Long Beach City Council
December 6, 2022

I commend your continued partnership with community members and others, to promote open space along the LA River. I strongly support the Riverpark Coalition’s ongoing efforts to create more space that is open for our community members to experience and enjoy.

Sincerely,
R

ANTHONY RENDON
Speaker of the Assembly
February 2, 2021
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
The Los Angeles River has been a source of inspiration and opportunity long before my time on the Long Beach City Council. From the original caretakers, the Gabrielino and Tongva people, to the countless neighborhoods and communities alongside the 51-mile waterway, the river has always offered unlimited potential. The existing river and limited open space provide a patchwork of areas for residents to experience nature, exercise with friends, and spend time with loved ones.

As the river continues to transform, I strongly encourage the city to explore all options to develop new public access and open space alongside the Los Angeles River, with a focus on communities lacking park space and those disproportionately impacted by environmental injustice.

Long Beach has already made progress in the past few years to provide park space that connects the community to the Los Angeles River, in areas like Deforest Park, the Dominquez Gap Wetlands, and Drake Park. However, certain areas of the city sill lack significant access to parks and open space.

Many of the communities surrounding the LA River are also disproportionately impacted by several sources of pollution, from heavy traffic on the 710 and 405 freeways, to refineries and port activities to the south. Additional green space will help reduce the urban heat island effect, making neighborhoods cooler, and even reduce some of harmful air pollution that has resulted in higher rates of respiratory illnesses compared to other areas in the city.

For these reasons, I strongly support agenda item 16 and I look forward to supporting efforts to ensure all residents have access to open space and parks in their community, including identifying and supporting federal funding opportunities. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Alan Lowenthal
Member of Congress
February 2, 2021
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

I support our community members, including the Riverpark Coalition, to advocate for open space along the Los Angeles River. As a former Long Beach Councilmember, current Member of the San Gabriel Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, and as the Assemblymember representing Long Beach, I have long been involved in securing open space in Long Beach.

Open space is essential to the well-being of our residents. Additional open green space will improve the air quality for our residents, provide access to recreation, and better the quality of life for our neighbors living near the Los Angeles River.

While the City has provided open green space along the Los Angeles River that includes Drake-Chavez Greenbelt, Wrigley Greenbelt, DeForest Wetland, and the Dominguez Gap Wetlands, this area has significantly less open space than other areas of the city.

I strongly support Agenda Item 16 and continue to support the efforts to create more open space for our residents living near the Los Angeles River. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
PATRICK O’DONNELL
Assemblymember, 70th District

STATE CAPITOL
P.O. BOX 942849
SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0054
(916) 319-2070
(916) 319-2170 FAX
PATRICK O’DONNELL

ASSEMBLYMEMBER, SEVENTIETH DISTRICT

DISTRICT OFFICE
5000 East Spring Street
SUITE 550
LONG BEACH, CA 90815
(562) 429-0470
(562) 429-7871 FAX
From: Amy Harbin
To:

Cc: Scott Kinsey; Jonathan Iniesta
Subject: RE: Proposed Riverpark Development; 712 Baker Street Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 10:33:00 AM
Attachments: image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image002.png
image004.png
image006.png
Good Morning,
Please see my responses below in red.

Thank you,
Amy
Amy L. Harbin, AICP
Planner
Long Beach Development Services | Planning
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl. | Long Beach, CA 90802
Office: 562.570.6872
From: Jacqueline Gomez
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 9:09 AM
To: Amy Harbin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Proposed Riverpark Development; 712 Baker Street -EXTERNALGood morning.

I do have a few questions.
1) The company that did this study are they an independent component that does not have any vested interest with either the city, the building developers or the oil company? The company that prepared the draft EIR (Meredian) was selected by the City from our on-call list and the fees paid by the Applicant.
2) There was a study done around the year 2000. It was actually done by Berkeley. This current report mentions it. Do you happen to know the name of the report or where it is in the draft EIR? There are so many references and the report is so long that I don’t recall it.

A) Do you have a copy of that report or can you direct me how to locate it? If I you can let me know the above, I’ll definitely figure it out and get you a copy.

B) In that report it seems to have stated that the land was unhabitable for the next 150 years.

Was this taken into account? See above.
3) How will the traffic congestion be alleviated? Traffic studies were done and there are mitigation measures incorporated into the CEQA document that the developer will have to follow.
4) Are there any health risk for the members living in this area once they start digging and fumes/chemicals get released into the atmosphere? A health risk assessment was completed and is part of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards Remediation Action Plan. I would have to double check.

Thank you so much.

Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:21 PM, Jacqueline Gomez
wrote:

Hello Ms. Harbin.

Thank you so so much for your response and willingness to hear our concerns. In order to be more productive, let me get with the other members and maybe we can come up with a list of questions. I have started reading the report that Celina was so gracious in forwarding to me but have not finished. Quite extensive. Will get back to you soon.

Once again, thank you again.

Sent from the all new AOL app for Android
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:59 AM, Amy Harbin
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good morning Ms. Gomez:

My name is Amy Harbin and I am one of the project planners on the Riverpark residential project. Your name and email address was forwarded to me from the Council Office as you have questions about the Riverpark project. I’d be more than happy to assist.

Please feel free to email me or if a phone call is better, my phone number is listed in my contact information listed below.

Thank you for your interest in this project and I look forward to hearing from you.

Amy
Amy L. Harbin, AICP
Planner
Long Beach Development Services | Planning
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl. | Long Beach, CA 90802
Office: 562.570.6872
1 Scott Kinsey
From: Amy Harbin
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 1:25 PM
To: Scott Kinsey
Subject: FW: Long Beach RiverPark Residential Project
This is interesting. The name is not one I'm familiar with.

I also got a VM from another individual who wants information as well, I returned her call and had to leave a msg.

I"ll respond and cc you.

A
Amy L. Harbin, AICP
Planner
Long Beach Development Services | Planning
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl. | Long Beach, CA 90802
Office: 562.570.6872

-----Original Message-----
From: KawtharGmail
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 12:52 PM
To: Amy Harbin <[email protected]>
Cc: Rami Doueiri
Subject: Long Beach RiverPark Residential Project
-EXTERNALHello Amy,
I believe you are the lead project manager for the Long Beach RiverPark Residential Project. I would like to learn more about what you are planning to do at 712 Baker St. Online there is a description that 226 housing units will be constructed. I am a resident of Wrigley Heights and my concerns are with the amount of parking that will be allocated for these new units and how many low income housing units will be built. Is this section 8 housing? Will it be completely gated? Will you also have another park inside of this gated area? Will you extend the path along the river? Can you share any of your plan details? What will you do about the homeless encampments next to the river and this housing complex? We have several recent issues with crimes in the area and we need to know your plans to contain them. Thank you.
-Kawthar Kasim
Sent from my iPhone
1 Scott Kinsey
From: Lynette Ferenczy
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2022 11:12 AM
To: Scott Kinsey; PlanningCommissioners
Subject: 712 Baker Street letter Please include in PC packets for the Sept 1st hearing ‐EXTERNAL‐
September 1, 2022
Subject: Opposition to the 226 dwelling unit project at 712 Baker Street, Case 2003-24 EIR 07-20 To: Planning Commission
This letter is in opposition to the proposed 226 dwelling unit project and certification of the EIR. The proposed site located at the interchange of the 710 and 405 freeways is inappropriate for residential development. This site has very toxic air quality with high levels of carcinogenic particulate matter from the thousands of diesels trucks using the 710 24 hours a day coming to and from the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, is exceptionally noisy due to the proximity of the freeways, and has contaminated soil from use of this site as a storage facility for oil drilling waste materials that were stored in open air ponds for years. This piece of land is one of the most inappropriate sites in Long Beach for residential development.

