, as described in the consultation letters distributed by the City for the proposed project, the City typically requires project -level mitigation measures as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for specific development projects that address potential imp acts to tribal cultural resources through retention of qualified archaeologists, worker training programs, Native American monitoring, development of Treatment Plans for unanticipated discovery of resources , and treatment of human remains pursuant to S tate law. Future discretionary projects that implement the CAAP Actions would be reviewed on a project -by-project basis , and mitigation would be identified during project -level review as appropriate. It should be noted that the construction of these future discretionary projects does not constitute the CAAP project; they are the projects that would be incorporating CAAP Actions, which in and of themselves do not involve construction o r operation of actions that would impact tribal cultural resources.

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\4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (03/15/22) 4.11-8 As described above, in addition to the measures to support the CAAP Actions related to Building and Energy, Transportation, and Waste that would apply to future development to achieve the G HG 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 the Adaptation Actions would not be required to meet the City’s GHG reduction targets, t hey are listed in the CAAP Checklist for future discretionary projects to incorporate, as applicable, to demonstrate consistency with the overall goals and strategies of the CAAP. Adaptation Actions are also anticipated to be undertaken at a neighborhood o r citywide scale to lessen 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 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 discretionary improvements would be analyzed on a project level pursuant to CEQA, and project-specific tribal consultation pursuant to the requirements of AB 52 and/or SB 18 would be conducted . Therefore, potential impacts of the Adaptation Actions at the program level would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

In additi on 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 tribal cultural resources . 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 Certified Program EIR. No mitigation is required.

4.11.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources, and no mitigation is required.

4.11.8 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 tribal cultural resources.

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\4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (03/15/22) 4.11-9

4.11.9 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to tribal cultural resources, and no mitigation would be required.

4.11.10 Level of Significance after Mitigation
There would be no significant unavoidable a dverse impacts of the proposed project related to tribal cultural resources. No mitigation would be required.

4.11.11 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in Section 15130 of 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. Therefore, the cumulative area for tribal cultural resource s impacts includes the planning area, which covers the entire 50 square miles within the limits of the City of Long Beach and any tribal cultural resources within the planning area.

Cumulative growth within the City could result in potential impacts to tribal cultural resources at specific development sites throughout the City. As described previously, the proposed project does not include physical improvements or development . The proposed project would be implemented through the application of the CAAP Checklist (Appendix D) to future discretionary projects to allow for CEQA GHG streamlining. In order to demonstrate consistency with the proposed CAAP, future projects would implement both mandatory (Tier 1) and encouraged (Tier 2) measures that support the CAAP Actions and would help achieve the City’s GHG emissions targets. There are several measures t o support the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions that would be implemented with future discretionary projects that would include the construction of new facilities or retrofits to existing buildings, new transit and waste facilities, and changes to the existing streetscape. Although the locations of these future discretionary projects are unknown, if multiple future discretionary projects would result in impact s to tribal cultural resources, cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources could occur. Wher e there is the potential for these cumulative impacts, they would be addressed through project -level environmental review and permitting. Construction activities associated with future discretionary projects that utilize the CAAP Checklist would be subject to compliance with State law as well as the City’s standard requirements that would be included as project-specific mitigation measures an d may include retention of qualified archaeologists, worker training programs, Native American monitoring, and development of Treatment Plans for unanticipated discovery of resources to ensure that potential impacts to tribal cultural resources are reduced or avoided.

Additionally, as stated previously, the measures to support the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions would be implemented with future discretionary projects that would be evaluated for consistency with the adopted Land Use Element (LUE). The overall intent of the CAAP as a mitigation measure of the 2019 Certified Program EIR is to allow for the City to meet its GHG reduction targets while accommodating the development anticipated in the adopted LUE based on growth projections .

Potential future discretionary projects that would implement measures to support the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions would result in development within the City already anticipated by the adopted LUE. In addition, Adaptation Actions would be implemented to lessen the impacts of

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\4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources.docx (03/15/22) 4.11-10 climate change on both development and natural resources in the City, including tribal cultural resources. The project would also bring the General Plan into compliance with a number of S tate laws relating to climate change and resiliency through the proposed Safety Element Update, which as a planning/policy action would not facilitate or entitle any physical d evelopment that would result in impacts to tribal cultural resources . Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is less than cumulatively significant, and 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-1

4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This secti on describes the utilities and service systems currently serving the planning area and evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan ( CAAP) and Safety Element Update (proposed project) on utilities and service systems . This section is based on multiple data sources, including the currently adopted General Plan Safety Element (1975), and the proposed Safety Element Update, as well as planning documents and websites of potentially affected utility and service providers. Specific references are identified within the subsection for each respective issue. This section addr esses the following utility and service system providers (service providers are noted in parenthesis):
• Solid Waste (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts [LACSD]) • Wastewater (LACSD)
• Water (Long Beach Water Department [LBWD])
• Electricity (Southern California Edison [SCE])
• Natural Gas (Southern California Gas Company [SoCalGas]) • Telecommunications (Cable TV and Telephone Service Providers) 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 to implement CAAP Actions and Adaptation 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 impacts from the measures included in the CAAP Consiste ncy 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.

4.12.1 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 SEIR. One comment letter included comments related to utilities and service systems.

The letter from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) received on September 22, 2021, provided information on the LACSD’s wastewater facilities and stated that the available capacity of its treatment facilities will be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Growth Forecasts.

4.12.2 Existing Environmental Setting

4.12.2.1 Solid Waste
Solid waste collection services are provided by the City’s Environmental Services Bureau; however, the City is also a member of the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD). Based on available disposal reporting data from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle; formerly known as the California Integrated Waste Management Board [CIWMB])

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-2 website, it was estimated that the annual tonnage of solid waste generated by all sources in the City was approximately 318,891 tons per year (or 637,782,000 pounds per year ) in 2019. 1 A majority of the City’s solid waste is sent to the Southeast Resource Recov ery Facility (SERRF). The SERRF is a refuse-to-energy transformation facility that reduces the volume of solid waste it receives by approximately 80 percent using mass burn technology. The SERRF receives the greatest tonnage of solid waste of all disposal sites located within the City. The Solid Waste Facility Permit for the SERRF identifies that the design capacity of this facility is 2,240 tons per day (4,480,000 pounds) . 2 The
SERRF currently processes approximately 1,290 tons per day (2,580,000 pounds).3 Solid waste that is generated in the City of Long Beach but is not sent to the SERRF is taken to landfills in Orange, San Bern ardino, and Riverside Counties. 4 Alternative disposal options include two ramped-up Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) run by LACSD: the Downey Area Recycling and Transfer Facility (DART) in Downey, and the Puente Hills MRF, situated at the base of the Pue nte Hills Landfill. Through the available MRFs run by LACSD, the use of active landfills in Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties, and plans for future implementation of the Waste -by-Rail system, Los Angeles County is currently able to meet existing and projected landfill needs.

4.12.2.2 Electricity
The City receives its electricity from Southern California Edison (SCE). According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), the electricity consumption in the SCE service area for 2019 was 10 4,125 gigawatt hours (GWh). 5 The CEC adopted the Demand Forecast 20 20 in January 2021. Forecasted electricity consumption within the SCE service area is estimated to be 115,990 GWh by 2025 and 123,743 GWh by 2030 (the furthest horizon year for which data are available). In addition, the CEC estimates that net peak demand and net energy load within SCE’s service territory will grow annually by 2.45 percent until 2030.

4.12.2.3 Natural Gas
The City of Long Beach Municipal Energy Resources (ER) Department purchases natural gas from the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and p rovides natural gas services to residents and businesses of Long Beach and Signal Hill and portions of surrounding communities, including the

1 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) . California Solid Waste Statistics. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Origin/Countywide Detail (accessed September 9, 2021).
2 CalRecycle. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Facility Detail. Southeast Resource Recovery Facility.

Solid W aste Facility Permit, Permit No. 19- AK-0083. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca. gov/Solid Waste/SiteActivity/Details/3070?siteID=1423 (accessed September 9, 2021). 3 City of Long Beach. 2021. Energy Resources SERRF Operations. Website: https://www.longbeach.gov/ energyresources/about-us/serff/operations/ (accessed September 9, 2021). 4 Los Angeles Daily News. Puente Hills Landfill Will Close Forever Thursday. Website: https://www.sgv tribune.com/2013/10/30/puente-hills-landfill-will-close-forever-thursday/ (accessed September 9, 2021). 5 California Energy Commission (CEC). Database. 2021. California Energy Demand Forecast Update 2020 - 2030. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/2853 (accessed September 9, 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-3 Cities of Bellflower, Compton, Lakewood, Los Alamitos, Paramount, and Seal Beach. In 2020, the California Gas and Electric Utilities published the 2020 California Gas Report. In addition to providing a summary of the existing and historic natural gas demands, the 2020 California Gas Report provides projected annual gas supplies for future years through year 2035. Acco rding to the 2020 California Gas Report, the natural gas demand for the City of Long Beach is expected to decline from 9 billion cubic feet per year in 2019 to 8 billion cubic feet per year in 2035 (the furthest horizon year for which data are available).6

4.12.2.4 Wastewater
The Long Beach Water Department (LBWD) is responsible for operating and maintaining approximately 765 miles of sanitary sewer lines in the City. Through these sanitary sewer lines, the LBWD delivers over 40 million gallons per day (mgd) of wast ewater to LACSD facilities located in the region.7 The majority of the wastewater generated in the City is delivered to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) of LACSD (located at 24501 S. Figueroa Street in the City of Carson) with the remaining portion delivered to the Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) of LACSD (located at 7400 East Willow Street in Long Beach).

The JWPCP provides both primary and secondary treatment of wastewater and serves over

4.8 million residents. Currently, the JWPC P treats approximately 260 mgd and has a total permitted design capacity of 400 mgd.
8 The Long Beach WRP provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment and serves a population of approximately 250,000. Approximately 6 mgd of recycled water produced at the Long Beach WRP are used at over 60 sites. The Long Beach WRP treats an average of approximately 12 mgd and has a total permitted capacity of 25 mgd.9

4.12.2.5 Water Service
The LBWD owns, operates, and maintains 27 active groundwater wells and 916 miles of wat er mains. The LBWD’s entire infrastructure is used to provide water service to a service population of approximately 490,000 and 90,000 active customer accounts within an approximate 50 -square-mile service area in the City.10 The LBWD receives approximately 60 percent of its domestic water supply from existing groundwater supplies within the Central Basin 11 and approximately 4 0 percent from

6 California Gas and Electric Utilities . 2020 California Gas Report . Website: https://www.socalgas.com/ sites/default/files/2020-10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_ Filing. pdf (accessed September 9, 2021).
7 Long Beach Water D epartment (LBWD). 2021. Sewer. Website: https://www.lbwater.org/customer - services/sewer/ (accessed September 9, 2021)
8 Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). 2021. Written correspondence dated September 22, 2021 9 Ibid.
10 LBWD. 2021. Budget Summary Fiscal Year 2021, Website: https://lbwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/ 09/FY-21-Water-Dept-Budget-Summary.pdf (accessed September 9, 2021). 11 The Central Subbasin occupies a large portion of the southeastern part of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin and is commonly referred to as the “Central Basin.”

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-4 imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). 12 The major sources of water for the LBWD include imported water purchased from the MWD, groundwater pumped and treated by the LBWD, and recycled water produced at the Long Beach WRP.

4.12.2.6 Storm Drain
The City currently has an intricate storm drainage system, wh ich consists of streets and gutters, catch basins, and underground pipes, ditches, streams and creeks, pump stations, and channels/ rivers. This system carries stormwater and runoff away from impermeable surfaces in the City to designated drainage areas, including the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. In order to ensure proper function of the City’s storm drain system, the City performs bi- annual maintenance work on the system and emergency repair work on an as-needed basis.

4.12.2.7 Telecommunications
While there are a number of cable and telephone service providers available to residents in the planning area, the primary service providers in the planning area are Spectrum, AT&T, and Frontier.

Together, these three service providers hold a franchise issued by the State’s Public Utilities Commission to provide services to residents in the City. 13 In addition, the City owns approximately
60 miles of fiber optic cable in the City.

4.12.3 Regulatory Setting

4.12.3.1 Federal Regulations
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires discharges (from point and non -point sources) into navigable water to meet stringent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit standards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published regulations establishing requirements for application of stormwater permits for specified categories of industries, municipalities, and certain construction activities. The regulations require that discharges of stormwater from construction activity of 1. 0 acre or more must be regulated and covered by an NPDES permit. When a construction area exceeds 1.0 acre in size, the applicant must develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control non-point pollution.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Notification. Notification to the FAA is required for the construction of any tower or the alteration of an antenna structure that is registered with the Commission’s Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) system. Generally, towers that m eet certain height and location requirements (e.g., are more than 200 ft above ground level and/or are located within proximity of an airport) require notice with the FAA and ASR system and must register with

12 LBWD. 2019. Water Resources Plan, Website: https://lbwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/LBWD- WRP-1.pdf (accessed September 9, 2021).
13 City of Long Beach. Cable Television and Telephone Servic e. Website: https://www.longbeach.gov/ti/ telecommunications/ (accessed September 9, 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-5 the Federal Communications Commission. A final determination of “no hazard” is required from the FAA prior to any construction or alteration of facilities.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Antenna Structure Registration. Applicants proposing to construct or alter antenna structures must register such facilities with the FCC in compliance with Part 17 of the FCC’s Rules. An ASR registration must not occur until an applicant has first secured a “no hazard” determination from the FAA. If the FCC accepts the application, a registration is issued, which typically includes the FAA’s “no hazard” marking and/or lighting specifications and which assigns the antenna an ASR number. Once an antenna is registered, the owner is responsible for compliance with applicable FAA and FCC regulations. No changes to t he specifications in the ASR system are permitted without prior authorization from both the FAA and FCC. Once the antenna structure is constructed or altered, the owner must file a Notice of Completion of Construction or Alteration with the FAA and a form with the FCC notifying both agencies that the construction has been completed.

4.12.3.2 State Regulations
Assembly Bill 939: Solid Waste Reduction. The California Integrated Waste Management (CIWM) Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill [AB] 939) was enacted as a result of a national crisis in landfill capacity, as well as a broad acceptance of the hierarchy (reduce, reuse, recycle, environmentally sound landfilling, and transformation) as the desired approach to solid waste management. AB 939 mandated local jurisdictions to meet waste diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000, and established an integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill compliance. Other elements included encouraging resource conservation and considering the effects of waste management operations. The diversion goals and program requirements are implemented through a disposal -based reporting system by local jurisdictions under CIWMB regulatory oversight. Since the adoption of AB 939, landfill capacity has increased. Regional capacity problems still exist, but capacity is no longer considered the statewide crisis it once was. AB 939 has achieved substantial progress in waste diversion, program implementation, solid waste plannin g, and protection of public health and safety and the environment from the operation of landfills and solid waste facilities. 14 The City offers recycling
programs for both commercial and residential uses.