There is a small area at the southern portion of the site zoned for residential, with the remaining 19 or so acres zoned CS - Commercial Storage. The Commercial Storage (CS) District encourages storage uses in areas which are particularly difficult to use due to parcel shape, access, adverse environmental conditions, or in areas where parcels are needed to form a buffer from incompatible uses. The CS zoning should remain or the property be rezoned for open space/parks. This parcel has both adverse environmental issues as listed above and limited access.

The density proposed is completely incompatible with the Wrigley neighborhood of mostly R-1-N zone and 6,000 sq. ft. lots, with the exception of about 50 homes built on R-1-S lots east of the site. The height of three stories for the condos fronting on Wardlow is incompatible with the surrounding one and two story homes, and the project is gated which is also incompatible with the older Wrigley neighborhood street lay out which has no other gated developments. There will also be at least a 6 foot or higher solid wall built around the project creating a fortress like appearance and separating the development from the rest of the community.

The proposed traffic light on Wardlow, the primary entrance to the development, will create a traffic hazard as the queuing depth for about 10 cars is inadequate for hundreds of cars per day. Wardlow Road has already been reduced from three to two lanes to accommodate a rarely used bike lane and adding hundreds of cars daily will negatively impact the intersection at Wardlow and Magnolia. As east bound traffic comes over the bridge for the 710 and LA river, visibility is very limited by the slope of the overpass creating a blind spot where the left turn lane will be located. The two traffic lanes will have to be relocated to the south creating a bend in the traffic lanes to accommodate the left turn lane.

The project also has almost no common open space, about 1/3 acre, within the development, so there is no area for children to play. Parents will have to leave the gated community and walk up to 1/4 mile to access the open space located to the north. The site plan also has over 1,000 linear feet of homes without any breaks creating a monotonous design and not allowing any views through the development. 2 The developer met with the Wrigley Association in 2020 for comments but chose not to consider any changes suggested so the plan is mostly unchanged. The plans from 2019 had a slightly different lay out with 216 units and more common open space along the east and west rows of townhouses.

This development is also inconsistent with the newly adopted CAAP plan to mitigate climatic change. This lot is located in the extreme heat area, will increase greenhouse gases, and creates a hazardous environment for potential residents due to the air quality. As the plan notes, North and West Long Beach are especially vulnerable to worsening air quality and extreme heat in large part because they lack the green space of other city regions— a result of the last century of discriminatory housing policies, according to the CAAP. "Low-income communities of color were historically excluded from neighborhoods with less environmental pollution and greater public investment, and these practices partly explain why low-income communities of color today are still concentrated in the portions of the city with the poorest air quality and environmental health indicators.” This project will continue to worsen the environmental discrimination on the west side.

Overall, this development is incompatible with the height, density, and character of Wrigley. The project will worsen the hazardous air quality in the neighborhood, add traffic and congestion to the area, and put additional demands on an already over used water supply.

Please deny this request for entitlements as the site is inappropriate and the development will have a negative impact on the quality of life in our community.

If the commission chooses to approve this project as it likely will since our voices are usually ignored, please require conditions of approval to comply with the newly approved CAAP plan to fight climate change with the following conditions:

1.All homes shall be built with solar plans, not just be solar ready.

2.All appliances shall be electric, no gas appliances and preferably electric heat.

3.Irrigation water shall be recycled/gray water.

4.Require access to the LA River bike and walking path with a gate and walking path along Baker Street to the river to increase alternative modes of transportation and maintain public access to the LA River bike path.

5.Plant more trees and do not allow the use of artificial turf.

6. All garages shall be designed for electric vehicle charging.

7. Create more common open space within the gated area of the project and plant with grass and trees to reduce excessive heat. This can be achieved by reducing density and creating green spaces at street ends along the west/east property lines where there is a continual row of houses approximately 1,000 feet long without a break.

8. Reduce density thereby reducing exhaust from cars, vehicle trips, energy consumption, water usage, and greenhouse gases.

Sincerely,
Lynette Ferenczy
Wrigley Resident
P.O. Box 16192, Long Beach, CA 90806
[email protected]
August 22, 2022
Re: 712 Baker Street Project
Planning Commission:

The Wrigley Association supports development in our community that is well-designed, architecturally compatible, and of a similar density and layout as the existing homes in our neighborhood. The current proposal of 226 new residential units at 712 Baker Street is not consistent with these goals. The Wrigley Association Board members did meet with the developer's consultant via Zoom in 2020 and provided comments to the consultant on changes that we hoped to see implemented. Unfortunately, none of the comments have resulted in any changes to the plans and, in fact, the density of the development increased from 216 units in 2019 to 226 units in 2020. Our concerns are listed below:

1. Density - The development proposal has a density nearly double that in Wrigley with a proposed density of 14.55 units an acre compared to an existing density of 8-10 units an acre.

The existing lot sizes in Wrigley vary from R-1-S (2,400 sq. ft.) to R-1-N (6,000 sq. ft.). The proposal has a variety of housing types, but the freestanding homes are on lots of 2,035 square feet (37x55). The smallest lots in Wrigley Heights are R-1-S (2,400 sq. ft.). At a minimum, the new development lot size should be no less than 2,400 sq. ft . The proposed density is completely inconsistent with the existing development pattern of the neighborhood.

2. Height - The height should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood of one and two story homes. The plans propose three stories with a ridge height of 40 feet along the Wardlow Road frontage, the most visible location on the site. It would be best to reduce these buildings to two stories and/or relocate the tallest buildings towards the back of the lot to be less visible from the street.

3. Vehicle Access/Traffic Signal - The proposed traffic signal on Wardlow Road will create a hazardous situation due to the left turn lane on Wardlow with a left turn pocket to accommodate approximately ten cars for a development that will create hundreds of vehicle trips per day. The left turn pocket is also not visible due to the overpass of the 710 creating a hazardous situation as you come over the overpass eastbound.

Our Mission: The Wrigley Association is a 501 C4 non-profit organization, (CA State ID # 1673284) whose mission is to promote the common interest, instill pride, establish and encourage the highest standards in Wrigley. To foster an active understanding of citizenship and civic responsibility. To oppose and discourage discrimination and to create a sense of belonging. To promote higher business standards and encourage uniformity and cooperation among merchants, property owners and residents. To eliminate crime, promote community pride, and develop wholesome, enjoyable, cultural, social, and physical activities.

4. LA River Access/Riverlink Plan - Access to the LA River should be acknowledged and embraced for residents and the public. The plans do not show any access to the river bike and walking path. Also, homes should not back up to the river. There is an existing set of stairs near the west end of Baker Street providing access to the bike path which will be blocked if the terminus of Baker street is gated off. We ask that they address the Riverlink Plan and provide more open space and/or money to improve the approximately 50-110 foot wide area west of the development between the river and west edge of the project.

5. Gated Community - The Association does not support a gated community. There are no other gated communities in Wrigley, and gated developments are isolated from the rest of the neighborhood.

6. Affordable units location - the affordable units are clustered at the south end of the project and not distributed throughout the development.

7. Architecture - the architecture does not relate to Long Beach, and the faux Mediterranean design is not desirable.

8. Perimeter wall - the proposed six foot block wall which is not shown on the plans will create a fortress like appearance. Please remove the block wall from the front elevation or at a minimum require an open wrought iron or transparent fence material so that the development is not walled off from the rest of the community.