California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. The CIWM Act of 1989 (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Division 30), enacted through AB 939 and modified by subsequent legislation, required all California cities and counties to implement programs to reduce, recycle, and compost at least 50 percent of waste by 2000 (PRC Section 41780). The State determines compliance with this mandate to divert 50 percent of generated waste (which includes both disposed and diverted waste) through a complex formula. This formula requires cities and counties to conduct empirical studies to establish a base -year waste generation rate against which future diversion is measured. The actual determination of the diversion rate in subsequent years is arrived at through deduction, not direct

14 CalRecycle. History of California Solid Waste Law, 1985- 1989. Website: https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ laws/legislation/calhist/1985to1989 (accessed September 9, 2021).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-6 measurement; instead of counting the amount of material recycled and composted, the city or county tracks the amount of material disposed at landfills, then subtracts the disposed amount from the base-year amount. The difference is assumed to be diverted (PRC 41780.2).

Assembly Bill 75. AB 75, passed in 1999, and the State Agency Model Integrated Waste Management Act (Chapter 764, Statutes of 1999, Strom-Martin) took effect on January 1, 2000. This bill added new provisions to the PRC, mandating that State agencies develop and implement a n Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) that outlines the steps to be taken to achieve the required waste diversion goals.

Current statutes require all State agencies and large facilities to divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste from disposal facilities on and after January 1, 2004. The law also requires that each State agency and large facility submit an annual report to CalRecycle summarizing its yearly progress in implementing waste diversion programs; it also mandated that community service districts providing solid waste services report disposal and diversion information to the city, county, or regional agency in whose jurisdiction they are located. In addition to the waste diversion goals, all State agencies are required to buy recycled ma terials from 12 different categories ranging from paper and plastic to paint, solvents, and lubricating oils.

Senate Bill 1016. The Per Capita Disposal Measurement System Act (Senate Bill [SB] 1016) changed the way State agencies and local governments measure their progress toward meeting the statutory waste diversion mandates. State agencies and large State facilities now use per capita disposal as an indicator of their compliance with the 50 percent waste diversion requirement. Compliance is also determined by diversion program implementation.

Senate Bill 1374. SB 1374 requires that the annual report submitted to CalRecycle include a summary of the progress made in the diversion of construction and demolition waste materials. In addition, SB 1374 requires CalRecycle to adopt a model ordinance suitable for adoption by any local agency to require 50 to 75 percent diversion of construction and demolition waste materials from landfills by March 1, 2004. Local jurisdictions are not required to adopt their own c onstruction and demolition ordinances, nor are they required to adopt CalRecycle’s model by default. However, adoption of such an ordinance may be considered by CalRecycle when determining whether to impose a fine on a jurisdiction that has failed to imple ment its Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE).

Assembly Bill 341. AB 341, enacted in 2011, changed the due date of the State agency waste management annual report to May 1 beginning in 2012. The bill makes a legislative declaration that is the po licy goal of the State that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020.

Water Conservation in Landscaping Act. To ensure adequate supplies are available for future uses, and to promote the conserva tion and efficient use of water, local agencies are required to adopt a water-efficient landscape ordinance. When such an ordinance has not been adopted, a finding as to why (based on the climatic, geologic, or topographical conditions) such an ordinance i s not necessary must be adopted. In the absence of such, an ordinance drafted by the State of California applies within the affected jurisdiction. The City of Long Beach implements water- efficient

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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-7 landscaping standards set forth by the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), (Chapter 21.42.035 of the City’s Municipal Code), which establishes water conservation requirements for all projects that require a Site Plan Review; new residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and public age ncy landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet (sf) requiring a landscape plumbing permit; rehabilitated residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and public agency landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 2,000 sf requiring a landscape plumbing permit; cemeteries; existing landscapes; and public facilities and public rights-of-way. 15 Water Recycling in Landscaping Act. The Water Recycling in Landscaping Act requ ires that a water producer capable of providing recycled water that meets certain conditions notify local agencies eligible to receive the recycled water. It also requires that necessary infrastructure be provided to support the delivery of recycled water.

State Water Code Sections 13550–13556. These sections of the State Water Code specify that local, regional, or State agencies shall not use water from any source for non -potable uses if suitable recycled water is available as provided in Section 13550 of the State Water Code.

State Water Resources Control Board. Operation of the JWPCP and the Long Beach WRP are subject to regulations set forth by the California Department of Health Services (DHS) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). NPDE S permits are required for operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), construction projects, and industrial facilities who discharge to surface waters within the City.

Urban Water Management Planning Act. The Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMPA) of 1983 requires preparation of a strategy that plans for water supply and assesses the reliability of water sources over a 20 -year period in 5 -year increments; identifies and quantifies adequate water supplies for existing and future demand s under normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry years; and implements conservation controls to ensure the efficient use of urban water supplies. Requirements set forth in the UWMPA apply to every urban water supplier with 3,000 customers or more or that provides over 3,000 af/yr of water to ensure reliability in water service in order to meet the needs of customers during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years.

Governor’s Drought Declaration. On January 17, 2014, Governor Brown proclaimed a State of Emergency asking Californians to reduce water use by 20 percent and directing State officials to take all necessary actions to make water available. Additional key measures in the proclamation include the following: directing water suppliers to implement water shortage contingency plans, ordering the SWRCB to consider petitions for consolidation of places of use for the State Water Project and Central Valley Project in an effort to streamline water transfers and exchanges between water users, directing the DWR and the SWRCB to accelerate funding for projects that would have broken ground

15 City of Long Beach Municipal Code, Section 21.42.03. City of Long Beach, codified through Ordinance No.

ORD-18-0021, enacted August 14, 2018 (Supp. No. 21, Update 2).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-8 in 2014 and would enhance water supplies, ordering the SWRCB to notify water rights holders across the State that they may be directed to cease or reduce water diversions based on water shortages, and requiring the SWRCB to consider modifying requirements for releases of water from reservoirs or diversion limitations to conserve water in reservoirs and improve water quality.

Following the Governor’s drought declaration, the DWR announc ed on January 31, 2014, that if current dry conditions persist, customers would receive no deliveries from the State Water Project.

Deliveries to agricultural districts with long -standing water districts were determined to be at a risk for a potential 50 percent reduction.

On April 1, 2014, the Governor issued Executive Order (EO) B-29-15, which ordered the SWRCB to impose restrictions to achieve a 25 percent reduction in potable urban water usage through the end of February 2016, directed the DWR to lead a statewide initiative to replace 50 million sf of lawns and turf with drought -tolerant landscapes, and directed the California Energy Commission (CEC) to implement a statewide rebate program for the replacement of inefficient household devices.

On April 25, 2014, the Governor issued an executive order to accelerate actions intended to reduce harmful effects of the drought and called on Californians to redouble their efforts to conserve water. On July 15, 2014, the SWRCB approved an emergency regulation re quiring water conservation for outdoor water use. Subsequently, on December 22, 2014, Governor Brown issued EO B -28-14, which extended the operation of the provisions outlined in the April 2014 Executive Order.

The LBWD has been found compliant with EO B-28-14 and the SWRCB rules, exceeding the required reduction in water usage.

Following unprecedented water savings and plentiful winter rain and snow, Governor Brown lifted the drought emergency declaration in April 2017 via EO B- 40-17, which lifted the dr ought emergency in all counties except for Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Tuolumne, but maintained water reporting requirements and prohibitions on wasteful practices (e.g., watering during or after rainfall, hosing off sidewalks, and irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians).

Senate Bill 610. Enacted in 2001 (effective January 1, 2002), SB 610 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) added Section 21151.9 to the California PRC requiring that any proposed “project,” as defined in Section 10912 of the State Wat er Code, comply with Water Code Section 10910, et seq.

Commonly referred to as a “SB 610 Water Supply Assessment,” Water Code Section 10910 et seq. outlines the necessary information and analysis that must be included in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR ) to ensure that a proposed land development has sufficient water supply to meet existing and planned water demands over a 20-year projection.

The standard for the certainty and reliability of water supplies sufficient to meet the demands of the proposed development is more exacting then that required for the UWMP. Ultimately, because the SB 610 WSA is a source document for an EIR prepared for a proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it must provide substantial evidenc e showing that sufficient water will be available to meet water demands for the water purveyor’s existing and planned land uses over a 20-year planning horizon.

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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-9 The initial question in conducting an SB 610 WSA is whether there is a “project” that is subject to the SB 610 WSA process. According to the SB 610 WSA requirements, a “project” is defined as any of the following:
• Residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • Shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 sf of floor space;
• Commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 sf of floor space;
• Hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms;
• Industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 sf of floor area;
• Mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above; or • Project that would demand an amoun t of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling-unit project.

If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then “project” means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections, or a mixed -use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amou nt of water required by residential development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections.

The proposed project is a planning/policy action and does not constitute a “proj ect” under SB 610 requirements. As such, the project does not require preparation of a WSA. However, future projects facilitated by approval of the proposed CAAP would be subject to the SB 610 WSA requirements and may be required to prepare WSAs (refer to Section 4. 12.7, Project Impacts, later in this section for further discussion).

Senate Bill 7. SB X7-7 was enacted in 2009, authorizing the DWR to prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirements. SB X7 -7, otherwise referred to as the 20 x2020 Water Conservation Plan, requires urban water suppliers to adopt a water conservation target of 20 percent reduction in urban capita water use by year 2020 compared to a 2005 baseline. SB X7 -7 also requires agricultural water providers to prepare wat er management plans, measure water deliveries, and implement water efficiency measures.

Assembly Bill 2788. Under AB 2788, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility (i.e., the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, or

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-10 adjacent to a wireless collocation facility) is subject to a city or county discre tionary permit and is obligated to comply with specific criteria. A collocation facility is a permitted use not subject to a discretionary permit. AB 2788 would permit the use of a small cell without a discretionary permit or aesthetic review in all zoning districts, and would instead only be subject to a building or administrative permit, as applicable. In addition, AB 2788 requires that a city or county cannot require an escrow deposit for the removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof, unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility, or require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county. Moreover AB 2788 establishes specific timeframes by which a city or county must review a permit and/or renew a permit for wireless telecommunications facilities.

California Public Utilities Commission Decision 18- 04-007. On April 27, 2018, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued Decision 18 -04-007, which amended the Right -of-Way rules to provide competitive local exchange carriers with expanded access to public utility infrastructure for the purpose of installing antennas and wireless telecommunications equipment. Specifically, the CPUC mandated that the use of rights -of-way areas shall be limited to those necessary or useful for the provision of telecommunication services, thereby requiring a nexus between the installation and the provision of a telecommunication service.

4.12.3.3 Regional Regulations
Metropolitan Water District 2015 Regional Urban Water Management Plan. The MWD’s 2015 Regional UWMP lists and describes the various uses, demand, supplies, target reductions, and compliance measures for 26 member agencies, including the City of Long Beach. These include 14 cities, 11 municipal water districts, and one county water authorit y serving approximately

18.7 million people in Southern California. The 2015 Regional UWMP found that under the current supply demands for a multiple -dry-year scenario (i.e., drought conditions), the MWD would have sufficient supply to meet the projected g rowing demand for water from 2020 to 2040 while still meeting statewide reduction targets of 20 percent of 2009 levels by 2020. The MWD is currently working to develop programs to increase its water supply and create a large surplus during multiple- dry-year scenarios to ensure that water demands will still be addressed during emergency drought situations. With demands projected to be around 2.3 million acre -feet (af) in 2040 during multiple - dry-year scenarios, the MWD would have a surplus of 2,000 af with c urrent capabilities and 288,000 af with the implementation of the programs under development.

4.12.3.4 Local Regulations
City of Long Beach National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. The City is a Permittee of the Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges from the City of Long Beach (Order No. R4 -2014-0024, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CAS004003, as amended by Order No. R4 -2014-0024-A01) (City of Long Beach MS4 Permit). The Cit y of Long Beach MS4 Permit regulates discharges into the MS4 system in the City that are in the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB).

The City of Long Beach MS4 Permit requires certain projects to prepare Low Impact Development (LID) Plans , or the equivalent of, and implement post -construction best management practices (BMPs).

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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-11 City of Long Beach Municipal Code. According to Section 18.67.070 (Compliance with the WMP) of the City’s Municipal Code, any demolition projec t of “any valuation” shall submit documentation that it has met diversion requirements. Specifically, the City requires 60 percent of the waste tonnage of construction or demolition debris to be recycled, reused, or diverted from landfills or disposal sites.

Long Beach Water Department, Urban Water Management Plan. In accordance with the Urban Water Management Plan Act, the LBWD has prepared its Long Beach Water 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (2015 UWMP) (adopted in 2016), which anticipates that the LBWD’s water supply will increase by 7 percent from 2015 to 2040 to meet projected water demands. Projected sources of water from 2015 to 2040 are anticipated to include a combination of groundwater obtained via annual extraction rights, imported water from MWD, and recycled water.

Long Beach Water Department, Board Resolution WD -1353. On June 2, 2016, the Long Beach Board of Water Commissioners declared a Stage 1 Water Supply Shortage. The adoption of the Stage 1 Supply Shortage means that one additional outdo or watering day is permitted during the hot and dry summer months compared to the previous Stage 2 Supply Shortage designation.

Landscape watering in the City is allowed on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays from April 1 through September 30. From October 1 through March 31, watering is allowed on Tuesdays and Saturdays due to cooler temperatures and increased rainfall.

City of Long Beach General Plan Conservation Element. Public utilities goals are included in the Conservation Element (adopted in 1973) of the City’s General Plan. The following goals are applicable to the proposed project:

Water Resource Management Goal 1: To assure adequate quantity and quality of water to meet the present and future domestic, agricultural, and industrial needs of the City.

Water Resource Management Goal 5: To maintain, upgrade, and improve water systems and facilities serving Long Beach.

City of Long Beach General Plan Mobility Element. In October 2013, the City approved the General Plan Mobility Element. The Mobility Eleme nt seeks to guide development and improvements to the existing circulation system. Together with the existing circulation system, the Mobility Element considers the mobility of critical resources (e.g., water, energy, and communications). The following goals and policies related to utilities and services systems in the City’s Mobility Element are applicable to the proposed project.

Strategy No. 19: Promote well -maintained water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure systems that serve the demands of exi sting and future residents and businesses while mitigating environmental impacts.
• MOR Policy 19- 1: Plan for and provide appropriate levels and types of infrastructure based on the desired character of each neighborhood or district.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-12 • MOR Policy 19-2: Ensure that development is appropriate and in scale with current and planned infrastructure capabilities.
• MOR Policy 19 -3: Promote water -efficient fixtures and appliances to reduce water demand.
• MOR Policy 19-4: Expand the use of water recycling and graywater systems to treat and recycle wastewater and to further reduce water demand related to irrigation of landscaped areas.

Sustainable City Action Plan. The City adopted the Sustainable City Action Plan on February 2, 2010, with the purpose of moving the City towards becoming a more sustainable City. Sustainability is defined in this plan as maximizing individual benefits and minimizing negative environmental impacts to ensure the long -term health of the environment fo r the enjoyment and use of current and future generations. The Sustainable City Action Plan includes the following applicable initiatives, goals, and actions that are meant to guide City decision -makers in striving to achieve a sustainable City.

Green Economy and Lifestyle Initiative 1. Establish Long Beach as the leading California city for green business and green job growth.

Green Economy and Lifestyle Action 8. Implement a City green business program that incorporate goals and strategies for waste red uction, energy efficiency, water conservation, green purchasing, etc.

Green Economy and Lifestyle Initiative 2. Promote individual action that encourages active and green lifestyles, which supports a green economy.

Green Economy and Lifestyle Action 1. U pdate the City’s green purchasing policy and the Sustainable Office Supply program to include additional requirements, green -only choices and automatic substitution to purchase materials with high postconsumer content that reduce quantity and toxicity of any generated waste.

Urban Nature Action 7. Incorporate sustainable principles and practices into golf course, marina, beach, park and playground/field design, and maintenance (grasscycling, reclaimed water irrigation, water conservation, recycling/waste management, and integrated pest management).

Urban Nature Initiative 2. Promote biodiversity citywide by encouraging the wide-scale use of native or edible landscapes.

Urban Nature Action 3. Ensure all open space and greening projects incorporate native/drought tolerant plants and use low-water strategies.

Waste Reduction Initiative 1. Increase diversion by reducing waste and increasing recycling and reuse.

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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-13 Waste Reduction Action 1. Implement the Multi -Family Recycling Ordinance and continue to structure waste hauler contracts to offer economic in centives for recycling and disincentives for excess waste.

Waste Reduction Action 2. Establish commercial recycling guidelines intended to increase the recycling rate of the commercial sector, keeping waste out of the waste stream.

Waste Reduction Action 3 . Establish an Environmental Depot facility that will recycle electronic waste and dispose of hazardous waste.

Waste Reduction Action 4. Establish a publicly accessible compost/mulch facility in the City and create beneficial uses for City greenwaste within City limits (grasscycling, mulching, etc.).

Waste Reduction Action 5. Develop commercial sector food -waste recovery programs and expand edible food redistribution programs.

Waste Reduction Action 6 . Create comprehensive publicly accessible recycling infrastructure at all City facilities and locations and require businesses to have recycling pick-up and public recycling on site.

Waste Reduction Action 7. Encourage residential composting and expand the City’s residential composting program.

Waste Reduction Action 8. Aggressively implement measures to decrease beach debris and expand beach recycling programs.

Waste Reduction Action 9. Investigate emerging conversion technologies as part of long-term waste management strategies.

Waste Reduction Action 10. Establish City purchasing guidelines that require the purchase of reusable and/or recycled products and require City operations to participate in take-back programs where available.

Waste Reduction Action 11. Implement an electronic record keeping/processing s ystem for City operations to decrease the use of paper.

Waste Reduction Initiative 2. Increase awareness and promote the concepts of reduce, reuse, and recycle.

Waste Reduction Action 1. Create a public education campaign to reduce litter and waste by pro moting the use of all types of reusable products instead of disposable products (reusable grocery bags, water bottles, etc.) and refusal of single-use items.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-14 Waste Reduction Action 2. Continue public education efforts through continued support of Litter Free Long Beach and other educational programs that promote reduction of waste and litter.

Waste Reduction Action 3. Continue educating schoolchildren to recycle and reduce litter by continuing the Traveling Recycling Education Center (TREC) and Lunch with a Lizard programs.

Waste Reduction Action 4. Develop an environmental recycling awareness program to be implemented in targeted industries (hospitality, medical, restaurants, etc.).

Waste Reduction Action 5. Publicize and encourage free-cycling programs.

Waste Reduction Action 6. Promote sustainable landscaping practices and composting.

Waste Reduction Action 7. Encourage residential composting and expand the City’s residential composting program.

Waste Reduction Action 8. Promote the use of post-consumer content products, thereby reducing demand for virgin materials.

Waste Reduction Action 9. Promote take-back programs that allow customers to return packaging or used products to manufacturer for proper disposal.

Waste Reduction Action 10. Promote the proper disposal of special wastes such as Household Hazardous Wastes and electronic waste.

Waste Reduction Initiative 3. Utilize recyclable materials as a raw materials source for industrial development to enhance the recycled-materials market in the City.

Waste Reduction Action 1. Continue existing operations of the Long Beach Recycling Market Development Zone (RMDZ) to foster economic development and job opportunities.

Waste Reduction Action 2. Expand RMDZ boundaries.

Waste Reduction Action 3. Promote RMDZ products in the local marketplace.

Waste Reduction Action 4. Offer incentives such as free press for businesses that participate in the “Litter Free Zone” program.

Waste Reduction Action 5. Encourage location of RMDZ businesses to the City by fast - tracking permits and licenses.

Waste Reduction Action 6. Promote community-based programs that provide jobs for disadvantaged individuals in RMDZ businesses.

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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-15 Waste Reduction Action 7. Participate in e-waste recycling programs and support private e-waste programs and events.

Waste Reduction Action 8. Require City operations and encourage businesses and residents to buy recycled products to support the recycled products market.

Waste Reduction Action 9. Aggressively apply for grants and partner with others agencies to leverage funding to implement used oil and tire recycling programs and other litter programs.

Waste Reduction Action 10. Partner with the Conservation Corps and other local recycling businesses to further recycling and reuse.

Water Initiative 1. Ensure a sustainable water supply through conservation and reduced dependence on imported water.

Water Action 1. Make it illegal and socially unacceptable to waste water in the City.

Water Acti on 2. Reduce amount of water used for landscape irrigation by improving irrigation systems and by replacing grass lawns with landscapes that are more drought-tolerant, enhance the environment, require less maintenance, and reduce the amount and pollution load of urban runoff into the Long Beach coastal zone.

Water Action 3. Further reduce demand for potable water by converting industrial and irrigation demands to recycled water wherever practical and cost-effective.

Water Action 4. Continue research and development of cost- effective and environmentally responsible seawater desalination as an alternative, sustainable supply of potable water.

Water Action 5. Continue to improve management and yield of the groundwater basin that the City relies on for approximately 50 percent of its potable water.

Water Action 6. Update landscaping standards to require drought -tolerant and native landscaping to reduce water consumption.

Water Initiative 2. Implement low impact development strategies to reduce runoff and pollution at the source and increase the beneficial use of rainwater.

Water Action 1. Aggressively pursue strategies to keep trash off our beaches and pollution out of our ocean.

Water Action 2. Continue to manage urban and stormwater runoff by installin g emerging treatment technologies into the storm drain system.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-16 Water Action 3. Continue to work with upstream cities in the Los Angeles River Watershed to implement stormwater best management practices (BMPs) in the watershed to reduce pollutant loadings.

Water Action 4. Pursue legislation and secure funding to mitigate surface water and ground water pollution.

Water Action 5. Participate in and promote beach, neighborhood and community, and business corridor cleanups in order to keep our watersheds and beaches clean.

Water Action 6. Encourage the use of development techniques to direct rooftop runoff to pervious areas such as yards, garden beds, vegetated/soft bottom open channels, or on-site structural BMPs for capture, treatment, and reuse.

Water Action 7. Design streets to direct rainwater runoff to landscaped areas.

Water Action 8. Utilize and/or replace non -pervious surfaces with permeable materials (e.g., sidewalks, driveways, outdoor patios, and parking lots).

Water Action 10. Update development standards to require low impact development strategies such as detention basins, infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, conservation of natural areas, permeable pavements, treatment wetlands, bioswales, curb cuts, green roofs, rain gardens, and other pre/post construction BMPs.

Water Action 11. Expand Stormwater Management Education and Outreach programs to watershed -based programs and develop public -private educational partnerships to promote behavioral change.

4.12.4 Methodology
The ef fects of the proposed CAAP and Safety Element Update are evaluated below to determine whether they would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. The impact analysis presented in this section is based on the effects that may occur on util ities and service systems subsequent to the approval of the proposed project as a result of the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions to meet the City’s GHG reduction targets and to lessen the impacts of climate change on the community. 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. The discussion focuses on current levels of service provided to the project area and information on possible constraints or impacts to the utilities and/or service systems associated with the proposed project. The City’s proposed CAAP will focus on addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions , and by result, would also function to reduce utility demand as a result of specific control measures related to energy resource conservation.

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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-17

4.12.4.1 Analysis Approach
Because the proposed project under evaluation in this Draft SEIR includes both the proposed CAAP and the 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 effects to utilities and service systems 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), Mobility (2 013), and Conservation (1973) Elements of the City’s General Plan and whether or not changes in utilities and service systems may result from implementation of the proposed project.

4.12.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance crite ria 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 on utilities providers if it would:

Threshold 4.12.1: 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;
Threshold 4.12.2: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years; Threshold 4.12.3: 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 projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; Threshold 4.12.4: 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; or
Threshold 4.12.5: Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

4.12.6 Project Impacts
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?

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-18 CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the proposed CAAP, which was included as a mitigation measure (MM GHG -1) 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 requ irements, incentives, and potential policies to ensure sustainable development consistent with the adopted Land Use Element ( LUE). 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 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 but in the case of water audits would be designed to lessen the use of water in existing facilities . 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 Consistency Checklist (Appendix D) to future discretionary projects to allow for CEQA streamlining for GHG analysis . In order to demonstrate consistency with the proposed CAAP, future projects would implement both mandatory (Tier 1) and encouraged (Tier 2) measures that support the CAAP Actions and would help 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 reductions must be provided for the project to utilize the 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 impro vements to existing development to demonstrate consistency with the goals and policies of the CAAP. Tier 1 measures required for the Building and Energy 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 these 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 increased use of solar panels and community solar (BE-2 and BE-3), or equivalent measures. Other Building and Energy CAAP Actions, supported by the measures listed on the Consist ency Checklist would increase energy efficiency of existing facilities, electrifying new residential and commercial buildings, and reducing emissions from local oil and gas extraction, and are not anticipated to result in population growth or the construct ion or expansion of water infrastructure. Most of these new facilities such as solar panels and energy efficiency improvements would be constructed within or on existing or proposed buildings (e.g., rooftops). Their installation would likely not result in new employees and associated increases in population that would result in additional water demand, and any future growth in population and employment is anticipated to be consistent with the 2019 LUE growth projections analyzed in the 2019 Certified Program EIR.

Furthermore, energy efficiency fixtures and renewable energy fixtures on existing buildings may require minimal water for maintenance and cleaning purposes but are not anticipated to require substantial additional water demands for operation.

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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-19 compliance with the City’s Transportation Demand M anagement (TDM) Ordinance and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines. Tier 2 measures for the Transportation Sector include meeting the Transportation Screening Criteria and High -Density, Mixed -Use, Transit -Oriented, Walkable Infill Project Design. Imple mentation of Tier 1 measures would support the CAAP Action s 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 SB 743 (T-9).

Implementation of the Tier 2 measures would support CAAP Actions to increase employment 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 would be evaluated for transit service at the time such discretionary projects are submitted for review and approval. The PlaceTypes established by the adopted LUE were established in order to allow for greater flexibility, density, and mix of compatible land uses, including increased density near transit. The 2019 Certified Program EIR concluded that the water demands associated with the General Plan anticipated buildout scenario (2040) would be within the capacity of the LBWD to serve the project. Therefore, as the CAAP Actions w ould apply to future development anticipated by the adopted LUE, any future improvements facilitated by the proposed project would also be within the LBWD service capacity. Mandatory Tier 1 measures related to bicycles and pedestrian s would include improvements that are not anticipated to result in development of structures that would require increased water demand or the construction or expansion of water facilities . The measures to support the CAAP Actions would promote increased housing and employ ment along major transit corridors and increased density and mixing of land use; however, such development would be consistent with the adopted LUE and would therefore, not result in increased water demand or result in the construction or expansion of wate r infrastructure as a result of the proposed CAAP.

Tier 1 measures required for the Waste sector include the recycling of appropriate materials and organic waste diversion in future developments . 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). Other CAAP Actions for Waste supported by the measures listed on the Consistency Checklist would expand communitywide participation in organic waste collection and diversion. Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures to support the CAAP Actions for Waste are not ant icipated to result in significant population growth or additional water demand.

Tier 1 and Tier 2 m easures to support the CAAP Actions for new renewable energy, transportation, solid waste, or other facilitates implemented by future discretionary projects may generate a limited number of new employees but that limited number of employees would likely not impact the demand for water ; further, additional water demand for maintenance of new energy efficient features would be minimal. All future discretionary p rojects that utilize the CAAP Consistency Checklist 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 planning area. Therefore,

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-20 water infrastructure that is adequately sized to serve existing and future needs would be provided to all future discretionary projects.

The proposed CAAP also identifies Adaptation Actions, which provide a general vision of the types, locations, and sequencing of more detailed studies and potential future projects that may be needed to lessen climate change impacts in particular locations throughout the City. While the Adaptation Actions are not required to meet the City’s GHG reduction targets , they are included on the CAAP Checklist to be incorporated as applicable, to demonstrate consistency with the overall goals and strategies of the CAAP. These policies are intended to improve the ability of Long Beach and its residents and businesses to ada pt to climate change and related impacts now and in the future and include drought actions that include the 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.

These Adaption Actions are expected to reduce water use in the City through efficiency measures, which would result in a beneficial impact.

For the reasons stated above, the proposed CAAP’s impacts on water supplies and the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

In addition, it should be noted the GHG reduction goals of the CAAP w ere 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 water supplies or the construction of new or expanded water facilities. 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 Certified Program EI R.

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? 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 projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-21 CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, 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 . 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 that would result in changes to utilities and service systems. 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 GHG streamlining. In order for future discretionary projects to demonstrate consistency with the CAAP, the CAAP Checklist includes Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures to support the 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, to ensure consistency with the CAAP to achieve the City’s overall GHG emission s goals. Tier 1 m easures to support the CAAP Actions designed to ensure reductions in the use of energy for existing buildings, such as through energy efficiency improvements and increased use of solar power and clean electricity sources would not result i n additional demands for wastewater treatment. Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures to support the CA AP Actions related to expansion of the bicycle and pedestrian network a nd other measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would promote increased housing and e mployment along major transit corridors and incre ased density and mixing of land uses; however, such development would be consistent with the adopted LUE and would therefore, not result in increased demand for wastewater services or result in the construction or expansion of wastewater infrastructure as a result of the proposed CAAP. Tier 1 and Tier 2 m easures to support the CAAP Actions for Waste include requiring recycling and organic waste collection and processing to help facilitate existing City effort s to expand communitywide participation in organic waste collection and diversion. These measures to support the CAAP Actions would not result in additional population growth or the need for additional wastewater facilities.