9. Common open space - There is almost no common open space within the development. A small pool and community room are proposed with only .353 acres (15,356 sq ft) of active open space out of over 20 acres of land within the gated area. Residents from the southern portion of the development will have to walk 1/4 mile to reach open space. Please require more open space within the gated portion of the development. As these homes are up to four bedrooms, many families will likely live here and there is no usable green open space within the development for children.

10. Guest parking - Guest parking spots should be increased as multi-generational families are common in our neighborhood and would likely be common here.

11. Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) - Based on the recent approval of the CAAP by City Council, this site is located in an excessive heat island, has contaminated soil due to oil drilling waste product storage, is extremely noisy with two adjacent freeways, and is at the interchange of two major freeways carrying heavy diesel truck traffic. This project will exacerbate the heat island, create more greenhouse gasses, use more water when there is already a shortage, and will create more runoff. Please ensure buildings comply with CAAP standards such as solar panels, electric appliances, use of recycled water for irrigation, EV charging stations in garages, no artificial turf, more trees and grass, etc.

Our Mission: The Wrigley Association is a 501 C4 non-profit organization, (CA State ID # 1673284) whose mission is to promote the common interest, instill pride, establish and encourage the highest standards in Wrigley. To foster an active understanding of citizenship and civic responsibility. To oppose and discourage discrimination and to create a sense of belonging. To promote higher business standards and encourage uniformity and cooperation among merchants, property owners and residents. To eliminate crime, promote community pride, and develop wholesome, enjoyable, cultural, social, and physical activities.

The Association would like to see some type of compromise with the developer to address some of our concerns as this project will further degrade air quality, add close to 500 vehicle trips a day creating additional traffic in the neighborhood, and eliminate one more opportunity for open space, as 3701 Pacific Place was also removed with the approval of a self storage facility.

This project contributes to the environmental injustice that continues on the west side and if approved as proposed, will be in violation of many of the goals of the newly approved CAAP.

Sincerely,
Wrigley Association
Our Mission: The Wrigley Association is a 501 C4 non-profit organization, (CA State ID # 1673284) whose mission is to promote the common interest, instill pride, establish and encourage the highest standards in Wrigley. To foster an active understanding of citizenship and civic responsibility. To oppose and discourage discrimination and to create a sense of belonging. To promote higher business standards and encourage uniformity and cooperation among merchants, property owners and residents. To eliminate crime, promote community pride, and develop wholesome, enjoyable, cultural, social, and physical activities. 1 Scott Kinsey
From: Mike Laquatra
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 8:51 PM
To: PlanningCommissioners; Scott Kinsey
Subject: Proposed project at 712 Baker Street Case 2003-24 EIR 07-20 ‐EXTERNAL‐
Planning Commission,
I am writing in opposition to this proposed 226 unit project including requesting non-certification of the EIR as currently designed. This site is and will continue to be inappropriate for residential development for multiple reasons. As situated at the 710/405 interchange the air quality cannot be anything other than unhealthy even by the low standards that exist on the West side of Long Beach. The location has a long history of usage as an open storage area for liquid toxic waste, after all it isn't called the oil operators property for nothing. The majority of the site has been zoned for Commercial Storage (CS) for years reflecting its unsuitability for residential uses. A project of this scale will serve to further degrade air quality due to a significant increase in traffic flow, and as designed the ingress/egress from Wardlow is problematic. The new left turn lane for east bound traffic will hold a limited number of vehicles thereby creating a hazard at times of high traffic flow. My afternoon commute used to be along this route and at peak traffic flow the proximity and frequency of A (Blue) line trains caused traffic to at times back up over the bridge. Not only will the added traffic associated with this development exacerbate this congestion, but cars waiting to turn left will be invisible to drivers coming over the bridge. This project also disregards the newly adopted CAAP plan. This area is already an extreme heat island and the addition of this many dwellings with this much pavement will only worsen the problem, it will also contribute to increased uncaptured run-off on the rare occasions when it does rain. The project is also gravely lacking in open space and what it does include is isolated at the far edge of the site well away from many of the residences. Finally, its orientation away from and lack of access to the LA River demonstrates a complete disregard for the Riverlink Plan. Not only will we lose our last chance at any significant increase in park/green space in this part of town, the gated community as designed will be cut off from the surrounding neighborhood.

Despite these and numerous other issues surrounding this project, I fully expect approval and therefore would like to suggest some modifications/conditions which would ensure increased compliance with CAAP as well as addressing other concerns.

1. All homes to not just be solar ready but to be built with solar panels

2. All appliance hookups and heating to be electric

3. All garages to include electric vehicle (EV) charging compatibility

4. Recycled/grey water to be used for irrigation

5. Increase the number of trees and prohibit use of artificial turf

6. Create more open space/common areas within the gated portion of the project

7. Require access to the LA River bike and walking path to promote recreational use and increase potential for alternative modes of transportation

8. Reduce density, perhaps by interspacing open areas along the western property line which currently calls for an approximately 1000 foot long continuous row of houses
I am hoping that the Commission will consider my objections and suggestions for improvement.

Sincerely,
Mike Laquatra
2 30 year Long Beach resident and 20 year Wrigley home owner 1 Scott Kinsey
From: PlanningCommissioners
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 2:55 PM
To: Scott Kinsey
Subject: FW: West Long Beach proposed housing
Hi Scott,
This is for your project.

Thank you,
Heather Flores
Secretary
Long Beach Development Services
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl. | Long Beach, CA 90802
Office: 562.570.7170 | Fax: 562.570.6068

From: Emily Odell
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 11:57 AM
To: PlanningCommissioners <[email protected]> Subject: West Long Beach proposed housing
‐EXTERNAL‐
Hello,
I am a Long Beach community member and I have concerns regarding the proposed River Park Residential Project.

From the most recent FEIR report it's easy to see that this is not a good move. Long Beach already has a massive disparity in access to green spaces, adding more homes, sealing the dangerous components in the soil under concrete would simply create another area that does not fit the definition of green space. In that particular area of Long Beach there is a serious lack of any open areas, particularly green space type open areas. Adding homes will simply increase the overpopulation of Long Beach while decreasing the available space. This creates issues later when the neighborhood wants to improve, and ends up gentrifying the area or displacing people by trying to create more green space. Plan for the open spaces now. Please put this project on at least a hold until a better plan can be created. Remember, the best cities in the world have incorporated green space and made it available to everyone, not just people in rich neighborhoods.

Regards,
Emily Odell
1 Heather Flores
From: Christina Cancino
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 4:14 PM
To: PlanningCommissioners
Subject: NO to 712 Baker St. project
‐EXTERNAL‐
Dear Planning Commissioners of Long Beach,
I am a resident of Upper West Long Beach and I am against the proposal of building the gated community for 712 Bakers St. Our community is in need of green space and building the River park is what we need. We live in the death corridor because of the oil refineries and surrounding freeways. My community of western Long Beach needs access to green space just like the eastern side of Long Beach. We want to have a chance for park equity and clean air. Please honor and safeguard the protected 1977 Horse Overlay District. Also honor the 2007 Long Beach Riverlink Plan that was passed unanimously by the LB City Council in 2015. The continued loss of our much-needed open space must be halted.

We are so poor in green space in this side of Long Beach. Please help my community build the River park, not a gated community.

Sincerely,

Long Beach, CA 90810
Memorandum
Date: September 1, 2022
To: Planning Commissioners and Chair
From: Scott Kinsey, Planner V
Subject: 712 Baker Street (River Park Residential Development Project) Responses to Public Comments
Planning staff has received multiple written comments from the public on this project.