Additionally, these measures to support the CAAP Actions would be implemented through future discretionary projects. All future discretionary projects that would utilize the CAAP Consistency Checklist would be subject to review under CEQA and required to comply with any requ irements 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, reconstructio n, maintenance, and operation of existing and future improvements to the sanitary sewer system, including improvements outlined in the City’s 2021 Capital Improvement Program.

Additionally, the proposed CAAP also identifies Adaptation Actions, which provide a general vision of the types, locations , and sequencing of more detailed studies and potential future projects that may be needed to lessen climate change impacts in particular locations throughout the City. While the Adaptation Actions are not require d for future development, they are included on the Consistency Checklist, as implementation of some of these strategies may be applicable to future discretionary projects. Those policies are intended to improve the ability of Long Beach and its residents and businesses to adapt to climate change and related impacts and include sea level rise and flooding, with adaptation actions including inventorying and flood -proofing or relocating vulnerable sewer pump stations, which would result in a beneficial impact related to wastewater treatment services.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-22 Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed CAAP related to wastewater treatment or the construction of wastewater supply or conveyance facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

In addition, 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 si gnificant impacts related to wastewater treatment or the construction of wastewater supply or conveyance facilities . As the proposed CAAP would not alter the land uses designations or development assumptions of the adopted LUE, the proposed project would n ot alter the less than significant impact identified in the 2019 Certified Program EIR. No mitigation is required.

Therefore, the Safety Element Update would have no impact on wastewater treatment 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. As discussed previously, the proposed CAAP is considered a policy/planning action and adoption of t he proposed project does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development . 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 that would result in changes to utilities and service systems. The proposed CAAP includes Tier 1 and T ier 2 measures to support the 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, to ensure consistency with the CAAP to achieve the City’s overall GHG emissions goals. Tier 1 m easures to support the CAAP Actions designed to ensure reductions in the use of energy for existing buildings, such as through energy efficiency improvements and the increased use of solar power and clean electricity sources , are not anticipated to result in additional impervious surfaces that would convey additional stormwater drainage . Tier 1 and Tier 2 m easures to support the CAAP Actions for Waste , including encouraging recycling compliance and expanded organic waste collection to expand communitywide participation in organic waste collection and diversion , are not anticipated to result in any changes to pervious surfaces that would affect stormwater drainage. Tier 1 and Tier 2 m easures to support the CAAP Actions for Transportation related to expansion of the bicycle and pedestrian network and other measures to reduce VMT may result in increased impervious surface area, which would reduce infiltration . Depending on the s ize and

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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-23 nature of the future discretionary projects that would implement these CAAP Actions , a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would be developed on a project -specific basis to address post - construction urban runoff and stormwater pollution from new d evelopment and significant redevelopment projects. Detailed information about on -site hydrology, runoff flow rates, and pollutant loads are included in these project -specific analyses. The hydrological analyses included in the WQMPs prepared for future pro jects would identify BMPs and improvements to the existing storm drain system that would ensure that the City would be able to adequately handle increased stormwater runoff as a result of the implemented measures to support the CAAP Actions.

All future discretionary projects that would utilize the CAAP Consistency Checklist 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 NP DES 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 re view grading plans and construction documents to identify project features aimed at reducing construction impacts to storm drain facilities. Future discretionary projects would also need 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.

The proposed CAAP also identifies Adaptation Actions, which provide a general vision of the types, locations, and sequencing of more detailed studies and potential future projects that may be needed to lessen climate change in particular locations throughout the City. While the A daptation Actions are not required , they are included on the Consistency 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 . These policies are intended to improve the ability of Long Beach and its residents and businesses to adapt to climate change and related impacts now and in the future and include sea level rise and flooding actions that include updating the City’s existing Stormwater Management Plan and inventory and flood -proof vulne rable sewer pump stations. These A daptation Actions are expected to improve storm water drainage throughout the City, which would result in a beneficial impact.

Therefore, potential impacts of the proposed CAAP related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

In addition, 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 the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities . 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 Certified Program EIR. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element: No Impact. The project 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 th e Safety Element represent a planning

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-24 action intended to comply with State law. Text changes to the Safety Element would not facilitate or result in any physical development that would result in impacts related to the relocation or construction of new stor mwater drainage systems. Therefore, the Safety Element Update would have no impact on stormwater facilities. No mitigation is required.

As discussed previously, 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 .

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 itse lf grant any entitlements for development that would result in changes to utilities and service systems.

The Tier 1 measures to support 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 and incentives for clean electricity (BE-1, and BE -5), and increased use of solar panels and community solar (BE-2 and BE -3), or equivalent alternative measures . Other Building and Energy CA AP Actions supported by the measures listed on the Consistency Checklist would increase energy efficiency of existing facilities, electrifying new residential and commercial buildings, and reducing emissions from local oil and gas extraction . Future development of larger renewable energy facilities, such as future discretionary projects that would promote community solar (BE-3) would be developed consistent with the land uses and standards of the adopted LUE and resulting PlaceTypes, would be subject to CEQA review, and would therefore, be required to mitigate any impacts as nece ssary. Additionally, these CAAP Actions are expected to promote energy efficiency in existing and new buildings, resulting in the reduction of electric power and natural gas demand.

Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures to support the CAA P Actions related to Transportation include expansion of the bicycle and pedestrian network and other measures to reduce VMT and are designed to focus increased housing and employment along major transit corridors and increased density and mixing of land use s. Future development consistent with these Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures to support the CAAP Actions would also be consistent with the adopted LUE and would therefore, not result in increased demand for electric power or natural gas or result in the construction or expansion of electricity and natural gas infrastructure beyond the anticipated General Plan buildout analyzed in the 2019 Certified Program EIR. The Tier 1 measures to support the CAAP Actions for Waste include the recycling of appropriate materials and organic waste collec tion and processing to expand communitywide participation in organic waste collection and diversion. These measures to support the CAAP Actions would not result in additional population growth or the need for additional natural

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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-25 gas or electricity facilities but would rather help implement the growth projections contemplated in the LUE in the most sustainable manner possible . Additionally, all future discretionary projects that would utilize the CAAP Consistency Checklist would be subject to review under CEQ A and required to comply with any requirements in effect when the review is conducted. Where necessary, infrastructure improvements would be made to serve proposed projects and subject to further environmental review depending on the extent and nature of those improvements.

The proposed CAAP also identifies Adaptation Actions , which provide a general vision of the types, locations, and sequencing of more detailed studies and potential future projects that may be needed to lessen climate change in particular locations throughout the City. While the A daptation Actions are not required for future development to meet the City’s GHG reduction targets , they are included on the Consistency Checklist for future di scretionary projects to incorporate relevant Adaptation Actions, as applicable, to demonstrate consistency with the overall goals and strategies of the CAAP. Those policies are intended to improve the ability of Long Beach and its residents and businesses to adapt to climate change and related impacts and include extreme heat actions such as increasing the presence of cool roofs and cool walls and identifying future vulnerability potential for power outages related to extreme heat. These Adaptation Actions are expected to reduce electric and gas usage and improve resiliency throughout the City, which would result in a beneficial impact related to demand for these services.

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

In addition, 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 the construction or relocation of existing electricity and natural gas facilities. 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 Certified Program EIR. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. The project 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 result in any physical development that would result in impacts related to the relocation or constru ction of new electricity or natural gas facilities . Therefore, the Safety Element Update would result in no impacts to electricity or natural gas facilities. No mitigation is required.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-26 CAAP: Less Tha n Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and approval of the CAAP does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development. 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 that would result in changes to utilities and service systems. Tier 1 measures to support the CAAP Actions related to Building and Energy are designed to ensure reductions in the use of energy for existing buildings, such as through energy efficiency improvements and the increased use of solar power and clean electricity sources.

These CAAP Actions are not anticipated to result in additional population growth or demand for additional telecommunications facilities. Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures to s upport the CA AP Actions related to Transportation include expansion of the bicycle and pedestrian network and other measures to reduce VMT and are designed to focus housing and employment along major transit corridors and increased density and mixing of land use s. Future development consistent with the CAAP Actions would also be with the adopted LUE and would therefore, not result in increased demand for telecommunication facilities beyond the anticipated General Plan buildout analyzed in the 2019 Certified Program EIR. The Tier 1 measures to support the CAAP Actions for Waste require recycling compliance and organic waste collection and processing to expand communitywide participation in organic waste collection and diversion. These measures to support the CAAP Actions would not result in additional population growth or the need for additional telecommunication facilities. All future discretionary projects that would utilize the CAAP Consistency Checklist 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 goal of investing in telecommunications infrastructure systems (General Plan Policy 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 been disturbed through association with past infrastructure improvements.

Furthermore, future telecommunications infr astructure improvements may be 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 telecommunications facilities, and no mitigation would be required.

In addition, 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 si gnificant impacts related to the construction or relocation of existing telecommunications facilities . 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 l ess than significant impact identified in the 2019 Certified Program EIR. 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-27 Safety Element Update: No Impact. The project 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 result in any physical development that would result in impacts related to the relocation or construction of new telecommunication facilities. Therefore, the proposed Safety Element update would result in no impacts 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?
Or
Threshold 4.12.5: Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

CAAP: Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and does not constitute approval for any physical improvements or development. 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 that would result in changes to utilities and service systems.

Measures to support the CAAP Actions related to Building and Energy are designed to ensure that future discretionary projects reduc e GHG emissions, such as through the increased use of clean electricity or solar power, to ensure consistency with the CAAP to achieve the City’s overall GHG emissions goals and to ensure reductions in the use of energy for existing buildings, such as through energy efficiency improvements and the increased use of solar power and clean electricity sources.

Measures to support the CA AP Actions related to Transportation include the expansion of the bicycle and pedestrian network and other measures to reduce VMT and would promote increased housing and employment along major transit corridors and increased density and mixing of land uses. Future development consistent with these CAAP Actions would also be consistent with the adopted LUE and would therefore, not result in increased solid waste generation beyond the anticipated General Plan buildout analyzed in the 2019 Certified Program EIR.

One of the intentions of the CAAP is to redu ce GHG emissions associated with solid waste generation. Tier 1 measures to support the CAAP Actions for Waste 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), require expanded organic waste collection and processing (W -2, W-3, and W -4).

Implementation of the CAAP would reduce solid waste generation in the City, and impacts would be beneficial. Any new facilities needed to support increased waste diversion ( i.e., transfer facilities or composting facilities) would be required to comply with existing regulations for the handling of solid waste, including the applicable permitting requirements of CalRecycle.

All future discretionary projects that would implement measures to support the CAAP Actions would be subject to review under CEQA and required to comply with any requirements in effect when the review is conducted, including all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-28 to solid waste. The CIWMB is the State agency tasked with overseeing, managing, and tracking solid waste generated in the State each year. The CIWMB promotes a sustainable environment , which encourages that resources are reused or recycled within local jurisdictions. In addition, the CIWMB promotes the use of technologies aimed at diverting solid waste from landfills. For example, the State passed the CIWM Act mandating that local jurisdictions achieve a 25 percent diversion rate by 1995 and a 50 percent diversion rate by 2000. Furthermore, Section 18.67.070, Compliance with the WMP, of the City’s Municipal Code requires that all new projects requiring demolition recycle, reuse, or dive rt 60 percent of construction waste from landfills to disposal sites. All future discretionary projects would continue to be subject to the appropriate planning and permitting processes, thereby ensuring compliance with applicable waste laws and regulations.

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.

In addition, 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 impact s related to the generation of solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure . As the proposed CAAP would not alter the land uses designations or development assumptions of the adopted LUE, the prop osed project would not alter the less than significant impact identified in the 2019 Certified Program EIR. No mitigation is required.

Safety Element Update: No Impact. The 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 Elemen t would not facilitate or result in any physical development that would result in impacts related to solid waste generation. Therefore, the Safety Element update would result in no impacts to solid waste facilities.

No mitigation is required.

4.12.7 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
Construction and operational impacts related to utilities and service systems would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

4.12.8 Compliance Measures and Project Design Features
The proposed project does not inc lude 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 utilities and service systems. Mitigation Measures

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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx «03/15/22» 4.12-29 No mitigation is required for the proposed project.

4.12.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation
There would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to utilities and service systems, and no mitigation is required.

4.12.10 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in t he 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 utilities. The planning area includes the entire 50 square miles within the limits of the City of Long Beach; therefore, the cumulative impact area for each utility is the service area of the respective service provider. T he cumulative impact area for wastewater treatment is defined as the City and the LACSD, the cumulative impact area for water infrastructure includes the service territory of the LBWD, the cumulative impact area for solid waste is the County of Los Angeles, the cumulative impact area for electricity and natural gas is SCE and SoCalGas, respectively, and the cumulative impact area for cable, telephone, and internet services is defined as the service territory for Spectrum Communications, Frontier Communications, and AT&T U-Verse. Cumulative projects in the service area f or each utility provider would cause significant impacts if they cause an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB with jurisdiction in Long Beach and Los Angeles County, generate wastewater in exceedance of the combined capacities of wastewater treatment plants that serve the planning area, create the need for additional water supplies, generate electricity or natural gas demand in exceedance of SCE or SoCalGas’ existing infrastructure, or generate solid waste in exceedance of the combined capacities of the landfills that serve the planning area and the County.

As stated previously, the proposed CAAP would be consistent with the adopted LUE, and thus any service demands from new structures that may result from implementation of measures to support the CAAP Actions after adoption of the CAAP would not result in additional impact s beyond what was anticipated in the 2019 Certified Program EIR under the General Plan buildout (2040). Adoption of the CAAP would not result in a population increase greater than projected for the buildout of the adopted LUE because the CAAP would not change local land use plans, and potential future facilities supported by the CA AP Actions would result in only minor employment increa ses and associated population growth, if any . Rather, the proposed CAAP supports existing land use plans and policies that seek to concentrate the expected population growth in City centers and along transit corridors and provides CAAP Actions for the City to implement the buildout anticipated in the General Plan LUE while meeting their GHG reduction targets . The proposed project does not include physical improvements or development. Future projects that implement CAAP A ctions would be subject to project-level CEQA review as required.