Most of these comments raise the same or substantially similar issues and concerns.

Staff provides this summary of the comments and concerns, along with a response to each, for the Commission’s convenience and incorporation into the record of proceedings.

1. Comment/concern #1: The project consists of affordable housing; what percentage of the project is affordable; how will the affordable housing and residents affect the rest of the project and surrounding neighborhoods? • Response: Of the 226 units in the project, the applicant is electing to provide 5% of the units (12 units) as Very Low Area Median Income (AMI)- level affordable units, under the State’s density bonus law (California Gov’t Code Section 65915). The applicant is not requesting a density bonus but rather a development standards waiver under §65915, to allow the proposed carriage townhomes to be three stories instead of the two-story limit imposed by the General Plan Land Use Element Map. The portion of the project related to affordability and concessions and waivers is a ministerial approval, allowing for no personal judgement or discretion by the City. However, the inclusion of the 12 affordable housing units is not realistically expected to have any negative effects upon the project or surrounding neighborhood, and the affordable units will be indistinguishable from the market-rate units.

2. Comment/concern #2: The entire project site should be developed as a public park; development of this project represents a lost opportunity for the City to develop a park at the project site.
• Response: The project is privately-owned land, and is not now, nor was previously, designated for open space use in the General Plan Land Use Element. The City lacks the structural and one-time funding needed to purchase the site, carry out the required environmental remediation, and develop and operate a public park. The project site was dismissed from consideration for acquisition as City parkland in the City’s April 2021 Open Space Acquisition Study.

3. Comment/concern #3: The project will obstruct or remove access to the Los Angeles River trail; the project will negatively impact equestrian activities or access Response to Public Comments for 712 Baker Street (River Park Residential Development Project)
September 1, 2022

to the river trail; the project should provide access to the river trail. The project site is subject to the Horse (H) Overlay Zone.
• Response: The Los Angeles River Trail and related improvements, which are Los Angeles County facilities, are not part of the project site.

Development of the project will not remove these facilities or obstruct or eliminate access to these facilities. An access point to the river trail will be provided at Wardlow Road as part of the related off-site improvements the developer is required to make. An additional access point to the river trail is possible at Baker Street; however, this is dependent upon approval by Los Angeles County and may require construction of Americans with Disabilities Act access and related improvements on County property that are beyond the scope of this project. The project likewise will have no effect on equestrian activities or access. There are no equestrian facilities or activities on the project site now. The existing Horse Overlay zoning on the southeastern portion of the site will not be changed and does not affect the project.

4. Comment/concern #4: The project will negatively impact neighborhood traffic or parking.
• Response: The residential portion of the project takes access directly from Wardlow Road and will not send traffic through the adjacent neighborhood on Golden Ave. via Magnolia Ave. Each dwelling unit is provided with a twocar garage, which will be required by the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to be enforced by the Homeowners Association to be maintained as usable parking and not storage for belongings. The project additionally includes more guest parking than required by code to accommodate visitors to the residential development. Adequate public street parking is available to accommodate visitors to the park itself, and the developer is revising the site plan to provide additional visitor parking on the vacated segment of Baker Street for the park.

5. Comment/concern #5: There are homeless encampments and crime problems along the river trail, freeway, and adjacent to the project site, how will this project address these problems?
• Response: The project will activate a vacant site and introduce permanent residents into the area, which will reduce opportunities for nuisance crimes and activities. The City is actively developing shelter capacity in order to be able to enforce anti-camping ordinances as well.

6. Comment/concern #6: The project site is contaminated from its previous use as an oil wastewater treatment facility and former oil operations and is unsuitable for development.
• Response: Site remediation is discussed extensively in the staff report.

Remediation to standards acceptable for residential use will be required to Response to Public Comments for 712 Baker Street (River Park Residential Development Project)
September 1, 2022

be completed prior to any residential occupancy. Remediation of the site is being overseen by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.

7. Comment/concern #7: The project is too close to the Interstate-710 (I-710) and Interstate-405 (I-405) freeways for residential use; air quality is unsuitable for residences.
• Response: The project site is approximately 750 feet from the western edge of the project site to the nearest travel lane of the I-710, which distance is buffered by the Los Angeles River and intervening landscaping and the river levees. From the northeast corner of the residential development portion of the site, it is approximately 310 feet to the nearest ramp lane of the I-405 and 485 feet to the nearest main travel lane of the I-405; this distance is buffered by Baker Street Park, landscaping, and the freeway embankment. In both cases these are significantly greater distances than current residences are located from the freeways. The project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) included a human health risk assessment, which informed mitigation measures to ensure air quality in each residential unit will meet required standards.

8. Comment/concern #8: The project has inadequate open space or does not meet development standards for open space.
• Response: The project complies with all zoning requirements for open space, both for private open space for individual units, and common open space for the development. The park on the northern 4.81-acre portion of the site provides the majority of the common open space required for the development.

9. Comment/concern #9: The project is not compatible with the existing neighborhood density or development pattern.
• Response: The project density is substantially similar to the density of the Countryside Lane small-lot development directly east of the project site. The proposed project density is consistent with the requirements of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance, under which it is being developed, and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element PlaceType for the project site, FCN (Founding and Contemporary Neighborhoods), which allows development densities between 7 and 18 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). This project falls in the middle of that range at a net density of 14.55 du/ac, or a gross density of 11.08 du/ac if the park portion of the development site is included. The type and scale of the proposed detached single-family homes and townhome buildings consisting of 5-10 units per building likewise are consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods.

10.Comment/concern #10: The project creates negative impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, or otherwise conflicts with the City’s climate action goals or the recently-adopted Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP):

Response to Public Comments for 712 Baker Street (River Park Residential Development Project)
September 1, 2022

• Response: The project EIR analyzed the project’s effects on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and found there are no significant impacts that will be created by project construction or operation that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant; all such necessary mitigation is included in the project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The project also will meet all other applicable green building and climate adaptation standards currently in effect through standard regulatory compliance during the building permitting and construction process. The project application was deemed complete prior to adoption of the CAAP by the City Council in August 2022.

11.Comment/concern #11: The project driveway on Wardlow Road will create a traffic hazard; or installation of the project driveway traffic signal will create a traffic hazard or traffic congestion.
• Response: The project will be required to construct a fully-signalized intersection on Wardlow Rd. at the project driveway. This intersection will allow all turning movements from the project driveway (left-in, right-in, leftout, right-out). The traffic signal and associated traffic control devices will prevent the creation of a traffic hazard at the intersection with the project driveway, which might otherwise occur due to limited sight lines on Wardlow Road as the roadway turns and climbs to the west up the embankment to the Los Angeles River bridge. These traffic improvements have been designed by a licensed traffic engineering firm for the developer, have been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and staff, and will be subject to final review and permitting by Traffic Engineer prior to construction.

12.Comment/concern #12: Project building height is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
• Response: The majority of the project units are two stories, which are consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. The carriage townhomes will be three stories, but are located at the front of the development site near Wardlow Road. This area is separated from the neighborhood to the east by Wrigley Heights Dog Park. Although the project configuration provides adequate transition between existing one and two-story residential, it should be recognized that the project is permitted to exceed the two-story height limit established by the General Plan, as the project includes affordable housing which permits the developer to utilize a development standards waiver consistent with the State’s affordable housing regulations (California Government Code Section 65915). This project would include five percent of the unit as very low- AMI affordable housing units and qualifying it for the waiver in height. The portion of the project related to affordability and concessions and waivers is a ministerial approval.