As described previously, the Tier 1 measures to support the CAAP Actions required for future discretionary projects utilizing the CAAP Consistency Checklist, as well as other measures to support the CAAP Actions, includi ng me asures related to Building and Energy, Transportation, Waste, and Adaptation Actions, seek to reduce electricity and natural gas demand through improving building energy efficiency, and includes measures that would reduce water consumption and the wastewater generated from this consumption as well as energy used within existing and new developments. In

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

C LIMATE A CTION AND ADAPT ATION 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\4.12 Utilities and Service Systems.docx (03/15/22) 4.12-30 addition, the measures to support the CAAP Actions also include measure s to increase diversion of solid waste from landfills. Overall, implementation of the CA AP would promote water conservation, energy efficiency, and the div ersion of solid waste. Therefore , the CAAP’s contribution would be cumulatively beneficial as it would reduce consum ption of water and energy and generation of wastewater and solid waste at the program level. Additionally, future projects that implement CAAP Actions would be subject to project-level CEQA review.

The project would also bring the General Plan into compliance with a number of State laws relating to climate change and resiliency through the proposed Safety Element Update, which as a planning/policy action would not facilitate or entitle any physical development that would result in impacts to utilities and service systems.

Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to impacts on utilities and service systems would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation would be 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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-1

5.0 ALTERNATIVES

5.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15126.6(a) of t he California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute & Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines , Section 15126.6) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) include a discussion of a reasonable range of project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives .” CEQA does not require an EIR to consider every conceivable alternative to a project, but rather it must consider a range of feasible alternatives that would assist decision -makers and the public in ev aluating the comparative merits of alternatives to a proposed project. Therefore, this chapter identifies potential alternatives to the proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and Safety Element Update (proposed project) and evaluates them as required by CEQA.

Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Section 15126.6[b] through [f]) are summarized below to explain the foundation and legal requirements for the alternatives analysis in this Subsequent EIR (SEIR):
• The discussion of alter natives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project Objectives or would be more costly (15126.6[b]).
• The specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated along with its impact (15126.6[e][1]). The “no project” analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (15126.6[e][2]).
• The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives s hall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, av ailability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control , or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent) (15126.6[f]).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPAC T 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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-2 • For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (15126.6[f][2][A]). • If the lead agency conclude s that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion and should include the reasons in the EIR. For example, in some cases there may be no feasible alternative locations for a geothermal plant or mining project, which must be in close proximity to natural resources at a given location (15126.6[f][2][B]). • An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative (15126.6[f][3]).

Pursuant to the guidelines stated above, alternatives to the proposed project are considered and evaluated in this Draft SEIR. These alternatives were developed in the course of project planning and environmental review. The discussion in this section provides:
• A description and analysis of impacts for each of the alternatives considered; • Conclusions regarding the alternative’s: (1) ability to attain the P roject Objectives (as stated below); and (2) merits compared to the merits of the proposed project.

5.2 PROPOSED PROJECT

5.2.1 Project Characteristics
As described in further detail in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project includes the approval of a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and an update to the Safety Element for incorporation into the City of Long Beach ’s (City) General Plan. 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 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. It should b e noted that the proposed project is a policy/planning action and does not include any physical improvements or development that would result in physical environmental impacts.

The analysis included throughout this Draft SEIR concluded that implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, the Alternatives discussion focuses on the alternative’s ability to substantially lessen the proposed project’s impacts , even though such impacts were determined to be less than significant.

5.2.2 Project Objectives
The City has established the following intended Project Objectives, which would aid decision-makers in their review of the project and its associated environmental impacts:

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-3

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 the State’s own reduction goals for compliance with State mandates for cities related to GHG reduction.

5. Demonstrate a level of GHG emissions belo w 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 carbon, climate resilient buildings and neighborhoods ; safe and adapt able 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 wit h the CAAP in the General Plan Safety Element in order to ensure the City’s goals and policies related to public safety recognize and address climate impacts related to extreme heat, drought, and sea level rise occurrences.

8. Comply with the Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-1 in the C ertified 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).

5.2.3 Project-Related Impacts
As described further in Chapter 2.0, Introduction, as the proposed project would not result in any physical land use changes or physical improvements , and no impacts would occur related to the following topics: agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, and wildfire.

As described in Chapter 4.0, Existing Environmental Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cul tural resources, and utilities and service systems. No mitigation measures would be required to reduce project -related impacts, and the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPAC T 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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-4

5.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

5.3.1 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) cites the following factors to be considered when a lead agency is assessing the feasibility of an alternative: site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, gen eral plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have acces s to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).

The City considered the alternatives described below but rejected these alternatives from further analysis in this Draft S EIR because the y were determined to be infeasible , or they would not meet the basic Project Objectives . The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts.

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

The reasons for dismissal of these alternatives are discussed below.

5.3.1.1 Alternative Planning Area
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines suggests that EIRs identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. An alternative involving implementing the proposed project within a different location was determined to be infeasible during the scoping process for the reasons discussed below.

CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant impacts of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whethe r any of the significant impacts of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by relocating the project. Only developments or locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR ( State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][2][A]). If it is determined that no feasible alternative locations exist, the EIR must disclose the reasons for this conclusion ( State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][2][B]).

The proposed project is the adoption of the proposed CAAP and minor text amendments to update the General Plan Safety Element for the entire planning area of the City of Long Beach. The planning area encompasses the full boundaries of the City and cannot be lo cated in a different planning area because the project has been draft/designed for incorporation in the City of Long Beach , specifically the Planning Area addressed by the City’s General Plan . The City is responsible for meeting State regulations regarding GHG reduction for the entire City, so a smaller geograph ical area could not be considered. Additionally, as the lead agency, the City would not have the authority to implement the proposed project within an alternative planning area because it does not have discretionary power to make decisions for another jurisdiction. Because the City does not have jurisdiction over areas outside of its boundaries and cannot impose General Plan policies or other planning or policy actions on such areas , no alterna tive planning areas are feasible. Further, an alternative site or project location would be inconsistent with all Project Objectives to address reduction of GHG

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-5 emissions within the City. Therefore, this alternative was rejected from further consideration and is not analyzed further in this Draft SEIR.

5.3.1.2 Smart Growth Alternative
Under the Smart Growth A lternative, the City would encourage development within the City to occur utilizing the key concepts of “smart growth”. Smart growth is a land use planning concept that would reduce GHG emissions by updating zoning and land use policies to increase high -density and mixed-use development within the City , resulting in reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) . This was the intent of the recently adopted General Plan L and Use Element (2019) . The adopted Land Use Element ( LUE) and associated 2019 Certified Program EIR addressed future growth in the City through the horizon year 2040, based on demographic projections provided to the City by State and regional agencies. Th is included the Southern California Association of Governments’ ( SCAG) forecasted population growth of 18,320 new residents and employment growth of 28,511 new jobs in the City by 2040. In addition, an Assessment of Fair Housing with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development was conducted by the City . As an outcome of this assessment, it was determined that the City has a need for 21,476 housing units to address existing housing needs due to overcrowding. In total, 28,524 housing units are required to address future (7,048) and existing (21,476) housing needs. The adopted LUE and 2019 Certified Program EIR focused strategic growth and increased densities in the Downtown area, around regional- serving facilities, along major corridors, and in transit-oriented development areas. The primary objective of the adopted LUE was to create land use policies – smart growth policies – that increase high er-density and mixed-use development in appropriate locations and thereby decrease citywide GHG emi ssions and VMT. The efficiency of the location of land uses in the adopted LUE (i.e., infill development policies and sites ) would result in a 19 percent decrease in VMT per household compared to existing conditions.

The proposed project includes the adopt ion of the proposed CAAP, which was included as a mitigation measure from the 2019 Certified Program EIR for the LUE . The adopted LUE is essentially a smart growth plan, targeting densities and development to reduce GHG emissions and VMT. The CAAP is designed to help implement the LUE including its smart growth strategies.

The Smart Growth A lternative would presumably promote higher-density development within the City than is currently anticipated by the City’s adopted LUE and Zoning Code. Development would be encouraged near transit corridors and would place a greater emphasis on emissions reductions in the transportation sector through a greater reduction in VMT. However, this alternative would result in greater physical impacts (air quality, noise, and transportation/traffic) than the proposed project because of the intensification of infill under this alternative and facilitation of development as a result of changes to land use policies. As noted above, the City has already adopted a smart growth appro ach to land use in order to reduce VMT and GHG emissions through the LUE and furthered by the CAAP . The adopted LUE intensified development in strategic locations, accommodating the anticipated growth of 28,524 housing units and 13,542,617 square feet of non- residential land uses through the year 2040 , while decreasing GHG emissions and VMT . Any revised land use plan, including higher density development or reallocation of land use Placetypes, would

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPAC T 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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-6 result in greater physical impacts than anticipated for the LUE project analyzed in the 2019 Certified Program EIR, for which the proposed CAAP is a mitigation measure.

The proposed project does not facilitate or encourage future development, but rather provides measures that would be implemented with future discretionary projects to ensure consistency with the CAAP and LUE to achieve the City’s GHG reduction targets. A Smart Growth Alternative would require the City to revise its current land use policies and thus would not meet the Project Objective of promoting consistency with the land use policy direction and growth anticipated in the adopted General Plan. Therefore, this alternative is rejected from consideration and is not analyzed further in this SEIR because it would result in greater env ironmental impacts than the proposed project and would not meet the project’s objective of being consistent with the land use policy direction and growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan.

5.3.1.3 Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduce Project A lternative considers a reduced project in which the proposed CAAP would be included but amendments to the Safety Element would not be included. Under this alternative, the current Safety Element would continue to guide the City’s policies and strategies related to public safety. This alternative is infeasible because State law requires that a c ity’s General Plan include a safety element to address risks associated with disasters, including disasters that may result from climate change. The City of Long Beach’s current Safety Element provides policies and strategies for various hazards and disasters within the planning area but does not specifically address climate change. The proposed text amendments to the Safety Element would provide policies and strategies for climate adaptation and resiliency consistent with the CAAP . As such, the amendments to the Safety Element as proposed by the project are necessary in order to create consistency between the two regulatory documents.

No other reduced project alternatives exis t as th e proposed project is the adoption of a CAAP and text amendments to update the General Plan Safety Element. It is not feasible to adopt only portions of the proposed CAAP as all components contained in the CAAP work together to balance goals to reduce the City’s GHG emissions and the State’s GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 per Senate Bill (SB) 32 and achieve the objectives described above, as well as the objectives contained in the adopted LUE, for which the proposed CAAP was included as a mitigation measure in the 2019 Certified Program EIR. In addition, the updated Safety Element is designed to establish and ensure internal consistency with the other General Plan Elements, as required by Government Code Section 65300.5. Further, the Reduced Project Alternative would be inconsistent with all Project Objectives. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative is rejected from further consideration and is not analyzed further in this Draft SEIR.

5.3.2 Selection of Alternatives
Section 21100 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to identify and discuss a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of th e basic objectives of the proposed project and that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts. As described above, there are no feasible alternatives other than the No Project Alternative, which is

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-7 required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][1]). The following alternative is considered in this Draft SEIR:
• Alternative 1: No Project Alternative. This alternative would involve no adoption of the proposed CAAP and no text amendments to update the City’s General Plan Safety Element. The existing General Plan Safety Element ( 2002) would continue to guide and regulate the City related to public safety and no formal planning and policy document would be adopted to guide the City’s GHG reduction goals nor would the safety element be updated to address the impacts of climate change . Further, Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-1 from the 2019 Certified Program EIR would not be implemented as required.

Overall, environmental impacts with regard to aesthetics, air quality, energy , greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, transportation, and utilities and service systems associated with the proposed project were found to be less than sign ificant. No mitigation was required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, and no significant and unavoidable impacts would result from project implementation. The main objective of an alternatives analysis is to consider a range of alternative s that would substantially lessen any significant effects of a project. T he proposed project would not result in any significant impacts, but the No Project Alternative is presented even though it does not represent a significant reduction in project-related impacts.

Table 5.1, below, provides a summary of the anticipated impacts and feasibility of the alternative and the proposed project. A complete discussion of the No Project Alternative is provided below.

5.3.3 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative

5.3.3.1 Description
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 reduction targets and lessen the impacts of climate change on Long Beach . 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.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPAC T 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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-8 Table 5.1: Summary of Project and Alternatives
Alternative Description
Basis for Selection and
Summary Analysis
Proposed Project  Approximately 50-square-mile planning area
 Adoption of the proposed CAAP
 Implementation of the proposed text
Amendments to the Safety Element
 Meets all Project Objectives
 Requires General Plan Update
 No significant and unavoidable project -
related impacts
 Consistent with all Project Objectives
 Refer to Chapters 3.0 and 4.0 of this Draft
SEIR
Alternative 1:

No Project
Alternative
 No adoption of the proposed CAAP and no
implementation of the CAAP Consistency
Checklist
 Continued requirement of project -specific
GHG emissions analysis
 Continuation of the City’s existing General
Plan Safety Element (2002)
 Consideration of this alternative is r equired
by CEQA
 Does not require General Plan Update
 Inconsistent with State law
 Inconsistent with required implementation
of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 from the 2019
Certified Program EIR
 Inconsistent with all of the Project
Objectives

5.3.3.2 Environmental Analysis and Impacts
Aesthetics. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts on scenic views or vistas, scenic resources, and existing visual character would be similar to those under the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not include measures that would require rooftop solar or other energy efficiency measures for future discretionary projects ; however, all future discretionary projects under the No Project Alternative would also require project -specific CEQA review to ensure impacts related to glare would be less than significant. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not require future discretionary projects to implement other measures related to building and energy efficie ncy, transportation improvements, or waste reduction in order to demonstrate consistency with the CAAP in-lieu of a project specific GHG analysis; however, all future discretionary projects would still require project-specific CEQA review to ensure impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources , or visual character would be less than significant.

Air Quality. The No Project Alternative would result in greater air pollution compared to the proposed project because it would not require future discretionar y projects to implement the measures to support the Building and Energy, Transportation, or Waste Actions provided in the CAAP. In particular, the No Project Alternative would have greater non -renewable energy use, higher vehicle travel, and greater energy usage for waste disposal, which would all result in increases in associated criteria pollutant emissions. Under the No Project Alternative, the air quality benefits that would also be afforded through reducing GHG emissions would not be realized.

Therefore, under the No Project Alternative, impacts on air quality would be greater than those of the proposed project.

Agriculture and Forest Resources . Under th e No Project Alternative, impacts on agriculture and forestry resources would be the same as those under the proposed project. Similar to the proposed

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-9 project, the No Project Alternative would not result in any physical land use changes or specific physical improvements, and no impacts would occur to agriculture and forestry resources.

Biological Resources. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts on biological resources would be the same as those under the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not result in any physical land use changes or specific physical improvements, and no impacts would occur to biological resources.

Cultural Resources. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts on cultural resources would be the same as those under the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not result in any physical land use changes or specific physical improvements, and no impacts would occur to cultural resources.

Geology and Soils . Under th e No Project Alternative, impacts on geology and soils would be the same as those under the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not result in any physical land use changes or specific physical improvements, and no impacts would occur to geology and soils.