Response to Public Comments for 712 Baker Street (River Park Residential Development Project)
September 1, 2022

13.Comment/concern #13: The project site should be developed under the existing zoning (CS and R-1-N) to build a commercial storage facility and a small number of single-family dwellings on 6,000-sq. ft. lots.
• Response: The CS zone is a highly restrictive zone that allows a very limited range of land uses consisting mainly of commercial storage facilities (mini-warehouse or self-storage uses). Development of a project consistent with the CS zone would provide no community benefits, achieve no local planning objectives, and would generally create a negative, low-activity and non-beneficial land use. Further, the CS zoning at this site is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which designates the subject site as FCN (Founding and Contemporary Neighborhoods), a moderate-density residential PlaceType, and development of a commercial storage facility would not be permitted under the General Plan. The R-1-N zone, while consistent with the General Plan, would allow a very limited number of dwellings to be developed on 6,000-sq. ft. lots in the small area of the site that is under the R-1-N zone. This zoning also would fail to achieve local planning objectives, especially related to housing production, and would provide no community benefits either.

14.Comment/concern #14: The project is inconsistent with the Los Angeles River Master Plan, the Lower Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan, or the Long Beach Riverlink plan.
• Response: The multiple river master plan documents are not regulatory land use documents like the General Plan or Zoning Regulations, but are advisory in nature. The river master plans establish conceptual frameworks for various development and restoration strategies for river revitalization and adjacent parkland development efforts, but do not provide either the legal implementation of those conceptual plans, or solve for practical necessities such as acquisition of private property, remediation of contaminated sites, funding of river-adjacent parkland development and maintenance.

CK:AO:sk
1 Heather Flores
From: Adam Josephson
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 1:15 PM
To: PlanningCommissioners
Subject: River Park Residential Project Comments
‐EXTERNAL‐
To whom it may concern,
I am concerned about the River Park Residential Project which plans to build 200+ homes and condos next to the LA River. I implore you to NOT approve this project.
‐ The site has seen historic pollution from oil and gas companies. ‐ There is very little green space on the west side of Long Beach compared to the more affluent east. This concrete jungle is the opposite of what folks in the area need.
‐  A majority of the homes will be rental properties with profits going to big corporations. ‐ Will dramatically increase the density of Wrigley Heights leading to even worse traffic. ‐ The FEIR is woefully inadequate and glosses over many of the environmental impacts.

Thank you.
‐Adam
1 Scott Kinsey
From: Scott Kinsey
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 2:54 PM
To:

Cc: Amy Harbin
Subject: RE: 9/1/22 Agenda Item 2
Good afternoon,
RP-15 is the zoning symbol for the Residential Planned Unit Development zoning district, and the 15 means at a density of up to 15 dwelling units per acre.

The (H) indicates the Horse Overlay Zone, which is currently there and is not changing.

Carriage townhome is a builder, real estate, or advertising term that has no legal meaning but basically refers to a townhome that is back-to-back to another townhome, set on top of garages. I believe they are referred to as “backto-back” and “half-backs” on the architectural renderings and elevations, and “carriage townhomes” on the site plan.

I have circled them in red for you in the screenshot below. These are full independent dwelling units and are not ADUs or otherwise somehow secondary units.
2 Scott Kinsey, AICP
Planner V
3 Long Beach Development Services | Planning Bureau
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl. | Long Beach, CA 90802
Office: 562.570.6461
From:

Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 2:39 PM
To: Scott Kinsey <[email protected]>; Amy Harbin <[email protected]> Subject: 9/1/22 Agenda Item 2
-EXTERNALDear Scott.

Could you please explain the meaning of these terms in the 712 Baker St. FEIR? RP-15 and RP-15 (H);
Carriagehouse
Wickapedia says this about Carriagehouses:

In modern usage, the term "carriage house" has taken on several additional, somewhat overlapping meanings:
 Buildings that were originally true carriage houses that have been converted to other uses such as secondary suites, apartments, guest houses, automobile garages, offices, workshops, retail shops, bars, restaurants, or storage buildings.
 Purpose-built secondary homes, also called accessory dwelling units or detached dwelling units, on the same lot as a primary residence. They have completely separate living areas and facilities, sometimes in the style of converted carriage houses.[5] Some municipalities, such as Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, have introduced regulations permitting coach houses to intensify use of urban residential space and increase affordability and possibilities for multi-generational housing in low-density areas,[6] whereas the state of California revised state laws to limit local governments' authority to restrict ADU construction and reduce cost and bureaucracy hurdles in order to ease the shortage of housing.[7][8]  A marketing term for single-family homes, built on a lot just large enough for the home, and often sharing in common land with other homes in the same planned unit development. They are more properly called "carriage homes" or "patio homes". Some municipalities have relaxed setback restrictions for such buildings or allow "zero lot line" carriage homes, in which a wall of the home lies on the property line itself.[9] In looking at the site plans, I could not find a plan for the Carriagehouses. Do any of these meanings apply? Thank you for your prompt reply.

Ann Cantrell
1 Scott Kinsey
From: Scott Kinsey
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 7:06 PM
To:

Cc: Amy Harbin
Subject: RE: Baker Stree FEIR
Anne,
The Responses to Comments for the EIR are in the Final EIR document itself, in Section 5.0 in that document. Make sure you are looking under Final EIR and not Draft EIR on the Environmental Reports webpage, as shown with the red arrow in the screenshot below: https://www.longbeach.gov/lbds/planning/environmental/reports/ Scott Kinsey, AICP
Planner V
Long Beach Development Services | Planning Bureau
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl. | Long Beach, CA 90802
Office: 562.570.6461
From:

Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 6:18 PM
To: Scott Kinsey <[email protected]>
Subject: Baker Stree FEIR
2 -EXTERNALDear Scott,
Thank you for your replies to my previous questions. I have another problem. I am no longer able to locate the Comments and Responses to comments on the DEIR.

Could you please tell me where in the FEIR to find these? Gratefully,
Ann Cantrell
1 Scott Kinsey
From: Scott Kinsey
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 7:11 PM
To: R.M. Holman
Subject: RE: File # 22-051PL - Integral Communities - Staff report does not appear to be consistent with drawings
Thank you for your inquiry. This driveway will be used for emergency access only and is not a regular driveway for people to enter or exit the development. Normal everyday drive access will be taken directly from Wardlow Road.

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,
Scott Kinsey, AICP
Planner V
Long Beach Development Services | Planning Bureau
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl. | Long Beach, CA 90802
Office: 562.570.6461
From: R.M. Holman
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 4:40 PM
To: Scott Kinsey <[email protected]>
Subject: File # 22-051PL - Integral Communities - Staff report does not appear to be consistent with drawings -EXTERNALHello Scott,
I sent this to the planning commission, but Ann Cantrell suggested I send it to you, to see if you had any info on it.

I noted that the Staff Report for this file # says "An emergency access point is proposed at the northeast corner of the complex, at the intersection of Baker Street and Golden Avenue".

However, I cannot find any such limitation (to only emergency access) in the drawings or maps included with this project.

Obviously, great community concern would exist if regular traffic from this project could end up using this point for regular access and egress.

Sincerely,
Roger Martin Holman
1 Heather Flores
From: Dave Hall
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 7:12 AM
To: PlanningCommissioners
Subject: Reject Final EIR on River Park Residential Project ‐EXTERNAL‐
Dear Chair and Commissioners:

I echo the comments made by the California Fish and Game Commission (page 80) that the EIR does not address the colony of endangered Western Burrowing Owls that will be destroyed by the project. There is no biological survey done by the consulting firm. How can you possibly make policy without knowing the numbers through a proper  actual survey? This is a violation of CEQA and an affront to preserving the endangered Western Burrowing Owl. Vote "No" on ratifying the FEIR.

Respectfully,

DAVE HALL
Long Beach, CA 90813
1 Heather Flores
From: Cynthia Kellman
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 1:15 PM
To: PlanningCommissioners
Cc: Scott Kinsey; Amy Harbin; Christopher Koontz; Supekar Sunjana; Michelle Black Subject: Objection to River Park Residential Project, 712 Baker Street, State Clearinghouse No. 2021020492 Attachments: Baker Street FEIR Letter 090122 without attachments.pdf Expires: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 12:00 AM
‐EXTERNAL‐
Dear Commissioners,
Attached please find a letter from Michelle Black and Sunjana Supekar regarding the above-captioned subject.

The attached letter with attachments can be found at the below Dropbox link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xb571f0nyqjd2uo/Baker%20Street%20FEIR%20Letter%20090122.pdf?d l=0
Please feel free to contact us with any questions.

Cynthia Kellman

CHATTEN-BROWN, CARSTENS & MINTEER
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 318
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Direct Tel: 323-296-9026
Fax: 310-798-2402
[email protected]
www.cbcearthlaw.com

Hermosa Beach Office Phone: (310) 798-2400
San Diego Office Phone: (858) 999-0070
Phone: (619) 940-4522
Chatten-Brown, Carstens & Minteer LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
www.cbcearthlaw.com
Michelle Black
Email Address:
[email protected]
Direct Dial: 310-798-2400 Ext. 5
September 1, 2022

VIA E-MAIL
Planning Commission
City of Long Beach
Development Services Department
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor
Long Beach CA 90802
[email protected]
Re: Objection to River Park Residential Project, 712 Baker Street, State Clearinghouse No. 2021020492
Dear Honorable Commissioners,
On behalf of the Riverpark Coalition, we submit these comments opposing the River Park Residential Project (the Project) as proposed and the certification of the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the Project. Riverpark Coalition is a collection of community groups and individuals including residents of western Long Beach. This community-based coalition works to promote public-serving open space in nature-deprived areas of western Long Beach. We urge you to honor the site’s longplanned use as vibrant, connective greenspace along the LA River, and reject this Project.

Located immediately across the 405 Freeway from the Project site, the Project’s census tract in western Long Beach (census tract 6037572100) ranks worse than 89 percent of the rest of the state for pollution burden, attributable to contaminated sites, solid waste and hazardous vehicle emissions in the area. (See https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40; Exhibit (“Exh.”) 1 [CalEnviroScreen 4.0 output for census tract 6037572100].) The Project area is also a designated “Disadvantaged Community” per California Senate Bill (SB) 535. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, the area is a predominantly Hispanic and Asian community that is over 76% people of color. The area has more people living with asthma, emergency department visits for asthma symptoms, and deaths from asthma, than 92% of census tracts throughout California.

The Project would replace 20 acres of currently undeveloped space along the Los Angeles River with residential development and less than 5 acres of landscaped open space. While the Coalition agrees with the City of Long Beach (“City”) that housing is needed, the Coalition cannot condone building residential units that will harm their City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

occupants. The Project site is highly contaminated after decades of use by oil companies, and future occupants of the residential units would be exposed to a constant bombardment of “diesel death zone” air pollution and noise from the freeways. (See https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-710-freeway-expansion-20180301- story.html.) Instead of analyzing whether the Project would harm its occupants, the City hides behind its claim that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require analysis of the environment’s impacts on the Project. However, CEQA requires the City to analyze and disclose whether the Project would have adverse impacts on human beings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15065, subd. (a)(4).) And outside of CEQA, the City has an obligation to use its police powers to protect, not harm, the health and welfare of its residents.

The City and other regional entities have long designated the Project site and its surrounding area for park development. In fact, the Project site was identified by the Lower Los Angeles Revitalization Working Group as the “gem” of the lower Los Angeles River. Development of the site as a park would eliminate the harmful impacts of building housing in a contaminated diesel death zone, remove the Project’s conflicts with applicable land use plans, and provide the western Long Beach community with muchneeded recreational assets. Yet the City failed to adequately analyze the use of this site as a park. As the City has approved development of the Pacific Place facility on the other remaining, large riverside parcel in the area (see Exh. 2), this is the City’s last chance to comply with the numerous plans detailing the site as park space and realize its important river park goals.

Additionally, the Project’s elimination of the last remaining large piece of open space in western Long Beach available for park purposes would unearth toxic soil, increase air contamination, traffic, and construction impacts in an already pollutionburdened and nature-deprived community, and subject residents to a host of environmental harms. These impacts were neither fully analyzed nor mitigated under CEQA, as required.

We agree with the scoping comments provided by Tilly Hinton, PhD and urge the Planning Commission to review the issues raised in that letter, which we have attached as Exhibit 3. (DEIR Appendix (“App.”) I, p. 140.)
We ask that the City take this opportunity to protect human health and preserve its ability to realize its recreational goals for the “gem” of the Los Angeles River corridor by rejecting this harmful project.

City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

I. The Project Will Have Significant and Unmitigated Environmental Impacts without the Full Disclosure and Mitigation Required by California Environmental Quality Act.

CEQA serves two basic, interrelated functions: ensuring environmental protection and encouraging governmental transparency. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) CEQA has been termed a “bill of rights for an environmental democracy”1 because of the manner in which it promotes and protects public participation in public agency decisions. CEQA requires the City to disclose, analyze, and discuss all feasible mitigation for a Project’s potentially significant, adverse environmental impacts.

Importantly, CEQA also requires the County to respond to the public’s comments and questions with “reasoned, good faith analysis.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15088.) When a comment raises a significant environmental issue, the lead agency must address the comment “in detail giving reasons why” the comment was “not accepted.” (Ibid.) “Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.” (Ibid; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1124.) The level of detail of responses to comments must be commensurate with the level of detail of the comments. (Friends of the Eel River v.

Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 878 [“the determination of the sufficiency of the agency's responses to comments on the draft EIR turns upon the detail required in the responses”].) This is especially important with regard to the substantive comments of responsible or “sister agencies” which may not simply be ignored. (Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 348, 357.) This requirement for good faith, reasoned analysis “ensures that stubborn problems or serious criticism are not swept under the rug.” (Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 715, 732.) The courts have held that inadequate responses to comments – alone – can be grounds for voiding a project’s approval. (See, Env. Protection Information Center. v.

Johnson (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 604, 627.) Failure to respond to a single comment is sufficient to invalidate approval of a FEIR. (Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel bythe-Sea (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 603.) Unfortunately, the FEIR failed to respond adequately to comments raised in comment letters submitted on the draft EIR, as discussed more in greater detail below.
1 Byron Sher, California State Legislator 1980-2004 Planning and Conservation League, “Everyday Heroes Protect the Air We Breathe, the Water We Drink, and the Natural Areas We Prize, Thirty-Five Years of the California Environmental Quality Act,” 2005, available at https://www.pcl.org/media/prior-c/CEQA-Everyday-Heroes-full_report.pdf.

City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

A. The Project Conflicts With Land Use Plans Calling for Development of Parks at the Project Site.

The DEIR and the City’s Responses to Comments claim that the Project will have no significant land use impacts. Under the EIR’s adopted threshold of significance, the Project will cause a significant land use impact if it conflicts with “any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.” (DEIR, p. IV.J-10.)
Here, the Project will cause significant land use impacts because of its conflicts with numerous land use plans and policies designating the site as park space. Further, the Project will also conflict with the Horse Overlay District on the eastern part of the Project site. For these reasons, the EIR must be recirculated to properly disclose these impacts.