Energy. The No Pr oject Alternative would result in more inefficient energy use compared to the proposed project because it would not require future discretionary projects to implement the measures to support the Building and Energy, Transportation, or Waste Actions provide d in the CAAP. In particular, the No Project Alternative would have greater non -renewable energy use and greater energy usage for waste disposal. Under the No Project Alternative, the energy efficiency benefits and additional renewable energy infrastructure that would also be afforded through the measures to support the CAAP Actions would not be realized. Therefore, under the No Project Alternative, impacts on energy would be greater than those of the proposed project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The overall objective of the proposed project is to ensure that the City meets its GHG reduction targets by including policies and goals to guide future projects as well as providing specific measures for future discretionary projects to implement that dem onstrate consistency with these goals. In addition, consistent with an objective of the project, the proposed project would c omply with MM GHG-1 in the Certified General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Elements Program EIR (2019), which required the City to adopt a GHG Reduction Plan or CAAP .

Without adoption of the CAAP and the associated measures for future projects, GHG emissions would be at least 40 percent higher by 2030 than under the proposed project. Therefore, the City would need to develop alternat ive methods for reducing GHG emissions within the City and quantifying those reductions in order to demonstrate progress towards achieving its GHG emissions reduction targets and the State GHG reduction goals under SB 32. In addition, without the proposed text amendments to the Safety Element, the City would not comply with SB 379 and incorporate climate adaption and resiliency considerations in the City’s overall General Plan to ensure safety and protection from climate ch ange and sea level rise related to GHG emissions. U nder the No Project Alternative, GHG emissions impacts would be greater than those of the proposed project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Under th e No Project Alternative, impacts on hazards and hazardous materials would be the same as those under the proposed project. Similar to the

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPAC T 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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-10 proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not result in any physical land use changes or specific physical improvements, and no impacts would occur from hazards or hazardous materials.

Hydrology and Water Quality. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts on hydrology and water quality would be the same as those under the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not result in any physical land use changes or specific physical improvements, and no impacts would occur to hydrology and water quality.

Land Use. The No Project Alternative would not result in impacts related to land use and would not conflict with existing land use policies, as the existing General Plan is the guiding land use document for development within the City. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not interfere with any existing land use plans for the planning area . However, the prop osed CAAP is included as a mitigation measure to the 2019 Certified Program EIR for the Land Use Element and Urban Design Elements to ensure future development accounted for by the City’s Land Use Element would be developed in a manner that would meet the City’s GHG reduction targets. Therefore, implementation of the Land Use Element without the adoption of the proposed CAAP would fail to implement MM GHG-1 of the 2019 Certified Program EIR and would conflict with the City’s land use policies and goals associated with meeting its GHG reduction targets.

Land use impacts associated with the proposed project were determined to be less than significant.

Under the No Project Alternative, impacts related to land use would be greater those identified for the proposed project, as outlined above.

Noise. The No Project Alternative would allow for noise regulation within the planning area to remain unchanged, consistent with the existing Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. Sources of noise within the planning area would remain substantially similar to existing conditions or incrementally increase as growth occurs, with the primary source remaining vehicle roadway noise.

Similar to the proposed project, no physical development or changes to land use designations would occur under the No Project Alternative. However, without adoption of the proposed CAAP, measures to support CAAP Actions would not be required for future discretionary projects. These measures include energy efficiency improvements that would reduce stationary noise from energy generators and measures to reduce VMT that would also reduce vehicle-generated noise. Under the No Project Alternative, the noise reduction benefits that would be afforded through the measures to support the CAAP Actions would not be realized. Noise impacts associated with the proposed project were determined to be less than significant. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts related to noise would be similar to, although slightly greater than, those identified for the proposed project because measures to support CAAP Actions that would reduce noise would not be required for future discretionary projects.

Population and Housing. The No Project Alternative would not result in any physical land use changes or specific physical improvements. In addition, similar to the proposed project, all future discretionary projects, including the development of housing within the City would be reviewed under CEQA for consisten cy with the General Plan. Ho wever, under the No Project Alternative, the measures to support CAAP Actions would not be required for all future discretionary projects, as these measures were designed to support the goals and policies of the City’s Land Use Element and

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-11 Housing Element. Therefore, while no development would occur under the No Project Alternative that would directly alter population and housing with in the City, future development under the No Project Alternative would not be required to implement measures that support the City’s adopted Land Use goals to meet the City’s housing needs while reducing GHG emissions. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts related to population and housing would be similar; however, the benefits identified for the proposed project would not be realized.

Public Services. The No Project Alternative would not result in any physical land use changes or specific physical improvements. In addition, similar to the proposed project, all future discretionary projects would be reviewed under CEQA for consistency with the General Plan and would be subject to the City’s adopted development impact fees. However, under the No Project Alternative, the measures to support CAAP Actions would not be required for all future discretionary projects, and these mea sures were designed to support the goals and policies of the City’s Land Use Element.

Therefore, while no development would occur under the No Project Alternative that would directly alter population and housing with the City, future development under the No Project Alternative would not be required to implement measures that support the City’s adopted Land Use goals to address population growth and public service needs while reducing GHG emissions. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts related to public services would be similar; however, th e benefits identified for the proposed project would not be realized.

Recreation. The No Project Alternative would not result in any physical land use changes or specific physical improvements. In addition, similar to the proposed project, all future discretionary projects would be reviewed under CEQA for consisten cy with the General Plan. However, under the No Project Alternative, the measures to support CAAP Actions would not be required for all future discretionary projects, a s these measures were designed to support the goals and policies of the City’s Open Space and Recreation Element (2002) , to lessen the impacts of climate change on recreational amenities and include several pedestrian and bicycle improveme nts within the City.

Therefore, while no development would occur under the No Project Alternative that would directly alter recreational resources or increase population resulting in the need for new recreational resources within the City, future developme nt under the No Project Alternative would not be required to implement measures that support the provisions of additional pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the City . Under the No Project Alternative, impacts related to recreational resources would be similar to those identified for the proposed project ; however, the benefits to recreational resources and reduction of GHG emissions under the proposed project would not be realized.

Transportation. The No Project Alternative would allow for increased traffic volumes on some streets due to the growth envisioned under the recently adopted LUE. Similar to the proposed project, no physical development or changes to land use designations would occur under the No Project Alternative. The refore, the No Proje ct Alternative would not result in impacts related to transportation. The No Project Alternative would not conflict with the General Plan Mobility Element and all future discretionary projects would be subject to review under CEQA for consistency with the General Plan. Since the No Project Alternative would not result in transportation impacts, it would not conflict with the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not conflict with existing transpo rtation programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system, similar to the proposed project.

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPAC T 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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-12 However, without adoption of the proposed CAAP, measures to support CAAP Actions would not be required for future discretionary projects. These measures include policies to encourage development along transit corridors and pedestrian and bicycle improvements in order to reduce VMT. Under the No Project Alternative, the VMT reduction benefits that would also not be afforded through the measures to support the CAAP Actions , which would not be realized. Transportation impacts associated with the proposed project were determined to be less than significant. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts related to transportation would be similar to, although slightly greater than, those identified for the proposed project as measures to support CAAP Actions that would reduce VMT would not be required for future discretionary projects.

Tribal Cultural Resources. Under th e No Project Alternative, impacts on tribal cultural resources would be the same as those under the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not result in any physical land use changes or specific physical improvements, and no impacts would occur to tribal cultural resources.

Utilities and Service Systems. The No Project Alternative would allow for the expansion of utilities and service systems due to the growth envisioned under the adopted LUE. Similar to the proposed project, no physical development or changes to land use designations would occur under the No Project Alternative. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not result in impacts related to utilities and service systems . The No Project Alternative would not conflict with the General Plan land use designations and development assumptions , and all future discretionary projects would be subject to review under CEQA for consisten cy with the General Plan. However, without adoption of the proposed CAAP, measures to support CAAP Actions would not be required for future discretionary projects. These measures include measures to reduce solid waste and install energy efficient infrastructure. Under the No Project Alternative, the solid waste reduction and energy efficient benefits that would also be afforded through the measures to support the CAAP Actions would not be realized. Utilities and service system impacts associated with the proposed project were determined to be less than significant. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts related to utilities and service system s would be similar to, although slightly greater than, those identified for the proposed project as measures to support CAAP Actions that would reduce solid waste and promote energy efficiency would not be required for future discretionary projects.

5.3.3.3 Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the seven Project Objectives. Because the No Project Alternative would not include the various strategies and policies proposed by the CAAP and text amendments to the Safety Element, this alternative would not achieve any of the following Project Objectives : Provide a goal post against which the cumulative progress of the City’s GHG reduction actions over time can be evaluated (Project Objective 1); comply with requirements of the Global Covenant of Mayors, to which the City of Long of Beach has been a signatory since 2015 (Project Objective 2); demonstrate the City’s commitment to global efforts to address climate change (Project Objective 3); illustrate the relationship between the City’s reduction target and the State’s own reduction goals for compliance with State mandates for cities related to GHG reduction (Project Objective 4); demonstrate a level of GHG emissions below w hich Long Beach would have less than cumulatively considerable GHG impacts for future environmental review projects (Project

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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-13 Objective 5) ; create a plan that will help Long Beach realize the following: low carbon, climate resilient buildings and neighborho ods; safe and adaptable infrastructure; protected and enhanced natural systems; a healthy, resilient and ready population; and residents and businesses with minimized carbon footprint (Project Objective 6) ; nor would it i ncorporate climate adaptation and resiliency considerations and strategies consistent with the CAAP in the General Plan Safety Element in order to ensure the City’s goals and policies related to public safety recognize and address climate impacts related to extreme heat, drought, and sea le vel rise occurrences (Project Objective 7) .

Therefore, as compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project Objectives.

5.3.4 Identification of Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA requires the identification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that if the No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives. Table 5.2, below, provides, in summary format, a comparison of the level of impacts for the No Project Alternative to the proposed project.

Table 5.2: Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project to the No Project Alternative
Environmental Topic
Proposed Project
Level of Impacts
Alternative 1:

No Project Alternative Impacts
Aesthetics Less Than Significant Impact Similar
Air Quality Less Than Significant Impact Similar, but slightly greater impacts Energy Less Than Significant Impact Similar, but slightly greater impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less Than Significant Impact Greater environmental impacts Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant Impact Similar, but slightly greater impacts Noise Less Than Significant Impact Similar
Population and Housing Less Than Significant Impact Similar Public Services Less Than Significant Impact Similar
Recreation Less Than Significant Impact Similar
Transportation Less Than Significant Impact Similar, but slightly greater impacts Tribal Cultural Resources Less Than Significant Impact Similar Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Significant Impact Similar Attainment of Project Objectives Meets all of the Project Objectives Meets none of the Project Objectives

The No Project Alternative has slightly greater land use and planning impacts than the proposed project because the CAAP would not be adopted pursuant to MM GHG-1 of the 2019 Certified Program EIR and updates 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 would not be adopted.

The No Project Alternative would also result in similar but slightly greater environmental impacts related to air quality, energy, and transportation as the proposed CAAP would not be adopted which would provide strategies and policies for future discretionary projects that would reduce the potential effects of climate change including reducing energy consumption, air pollutant emissions , and VMT. The No Project Alternative would result in greater environmental impacts related to GHG

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPAC T 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\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/15/22» 5-14 emissions as the proposed CAAP would not be adopted and the overall goal of the CAAP is to provide a framework to reduce the City’s GHG footprint and achieve its GHG reduction targets.

Overall, the No Project Alternative would not lessen impacts as compared to the proposed project.

Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the seven Project Objectives.

With the exception of the No Project Alternative, the Environmentally Superior Alternative would be the proposed project, which results in fewer impacts than the No Project Alternative and meets all seven of the Project Objectives.

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\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx «03/15/22» 6-1

6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
Section 15126 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines) requires that all phases of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment, including: planning, acquisition, development, and operation. This chapter discusses these CEQA considerations associated with the implementation of the proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and Safety Element Update Project (proposed project). According to Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines , a n Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must include the following as part of its analysis, as addressed in this chapter:

1. Significant environmental effects of the proposed project (Section 6.1, Significant Environmental Effects);

2. Significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources (Section 6.2, Energy Impacts);

3. Significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented (Section 6.3, Significant and Unavoidable Impacts);

4. Significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed project should it be implemented (Section 6.4, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes); and

5. Growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project (Section 6.5, Growth-Inducing Impacts).

In addition, an EIR must address Alternatives to the proposed project and li st mitigation measures proposed to minimize the significant effects of the proposed project. Alternatives are fully discussed in Chapter 5.0, Alternatives , of this SEIR. No mitigation measures were required , as described throughout the Chapter 4.0 sections of this SEIR.

6.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Section 15126.2(a ) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify and focus on the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment. Specifically, Section 15126.2(a ) states that an EIR shall:
“Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects. The discussion should include relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, and changes induced in population distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land (including commercial and residential development), health and safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other aspects of the resource base such as water, historical resources, scenic quality, and public services. The EIR shall also analyze any significant environmental effects the project might cause or risk exacerbating by bringing development and people into the area affected.”

D RAFT S UBSEQUEN T 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\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx «03/15/22» 6-2 The proposed project involves both the adoption of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and the Safety Element Update. The CAAP is a comprehensive planning document outlining 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 greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions. The CAAP was a mitigation measure for the Long Beach Land Use Element (LUE) and Urban Design Element (UDE) Program EIR (2019 Certified Program EIR). The GHG reduction goals of the CAAP were informed by the development assumptions of the adopted LUE and the General Plan buildout conditions, and the proposed CAAP would not alter the land uses designations or development assumptions in the 2019 Certified Program EIR.

The Safety Element Update will bring the Safety Element into compliance with a number of State laws including relating to climate change and resiliency. The proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and adoption of the proposed project does not constitute approval or entitlement for any physical improvements or development.

The proposed proj ect would not include any physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, or induce changes in population distribution, population concentration, and the human use of the land.

The proposed project would not result in or exacerbate any significant env ironmental effects by bringing development and people into the area affected because the project does not regulate land use. The proposed project would not include or facilitate any new physica l improvements or development. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create potential short- term or long-term direct or indirect significant effects.

6.2 ENERGY IMPACTS
According to Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines , “[i]f analysis of the project’s energy use reveals that the project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, the EIR shall mitigate that energy use.”
The proposed project involves the adoption of the CAAP and the Safety Element Update, which are considered policy/planning action s and do not include or entitle any physical improvements or development that would require energy consumption. As described in Chapter 4.3, Energy, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources . Therefore, no energy impacts would occur , and no mitigation is required.