1. The EIR Fails to Disclose Inconsistencies with Numerous Land Use Plans Designating the Project Site as Park Space.

The longstanding consensus of numerous land use plans is that the Project site should be preserved as large park or area of public greenspace, entitled Wrigley Heights River Park. The RiverLink Plan, Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation, and Marine Strategic Plan, West Long Beach Livability Implementation Plan, West Long Beach I-710 Community Livability Plan, Los Angeles River Master Plan, and Lower Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan all designate the Project site as parkland. The Project would foreclose the possibility of developing Wrigley Heights River Park and circumvent years of planning and advocacy for public greenspace at this site. The EIR must analyze the Project’s conflicts with these plans as significant impacts, for which mitigation is required.

RiverLink Plan
West Long Beach residents have one acre of parkland per 1,000 residents. It is currently a federally defined park poor community as shown in Table 1 below and the 2007 Long Beach RiverLink Report (Exh 2, pp. 77-78.)
City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

Table 1. Long Beach - Parks Needs Assessment.

Western Long Beach 1 acre per 1000 residents
South Long Beach 2.7 acres per 1000 residents
Eastern Quadrant of Long Beach 16.7 acres per 1000 residents Long Beach Citywide 5.4 acres average citywide
Source: RiverLink planning document,
http://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/park/media-library/documents/businessoperations/about/in-development/riverlink-report/. (last visited Aug 31, 2022.) Due to historical development trends that favored industry with high levels of pollution, western Long Beach has a severe need for more parks and open space. In 2002, the City’s Open Space and Recreation Element formally established a goal to reverse this harmful trend and achieve an average of eight (8.0) acres of recreational open space per 1,000 residents. (Exh. 4, p. 287.) Subsequently, in 2007, the Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine authored the RiverLink planning document (RiverLink). The RiverLink provides a vision of an integrated open space system and a framework to connect westside neighborhoods and greater Long Beach with the Los Angeles River (LA River.) When fully implemented the RiverLink was supposed to contain 263 acres of open space. Long Beach’s vision for the LA River is one of a “River that provides aesthetic, recreational, and ecological benefits, in addition to serving its flood control purposes.” (See Exh. 2, p. 79.)
The RiverLink plan specifically stated for the “Wrigley Heights-South” site that it “proposes that as much of the area as possible become an open space destination containing a restored wetland, riparian woodland, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and a neighborhood park with a playground, picnic areas, and other amenities (see Exhibit 21).” (Exh. 2, RiverLink, p. 88.)
With the current proposed project and others similar to it that put planned greenspace to other uses (such as the Riverwalk project in 2015), RiverLink’s designation of the site as public greenspace would never be achieved. Such an impact is significant and must be disclosed in an EIR.

Currently the eastern side of Long Beach has seventeen times more acreage dedicated to parks and open space than the westside of Long Beach, where the Project is now proposed. The Project area presents an unparalleled opportunity to bridge this gap by creating a park and preserving open space in an area that needs more of both. Further, City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

this site is one of western Long Beach’s last two remaining large pieces of land suitable for open space parkland.

Davenport Park, once a landfill turned industrial site in North Long Beach, was recently converted into a flourishing park. This former brownfield was acquired by the Redevelopment Agency in 2001 with North Long Beach Project Area Funds. (See Parks, Recreation and Marine website, Ed “Pops” Davenport Park information, https://www.longbeach.gov/park/park-and-facilities/directory/ed-pops-davenport-park/, last visited Aug. 31, 2022.) The Davenport Park project is a prime example of how this project area in West Long Beach could and should be used. Revitalizing the little open space that remains is critical to achieve the City’s 2002 and 2007 commitments: to increase average park acreage in West Long Beach and aid disadvantaged communities disproportionately saddled with environmental pollution.

Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation, and Marine Strategic Plan According to the Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation of Marine’s (“DPRM”) 2003 Strategic Plan, the West park district has only 1 acre of parkland per 1,000 residents, while the East park district has 16 acres per 1,000 residents. (Exh. 2, p. 244.) To respond to this disparity, DPRM included Strategy 1.1 as part of its Strategic Plan, which established a target of 8 acres per 1,000 residents. (Exh. 2, p. 244-45.) Strategy 1.1 identified 50 acres in Wrigley Heights for park development. (Exh. 2, p. 245.) The City must maintain its commitment to provide much needed park space in western Long Beach by reserving the Project site for park access.

West Long Beach Livability Implementation Plan
The West Long Beach Livability Implementation Plan (“Livable West Long Beach”) was adopted by the City in August 2015 as a “comprehensive approach for achieving the community’s vision for healthy, vibrant, attractive and safe neighborhoods.” (Exh. 5, p. 293.) The plan “identifies, prioritizes, and strategizes the implementation of projects and initiatives that will provide a variety of neighborhood benefits including enhancements to the community’s physical environment . . . [and] a cleaner environment.” (Ibid.) Livable West Long Beach identifies the Project site as the location of the Wrigley Heights Park Expansion and River Connector. (Exh. 5, p. 302.) West Long Beach I-710 Community Livability Plan
The West Long Beach I-710 Community Livability Plan (“Livability Plan”) was adopted in 2008 to address the environmental impacts of the I-710 freeway on the City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

neighborhoods within the I-710 corridor, including Wrigley Heights. (Exh. 6, p. 316.) The plan designates the Project site as Wrigley Heights Park – South, as identified in the Riverlink Plan. (Exh. 6, p. 318.)
Los Angeles River Master Plan
The final Los Angeles River Master Plan (LARMP), which was updated in June 2022 and should have been reviewed while preparing the FEIR, also designates the Project site as Wrigley Heights River Park, a “Planned Major Project.” (Exh. 7, p. 341.) Lower Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan
The Lower Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan (“LLARRP”) was the result of the Lower Los Angeles River Working Group, a working group set forth by Assembly Bill 530 to develop a revitalization plan for the Lower Los Angeles River watershed. (Exh. 8, p. 365; Pub. Resources Code §§ 32622, 5795, 5795.20, 5795.10.) The LLARRP identifies locations along the Los Angeles River for revitalization.

The LLARRP identifies the Project site –Wrigley Heights River Park – as the “gem of the Lower LA River.” (Exh. 8, p. 374.) The LLARRP calls the Project site a “blank canvas[] that present[s] a multitude of options for advancing the objectives of the plan elements. With its proximity to an unconfined aquifer, this site has the potential for groundwater recharge – one of the few locations along the Lower LA River where groundwater recharge is possible.” (Ibid.) The LLARRP identified the Wrigley Heights River Park as an opportunity area for revitalization, and gave it a score of 98 out of 100 for potential. The LLARRP also identified it as a “signature strategy” that is “exemplary of the multi-benefit, community-driven planning process and capture the essence of the LLARRP.” (Exh. 8, p. 370, 367-368.)

2. The EIR Fails to Disclose the Project’s Conflicts with the General Plan.

Under CEQA, lead agencies must analyze whether a proposed project is inconsistent with applicable land use policies, such as the governing general plan. (Cal.

Code Regs, tit. 14 (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15125, subd. (d).) A significant land use impact requires disclosure and mitigation in the EIR. The Project will conflict with the City’s park goals and other key land use plans, as described above in Section I. The Project must either be modified to eliminate these conflicts, or the conflicts must be disclosed as significant land use impacts in the EIR. The EIR’s current failure to identify significant impacts on land use violates CEQA.