6.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided. Specifically, Section 15126.2(c) states that an EIR shall:
“Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignific ance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons

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\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx «03/15/22» 6-3 why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described.”
Chapter 1.0, Executive Summary, of this Draft SEIR contains a detailed summary that identifies the proposed project’s environmental impacts as compared to existing conditions, proposed mitigation measures, and the level of significance of any impacts after mitigation . All environmental issues analyzed in this Draft S EIR were determined to result in less than significant impacts. Therefore, as determined in the contents of this Draft SEIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. Further, no mitigation measures are required.

6.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126.2 ( d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR consider and discuss significant irreversible changes that would be caused by implem entation of the proposed project.

Specifically, Section 15126.2 (d) states:
“Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environm ental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.”
Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if the proposed consumption of resources is not justified, if the project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources, or if the project would involve uses in which irr eversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project.

The proposed CAAP and Safety Element U pdate are considered planning/policy actions and do not include or entitle any physical improvements or development. Therefore, the proposed p roject would not result in an irreversible commitment of limited, slowly renewable, or nonrenewable resources, as the proposed project would not, in itself, result in any direct physical improvements or development. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources , and thus, would not result in significant irreversible changes.

6.5 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2( e) of the Sta te CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR analyze growth - inducing impacts and state that an EIR should discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth or construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) also requires a discussion of the characteristics of projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that

D RAFT S UBSEQUEN T 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\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx «03/15/22» 6-4 could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. A project that meets any of the se criteria may be considered growth -inducing. The potential growth -inducing impacts associated with the proposed project are discussed below.

It should be noted that growth -inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(d)).

This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this p roject could contribute to significant changes in the environment beyond the direct consequences of implementing the proposed project as described in earlier sections of this Draft SEIR.

Approval of the proposed project is considered a planning/policy action and does not include or entitle any physical improvements or development that would induce population, housing, or employment growth . Further, t he GHG r eduction goals of the CAAP were informed by the development assumptions of the adopted LUE and the General Plan buildout conditions , an d the proposed CAAP would not alter the land uses designations or development assumptions in the 2019 Certified Program EIR.

Implementation of the proposed project would not remove obstacles to growth or foster growth because the CAAP and Safety Element Update do not facilitate or entitle physical development.

Additionally, the proposed project does not include any policies or regulation s which could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment ; the effects of the CAAP would, in contrast, be beneficial to the environment. For the reasons stated above, the proposed project is not considered to be growth -inducing, and therefore , the proposed project would not result in any growth-inducing impacts.

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\7.0 List of Preparers and Persons Consulted.docx «03/15/22» 7-1

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED

7.1 CITY OF LONG BEACH
The following individuals from the City of Long Beach were involved in the preparation of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR):
• Patricia Diefenderfer, AICP, Planning Bureau Manager, Development Services Department • Alison Spindler-Ruiz, AICP, Advance Planning Officer, Development Services Department • Jennifer Ly, Planner, Development Services Department

7.2 CONSULTANT TEAM
The following firms were involved in the preparation of the Draft SEIR and/or the proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). The nature of their involvement is summarized below.

7.2.1 LSA Associates, Inc.

The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the Draft SEIR:
• Ashley Davis, Principal in Charge
• Christina Maxwell, Project Manager/Senior Environmental Planner • Cara Carlucci, Senior Planner
• Marlene Watanabe, Assistant Environmental Planner
• Lauren Johnson, Technical Editor
• Chantik Virgil, Senior Word Processor

7.2.2 AECOM
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the CAAP:
• Claire Bonham Carter, Vice President, Director of Sustainable Development • Joshua Lathan, Senior Associate, City Climate Action Plan Lead

7.2.3 ESA
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the CAAP Technical Support Memorandum and the CAAP Consistency Checklist:
• Brian Schuster, Senior Managing Associate
• Jeff Caton, Principal Associate

7.3 PERSONS CONSULTED
The following individuals were consulted during the preparation of this Draft SEIR:
• Charles Alvarez, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Linda Candelaria, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe

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 202 2

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\7.0 List of Preparers and Persons Consulted.docx «03/15/22» 7-2 • Robert Dorame, Gabrielino-Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council • Sandonne Goad, Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
• Anthony Morales, Gabrielino/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians • Andrew Salas, Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation • Michael Mirelez, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians • Joseph Ontiveros, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians

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 PUBLIC S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/15/22» 8-1

8.0 REFERENCES
The following references were used in the preparation of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (proposed project).

SECTION 4.1: AESTHETICS
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. Scenic Highways. 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).

City of Long Beach. 1973. Conservation Element. Long Beach General Plan Program. Website:
https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/advance/ general-plan/1973-conservation-element (accessed August 18, 2021). _____. 2002. Open Space and Recreation Element. City of Long Beach General Plan . October.

Website: https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/ open-space-and-recreation-element (accessed August 18, 2021). _____. 2013. Mobility Element. City of Long Beach General Plan . October. Website: https://www. longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/advance/general-plan/ 320615_lbds_mobility_element_web (accessed August 18, 2021). _____. 2019. Land Use Element. City of Long Beach General Plan. December. Website:
https://www. longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/advance/ lueude/land-use-element-final-adopted-december-2019 (accessed August 18, 2021). _____. 2019. Urban Design Element. City of Long Beach General Plan. December. Website:
https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/advance/ lueude/urban-design-element-final-adopted-december-2019 (accessed August 18, 2021). _____. 2021. Municipal Code (as amended). Website: https://library.municode.com/CA/long_ beach/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=LONG_BEACH_CALIFORNIA (accessed August 18, 2021).

SECTION 4.2: AIR QUALITY
Bay Area Air Quality 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).

California Air Resources Board ( CARB). 2000. Fact Sheet – California’s Plan to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions . October. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/ factsheets/rrpfact sheet.pdf (accessed August 2021).
_____. 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

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

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

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/15/22» 8-2 Control Division. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf (accessed August 2021).
_____. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards.
_____. 2018. California Air Resources Board Updated Final Staff Report Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets. February. _____. 2020. Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM 2.5 and PM10). Website: ww2.arb.ca.gov/ resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health (accessed August 2021).

California Air Resources Board (CARB) and United States Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA). 2021 Upcoming U .S. EPA and CARB Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting and Verification Deadlines.

California Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board . 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective . April. Website: www.arb. ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed August 2021).

City of Long Beach. 1996. Long Beach General Plan. December. Website: https://www.long beach.gov/lbds /planning/advance/general-plan/ (accessed August 2021). _____. 2019. Land Use Element. City of Long Beach General Plan. December. Website:
https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/ advance/lueude/land-use-element-final-adopted-december-2019 (accessed August 18, 2021).

Iowa Environmental Mesonet. 2021. Windrows. Website: https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/ windrose.phtml?—network=CA_—ASOS&station=LGB. (accessed August 25, 2021).

Propper, Ralph, Patrick Wong, Son Bui, Jeff Austin, William Vance, Álvaro Alvara do, Bart Croes, and Dongmin Luo. 2015. Ambient and Emission 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).

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook .

Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules -compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-hand book/ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993) (accessed January 2022). _____. 2016. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March. _____. 2021. Localized Significance Thresholds. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules- compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds (accessed November 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 PUBLIC S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/15/22» 8-3 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. Criteria Air Pollutants. October.

Website: www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants (accessed August 2021).

Western Regional Climate Center. 2015. Website: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi -bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca5085 (accessed August 25, 2021).

World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2015. Ou tdoor Air Pollution, Volume 109. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans.

December 17, 2015.

SECTION 4.3: ENERGY
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018 –2028 Electricity Demand Preliminary Forecast. CEC -200- 2017-006-SD. Published August 9, 2017 (accessed August 2021). _____. 2020. 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Docket No. 20-IEPR-01. _____. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market/supply-and-demand-natural-gas- california (accessed August 2021).

California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2018 California Gas Report. Website: https://www. socalgas. com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2018_California_Gas_Report.pdf (accessed August 2021).

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2008. California Long -Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. September. Website: cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=4125 (accessed August 2021). _____. 2019. Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. Website: cpuc.c a.gov/rps (accessed August 2021).

City of Long Beach. 2010. Office of Sustainability. Sustainable City Action Plan. Adopted February 2, 2010.
_____. 2021. Sustainable City Action Plan 10 -Year Report. Website: http://longbeach.legistar.com/ View.ashx?M=F&ID=9091134&GUID=6F0A933E-6DF8-478C-B87B-227B7C7B8303 (accessed November 2021).
_____. Long Beach Energy Resources Department. Website: http://www.longbeach.gov/ energy resources// (accessed August 2021).

Southern California Edison (SCE). 2020. Total System Electric Generation. Website: https://www. energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system- electric-generation (accessed November 2021).
_____. Powering Southern California for 130+ Years, Website: https://www.sce. com/about-us/— who-we-are (accessed August 2021).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

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

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/15/22» 8-4 United States Department of Energy. 2007. Alternative Fuels Data Center. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Website: https://www. afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa (accessed July 19, 2021).

United States Department of Transportation (DOT). “Table 4-23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Website: https://www.bts.dot.gov/bts/bts/content/average- fuel-efficiency- us-light-duty-vehicles (accessed July 19, 2021).

United States Energy Information Administration ( EIA). 2020. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. Table F3: Motor gasoline consumption, price, and expenditure estimates, 2018.

Website: eia.gov/state/seds/data.php? incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_mg.html&sid =CA (accessed August 2021).
_____. 2020. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. Rankings: Natural Gas Marked Production. Website: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_a_EPG0 _VGM_mmcf_ a.htm (accessed November 2021).
_____. California. Website: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-4, (accessed August 2021).

SECTION 4.4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
AECOM. 2018. Final Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Results. _____. 2020. City of Long Beach Climate Action and Adaptation Plan GHG Emissions Reduction Target Options Memo #3.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007. “ARB approves tripling of early action measures required under AB 32” News Release 07-46. October 25.
_____. 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October. _____. 2014. Cap-and-Trade Program. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm (accessed September 2021).
_____. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. _____. 2018. California Air Resources Board Updated Final Staff Report Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets. February. _____. 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019, Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators Report. Website: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_ 2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf (accessed October 2021). _____. 2021. GHGs Descriptions & Sources in California. Website: ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-descriptions- sources (accessed October 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 PUBLIC S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/15/22» 8-5 California Coastal Commission (CCC). Procedural Guidance for the Review of Wetland Projects in California’s Coastal Zone. Website: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/wetrev/wetch4.html (accessed September 2021).

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March.

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S -13-2008.

Website: https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_ Strategy.pdf (accessed December 2021).

California Ocean Protection Council (OPC). 2018. State of California Sea -Level Rise Guidance 2018 Update. March.

City of Long Beach. 2018. Long Beach Development Services. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, Forecasts and Targets City of Long Beach.

Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 4.1. January 15, 2009, 1 of 784 Final Report, United States CCSP, Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea -Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region. Lead Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Other Key Participating Agencies: U.S. Geological Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Contributing Agencies: Department of Transportation.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) . 2008. Technical Advisory —CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through Calif ornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008. Website: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08-ceqa.pdf (accessed February 4, 2022).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers. February.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal: The 2020 –2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file -attachments /0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176 (accessed September 2021).

United N ations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2021. GHG Data from UNFCCC. Website: unfccc.int/process -and-meetings/transparency-and-reporting/green house-gas-data/ghg-data-unfccc/ghg-data-from-unfccc (accessed September 2021).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

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

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/15/22» 8-6 United States Depa rtment of the Interior. 2007. Environmental Water Account Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR to the Environmental Water Account Final EIS/EIR, Bureau of Reclamation Mid - Pacific Region, Sacramento, California. October 2007.

United States Environmental Protection Ag ency (USEPA). 2017. Black Carbon, Basic Information.

February 14, 2017. Website: 19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/www3/airquality/blackcarbon /basic.html (accessed September 2021).
_____. 2020. Air Quality and Climate Change Research. Website: https://www.epa.gov/air - research/ air-quality-and-climate-change-research (accessed September 2021). _____. 2021. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 -2019. Website: https:// www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2019 (accessed October 2021).

SECTION 4.5: LAND USE
City of Long Beach. 1980. Local Coastal Program (LCP).
_____. 2020. Land Use Element. City of Long Beach General Plan. December. Website:
https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/advance /lueude/land-use-element-final-adopted-december-2019 (accessed August 18, 2021).

Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). 1991. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Prepared by the Department of Regional Planning.

Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2017 . Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos. Amended: August 17, 2017.

Port of Long Beach. 1978. Port Master Plan (PMP) and Port Master Plan Update 2020.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008 . Final 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan, Helping Communities Achieve a Sustainable Future. _____. 2020. Connect SoCal: The 2020– 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Su stainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. Website:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?160 6001176 (accessed September 2021).

SECTION 4.6: NOISE
City of Long Beach. 1975. Noise Element. City of Long Beach General Plan . Website : https:// www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/advance/general -plan/noise-element (accessed August 6, 2021, and September 17, 2021). _____. 2019. Municipal Code. Noise Ordinance (adopted 1977, most recent revision 2009).

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 PUBLIC S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/15/22» 8-7 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook, Table 9.1. August.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2012. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. September.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

FTA Report No. 0123. September.

Harris, C.M., 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control.

Long Beach Airport and the City of Long Beach. Long Beach Airport Community Guide to Aircraft Noise. Website: https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lgb/community -information/ noise-abate ment/lgb -noisebrochurelow#:~:text=In%20the%20early%20morning%20hours, most% 20restrictive%20%2D%2079.0%20dBA%20SENEL (accessed October 6, 2021).

LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2018. Existing Conditions Noise Report. February. _____. 2019. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. June.

Noise Free America. Citizens for a Quieter Sacramento Rebuttal to the CLCA Position on Leaf Blowers. Website: https://noisefree.org/sources -of-noise/lawn-and-garden-equipment/ (accessed March 25, 2020).

State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2017. State of Cal ifornia General Plan Guidelines. Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines. July.

SECTION 4.7: POPULATION AND HOUSING
California Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing and Policy Development. Regional Housing Need Assessment Determ ination for the SCAG Region (July 1, 2021). Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file -attachments/6th-cycle-rhna- final- allocation-plan.pdf?1625161899 (accessed September 28, 2021).

City of Long Beach. 2019. Land Use Element. City of Long Beach General Plan. December. Website:
longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/advance /lueude/land- use-element-final-adopted-december-2019 (accessed August 18, 2021). _____. Housing Element. City of Long Beach General Plan. Adopted 2013–2021 Long Beach Housing Element. January 17, 2014 . Website: https://www.longbeach.gov/lbds/hn/ adopted -lbhe/ (accessed September 28, 2021).

Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG). Gateway Cities Member Agency Contacts.

Website: http://www. gatewaycog.org/who-we-are/member-agency-contacts (accessed August 6, 2021).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

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

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/15/22» 8-8 Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal De mographics and Growth Forecast. September.

State of California Employment Development Department (EDD). 202 1. Monthly Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places, Los Angeles County. Website:
https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/geography/losangeles-county.html (accessed on September 28, 2021).

United States Census Bureau, Americ an Community Survey (ACS). 2019 . American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2019, Table B01003. Website: https://data.census.gov (accessed December 28, 2018).

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2016. Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH).

SECTION 4.8: PUBLIC SERVICES
City of Long Beach. 2018. Police and Fire Public Safety Oil Production Act Fund Summary. FY 19 Proposed Budget. July.
_____. 2020. Proposition H Police and Fire Public Safety Oil Production Ac t Fund FY 2019 Audit.

Website: https://www.cityauditorlauradoud.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Proposition - H-FY-2019-Audit.pdf (accessed September 8, 2021).
_____. 2021. Fiscal Year 2021 . Adopted Budget. Website: https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/ finance/media-library/documents/city-budget-and-finances/budget/budget-documents/fy-21- adopted-budget/full-book-print_for-web_covers-included (accessed September 8, 2021). _____. 2021. Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed Budget. Website: https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/ finance/media-library/documents/city-budget-and-finances/budget/budget-documents/fy-22- proposed-budget/fy-22-proposed-budget-book---online (accessed September 8, 2021).

City of Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD). Station Locations. Web site: https://www. longbeach. gov/ fire/about-us/station-locations/ (accessed September 8, 2021).

City of Long Beach Police Department (LBPD). Police Department. Website: https://www.longbeach. gov/police/ (accessed September 8, 2021).

Long Beach Public Library (LBPL). Library Locations. Website: http://www.longbeach.gov/library/ visit/locations/ (accessed September 8, 2021).

Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). 2020. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee J ustification Study. Website: https://www.lbschools.net/Asset/Files/ Business_Services/Developer_Fees/2020/LongBeachUSD_FS_1920_Fn.pdf (accessed September 8, 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 PUBLIC S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/15/22» 8-9 _____. About - Long Beach Unified School District. Website: https://www.lbschools.net/Dist rict/ (accessed September 8, 2021).

United States Census Bureau. Quick Facts City of Long Beach, California. Website: https://www. census.gov/quickfacts/longbeachcitycalifornia (accessed September 8, 2021).

SECTION 4.9: RECREATION
City of Long Beach. 2002. Open Space and Recreation Element. City of Long Beach General Plan. October. Website: https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media -library/ documents/planning/open-space-and-recreation-element (accessed August 18, 2021). _____. 2003. Parks, Recreation, and Marine Strategic Plan.

SECTION 4.10: TRANSPORTATION
City of Long Beach. 2013. Mobility Element. City of Long Beach General Plan. October. Website:
https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/advance/ general-plan/320615_lbds_mobility_element_web (accessed August 18, 2021). _____. 2016. Long Beach Development Services. City of Long Beach Downton and TOD Pedestrian Master Plan Website: https://www.longbeach.gov/lbds/planning/advance/general-plan/ mobility/dt-tod-ped-master-plan/ (accessed October 15, 2021). _____. 2017. Bicycle Master Plan, Table 3-4. February. Website: http://longbeach.gov/globalassets/ pw/media-library/documents/resources/general/bicycle-master-plan/bicycle_master_plan (accessed October 15, 2021).
_____. 2017. City of Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services Healthy Active Long Beach Program Website: https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/health/media -library/ documents/healthy-living/individual/nutrition-and-physical-activity/cx3-pedestrianplan (accessed October 26, 2021).
_____. 2019. Land Use Element. City of Long Beach General Plan. December. Website: long beach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-library/documents/planning/advance/lueude/land-use- element-final-adopted-december-2019 (accessed August 18, 2021).

SECTION 4.12: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. Database. California Energy Demand Forecast Update 2020–2030. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/2853 (accessed September 9, 2021).

California Gas and Electric Utilities . 2020 California Gas Report . Website: https://www.socalgas. com/sites/default/files/2020-10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_ Compre hensive_Filing.pdf (accessed September 9, 2021).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

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

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
M ARCH 2022

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/15/22» 8-10 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). California Solid Waste Statistics. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Origin/ CountywideDetail (accessed September 9, 2021).
_____. History of California Solid Waste Law, 1985 –1989. Website: https://www.calrecycle. ca.gov/laws/legislation/calhist/ 1985to1989 (accessed April 30, 2021). _____. Public Notice: Mesquite Regional Landfill – Imperial County. Website: https://www2.cal recycle.ca.gov/PublicNotices/Details/485 (accessed April 30, 2021). _____. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Facility Detail. Southeast Resource Recovery Facility.

Solid Waste Facility Permit, Permit No. 19 -AK-0083. Website: https://www2. calrecycle. ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/1423 (accessed May 5, 2021).

City of Long Beach. City of Long Beach. 2021. Energy Resources SERRF Operations. Website:
https://www.longbeach.gov/energyresources/about-us/serff/operations/ (accessed September 9, 2021).
_____. Cable Television and Telephone Service. Website: http://www.longbeach. gov/ti/ telecommunications (accessed April 30, 2021).
_____. Energy Resources. Website: http://www.longbeach.gov/energyresources/about-us/ serff/#:~: text=Citizens%20and%20businesses%20in%20the,City%20for%20burial%20in%20 landfills (accessed April 30, 2021).
_____. Fiscal Year 2021 Adopted Budget -Capital Improvement Program Budget. Website: https:// www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/pw/media-library/documents/resources/general/capital- improvement-plan/capital-improvement-plan/fy21-adopted-cip-book (accessed May 7, 2021).
_____. Municipal Code, Section 21.42.03. City of Long Beach, codified through Ordinance No. ORD - 18-0021, enacted August 14, 2018 (Supp. No. 21, Update 2). _____. Technology and Innovation. Website: http://www.longbeach. gov/ti/modernization/fiber- expansion/ (accessed April 30, 2021).

County of Los Angeles. 2019. Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, 2019 Annual Report, Figure 19: Southeast Resource Recovery Facility.

Long Beach Water Department (LBWD). 2016. Long Beach Water 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Adopted June 2, 2016.
_____. 2018. Budget Summary Fiscal Year 2020. Website: https://lbwater.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/07/Budget-Summary-for-Fiscal-Year-2020.pdf (accessed April 30, 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 PUBLIC S AFETY ELEMENT U PDATE

\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.16 CAAP EIR\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/15/22» 8-11 _____. 2019. Water Resources Plan. Website: https://lbwater. org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ LBWD-WRP-1.pdf (accessed May 7 and September 9, 2021).
_____. 2021. Budget Summary Fiscal Year 2021, Website: https://lb water.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2020/09/FY-21-Water-Dept-Budget-Summary.pdf (accessed September 9, 2021). _____. 2021. Sewer. Website: https://www.lbwater.org/customer-services/sewer/ (accessed September 9, 2021)
_____. Reclaimed/Recycled Water. Website: https://www.lbwater. org/water-sources/reclaimed- recycled-water/ (accessed May 7, 2021).
_____. Water Sources. Website: https://www.lbwater.org/water -sources/ (accessed April 30, 2021).

Long Beach Water Department (LBWD) and Water Replenishment District o f Southern California.

Final Recycled Water Master Plan. November 2010.

Los Angeles County Public Works. 2020. Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, 2019 Annual Report. September.

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD). 2021. Written corre spondence dated September 22, 2021.
_____. About the Sanitation Districts. Website: https://www.lacsd.org/aboutus/default.asp (accessed April 30, 2021).
_____. Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF) Brochure. Website: https://www.lacsd.org/ services/solidwaste/rtefac/serrf/brochure.asp (accessed April 30, 2021). _____. Wastewater Loadings for Each Class of Land Use. Website: http://lacsd.org/ civica/ filebank/blobd load.asp?BlobID=3531 (accessed May 7, 2021).

Los Angeles Daily News. Puente Hills Landfill Will Close Forever Thursday. Website: http://www.daily news.com/environment-and-nature/20131031/puente-hills-landfill-will-close-forever- thursday (accessed April 30, 2021).

D RAFT S UBSEQUENT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT C LIMATE A CTION AND A DAPTATION P LAN AND P UBLIC 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\8.0 References.docx «03/15/22» 8‐12 This page intentionally left blank
Attachment D
2019 LUE & UDE Final EIR (EIRA03-16) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final EIR Direct Link:
https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-
library/documents/planning/advance/lueude/final-lue-eir-2019 Recirculated Draft EIR Direct Link:
https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-
library/documents/planning/environmental/environmental-reports/pending/2019-land-use-element- lueurban-design-element-ude/volume-i-recirculated-draft-eir_2-reduced Recirculated Draft EIR Direct Link (Volume 2):
https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-
library/documents/planning/environmental/environmental-reports/pending/2019-land-use-element- lueurban-design-element-ude/compiled-volume-ii_2
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting (MMRP) Program Direct Link:
https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/media-
library/documents/planning/environmental/environmental-reports/pending/2019-land-use-element- lueurban-design-element-ude/7-0-mmrp_2

AGENDA ITEM No. 5
May 19, 2022

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
City of Long Beach
California
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing; Recommend that the City Council a dopt a Resolution approving and adopting a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( EIR-03-21) to the General Plan Land Use Element and Urban Design Element Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (PEIR-SCH# 2015051054), in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, and making certain CEQA Findings and Determinations relative thereto, including a finding that the adopted General Plan Land Use Element PEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall apply; and that no new or different mitigation measures are required; approving the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (2205-02); and Recommend that the City Council a dopt a resolution authorizing the Director of Development Services to submit Policy and Ordinance amendments, as necessary to the California Coastal Commission for its revie w, approval and certification to obtain a finding of conformance with the City’s Certified Local Coastal Program (LCPA22-001). (Citywide)

DISCUSSION
At its January 5, 2021 meeting, the City Council confirmed the proposed Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and directed staff to prepare the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (Attachment A). The CAAP is a mechanism for the City of Long Beach (City) to establish a set of iterative programs and policies for how the City will achieve two main objectives: (1) meet the statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and generally minimize its contribution to global GHG emissions (Action); and, (2) adapt to the impacts of climate change while maint aining quality of life, prosperity, and equity for all of its citizens (Adaptation). The City completed technical studies of climate stressors and community-wide vulnerabilities to inform development of the CAAP. The CAAP establishes a framework for creat ing or updating its policies, programs, practices, and Development Services
Planning Bureau
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 562.570.6194
Attachment F

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
May 19, 2022

Page 2 of 4 ends

incentives to reduce the City’s GHG footprint while enhancing local economic, environmental, and social benefits.

The City’s goals and efforts to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 aligns with the same statewide goal set by Senate Bill (SB) 32. A citywide reduction of at least 1,984,272 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MT CO2e) is needed to meet this go al and the CAAP sets an additional aspirational goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2045, which also matches the statewide 2045 carbon neutrality goal established by Executive Order B-55-18 in 2018. The proposed CAAP, including the GHG reduction target, as well as all the CAAP technical appendices, were confirmed by the City Council on January 5, 2021 and can be found in Attachment A. The CAAP is in alignment with and helps implement elements of the General Plan and state law and consists of policies and programs to reduce future carbon emissions, lessen the impacts of climate change on Long Beach residents and communities, and ensure sustainable future development (Attachment B).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

While the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is most commonly thought as applying to projects such as construction of a warehouse , changes in zoning, or adoption of programmatic documents such as a new specific plan, it also applies to all discretionary actions before the City Council, including in this case the CAAP, which is designed to lessen the impact on the environment from the activities within the City but must still be evaluated pursuant to CEQA.

The Development Services Department prepared the CAAP Draft SEIR to evaluate the environmental impacts that may result from implementation of the proposed CAAP, as well as a proposed update to the General Plan Safety Element which 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, 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. Although the SEIR analyzes and environmentally clears the proposed Safety Element Update, updates to the Safety Element are not being moved forward for adoption at this time as additional effort is needed to address other Safety Element topics and provisions.

The SEIR constitutes the 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. The Draft SEIR was available for public review for 45-days, from March 18 to May 2, 2022. Seven written comments were provided. The Final SEIR includes responses to each comment on the Draft SEIR (Attachment C).

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
May 19, 2022

Page 3 of 4 ends

The SEIR is subsequent to the previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) adopted for the General Plan Land Use (LUE) and Urban Design Elements was certified by the Long Beach City Council on December 3, 2019 (GPLUE EIR), EIR 03 -16, State Clearinghouse No. 2015051054 (Attachment D). The GHG reduction goals of the CAAP were informed by the development assumptions of the adopted LUE and the General Plan buildout conditions. 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 Adaptation Actions would be reviewed at the project level and under CEQA as applicable. Therefore, the analysis in the SEIR focuses on the potential impacts from the measures included in the CAAP Checklist for future discretionary projects and the potential impacts of the CAAP Actions and Adaptation Actions at a programmatic level. No new significant impacts to the environment were identified based on the analysis in the SEIR (Attachment E).

As a qualified climate action plan pursuant to the CEQA, the proposed CAAP may be used to streamline the GHG analysis for future plans and projects undergoing CEQA review pursuant to Section 15183.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines . Subsequent plans and projec ts that are consistent with the GHG reduction strategies and targets in the CAAP will be eligible to streamline the GHG impact analysis for a project pursuant to CEQA through demonstration of consistency with the CAAP . The CAAP Consistency Review Checklist establishes screening criteria for future discretionary projects, including those proposed by private developers as well as City-implemented municipal projects, to ensure consistency with the CAAP. Use of these streamlining tools will help the City meet related goals of creating adequate housing supply in a compact and sustainable manner.

The City has already undertaken significant efforts to implement CAAP goals and strategies, including zoning code updates to focus new development near transit consistent with the LUE, adoption of the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled approach consistent with SB743, and adoption of new ordinances related to organics processing consistent with SB1383. Once adopted, the CAAP is designed to be a living document that calls for adjusting strategies at least every five years if the City is not on track to meet its targets. A GHG inventory is required every two years to evaluate CAAP implementation, and adjustments are to be made accordingly.

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

Public notice of this hearing was published in the Long Beach Press Telegram on Friday, May 13, and notices were distributed in public locations citywide , in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 21.21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. Any comments received prior to the Planning Commission meeting will be provided to the Planning Commission.

Respectfully submitted,

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
May 19, 2022

Page 4 of 4 ends

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A – JANUARY 5, 2021 CITY COUNCIL CONFIRMATION OF THE CAAP & PROPOSED PLAN ATTACHMENT B – FINDINGS
ATTACHMENT C –FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ATTACHMENT D – GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ATTACHMENT E – CEQA FINDINGS

ALISON SPINDLER-RUIZ, AICP

ACTING PLANNING MANAGER

OSCAR W. ORCI

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

CHRISTOPHER KOONTZ, AICP

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES

Long Beach City CouncilAugust 16, 2022

Long Beach City Council
August 16, 2022