City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

For example, the City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element requires implementation of the Long Beach RiverLink Plan. (Exh. 9, p. 406.) Implementation Strategy LU-M-86 requires the City to: “Update and implement the Long Beach Riverlink Plan to create a continuous greenway of pedestrian and bike paths and linkages along the east bank of the Los Angeles River, as well as to connect to existing and future parks, open space and beaches along western portions of the City.” (Ibid.) However, construction of the Project along the River will surely conflict with this implementation measure by foreclosing public access and green space on the vast majority of the Project site.

The EIR fails to analyze the Project’s conflicts with other applicable General Plan implementation strategies (Exh. 9, pp. 404-07), including ones that incorporate the land use plans described above, such as:
• LU-M-53: Continue to implement the Long Beach I-710 Community Livability Plan aimed at incorporating and prioritizing livability improvements in the I-710 freeway corridor neighborhoods.
• LU-M-54: Continue to implement the West Long Beach Livability Implementation Plan to improve the quality of life in West Long Beach and to bring to fruition the community’s vision of a healthy, vibrant and livable neighborhood though land use planning and capital improvement projects. • LU-M-84: Increase parks and open space areas to meet the City standard of eight acres of park land for every 1,000 Long Beach residents, particularly in neighborhoods where there is a deficiency in park space. • LU-M-85: Continue to implement and update the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine Strategic Plan and the Open Space and Recreation Element. • LU-M-95: Reuse vacant properties as community amenities such as gardens, parks or temporary green spaces to reduce blight and safety issues, increase residents’ access to needed parks and open spaces, and spur additional investment in neighborhoods.

The EIR must be recirculated to analyze, disclose, and mitigate the Project’s conflicts with the General Plan.

3. The EIR Must Disclose and Analyze Impacts to Equestrian Uses.

A portion of the Project site falls within the City’s horse overlay zone. These horse overlay zones were approved to preserve and protect Los Cerritos’ unique culture City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

and cherished community. (See Exh. 10, excerpts from the 1977 EIR adopting the horse overlays, along with a map of the remaining horse overlay districts.) We understand that the horse overlay district will remain on the site, however, we urge that the City preserve and maintain equestrian uses within this overlay district and we do not believe this Project will achieve that.

The Project sits near one of the last remaining equestrian-zoned properties within the City of Long Beach, located adjacent to the Los Angeles County Flood Control/Historical Equestrian Trail. This area has specific and unique needs which incorporate utilization and access of the existing sized strip of County Land parallel to the Flood Control region for ingress/egress, emergency services, access to the Equestrian trail and preservation of the zoning and intended use of residents’ lands. Approving the Project would adversely impact equestrian-zoned properties and adjoining trails. The Project as proposed does not appear to provide housing that would allow for stables or corrals, pursuant to the horse overlay as codified in the Long Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”), sections 21.38.010 et seq.

These standards include, among others:
• Restrictions on the number of horses permitted per lot area, including that no horse shall be kept on any lot containing less than eight thousand (8,000) square feet of gross lot area (LBMC § 21.38.201).
• Requirements for stalls to located on the rear 50% of a lot (LBMC §

21.38.210).
• Setbacks from residential units, property lines, and accessory structures (LBMC §§ 21.38.215, 21.38.220, 21.38.225.)
• Landscaping and parking requirements (LBMC §§ 21.38.240, 21.38.245).

The Project effectively forecloses the ability for equestrian use, because property owners in the proposed development would not be able to meet these requirements. For example, the maximum unit size of a unit within the proposed development is 2,244 square feet (Staff Report, p. 5), which is much less than the minimum lot size required under LBMC § 21.38.201. The EIR must analyze this as a conflict with applicable zoning regulations.

Additionally, the City failed to respond to Riverpark Coalition’s comment that the Project would cross over the equestrian trail easement.

Further, a strategy of the Land Use Element in this area is to “Respect and maintain the equestrian uses within Wrigley Heights and promote shared use and maintenance of the area trail system.” (Exh. 9, p. 409.) The Project as proposed would City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

preclude implementation of this strategy by preventing maintenance of long-protected equestrian uses at this Site. Western Long Beach community members have worked for years to maintain groups like the Wrigley Equestrian community while furthering the City’s ambitious RiverLink plan, in hopes of strengthening community connection to natural spaces throughout Long Beach. The Riverpark Coalition encourages the City to work with stakeholders and community advocates to preserve and help realize this shared vision.

B. The EIR Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Hazardous Impacts and Impacts to Water Quality.

The EIR, even as revised, does not adequately analyze, disclose, or mitigate the Project’s significant impacts relating to hazardous materials and water quality. While CEQA does not require an analysis of the environment’s effects on a project, when, as here, a project would exacerbate existing environmental hazards “by bringing development and people into the area affected,” there must be analysis of such impacts. (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 388.)
The FEIR recognizes that the site cannot be used for residential purposes until it is cleaned up. Yet the EIR improperly defers analysis of the Project’s exacerbation of hazardous impacts, and leaves analysis of such impacts to be reviewed by the LARWQCB. Under CEQA, lead agencies are not permitted to defer environmental analysis to a separate regulatory scheme. (Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v.

Department of Food & Agriculture (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1, 16-17.) The EIR defers analysis of the Project’s construction exacerbating soil and groundwater contamination, instead concluding that “in the event” such contamination is encountered, it will be removed and/or treated in accordance with the RAP and state, federal, and local regulations. (FEIR, p. IV-H.33.)
CEQA does not permit deferral of the analysis of environmental impacts, as “[a] fundamental purpose of an EIR is to provide decision makers with information they can use in deciding whether to approve a proposed project, not to inform them of the environmental effects of projects that they have already approved.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 394.) Thus, environmental review must occur as early as possible to provide meaningful information to the Planning Commission and the public. Further, deferred mitigation violates CEQA. (Endangered Habitats League v County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 793-94; CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) Deferral is only permitted when City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

an agency commits itself to a mitigation measure with specific performance standards. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).)
The EIR relies on a RAP that has not even yet been approved by the LARWQCB to ensure that the Project site will be cleaned up and impacts will be mitigated. (Ibid.) Not only has the RAP not yet been approved, it is not even fully defined. The EIR states that the RAP itself defers the preparation of a Groundwater Monitoring Plan which will specify the design and implementation of groundwater monitoring, and will include a “contingency” for in-situ groundwater remediation if LARWQCB later determines it is necessary. (FEIR App. C Section 1, IV.H-7.) Additionally, the EIR recognizes that an Operations, Maintenance, and Implementation Plan “is expected to be a component” of the LARWQCB’s approval. (Ibid.) These mitigation measures are far too speculative and lack any specific performance criteria or commitment, and thus violate CEQA.

Additionally, the Project relies on an engineered cap on the north side of the Project site instead of soil remediation, where the site’s limited open space uses are planned to be. (FEIR, App. C Section 2, p. vi [Revised RAP].) The EIR does not disclose the design or engineering details of this cap, which will be deferred until after approval of the RAP. (Ibid.) Nor does the EIR disclose what would happen if the cap failed to contain the site’s hazardous soils. The EIR must analyze and disclose these impacts and project features prior to project approval.

The Project will also likely cause significant impacts to surface water quality as it will convert over 60% of the site to impervious surface. (DEIR, p. IV.I-25.) Instead of addressing these impacts, the EIR merely states that the Project would be required to prepare post-construction Best Management Practices (BMP) and prepare an LID Plan. (DEIR, p. IV.I-28.) These BMPs and the LID Plan must be in place before the public and decisionmakers review the Project; otherwise they are deprived of information essential to analyzing the Project’s impacts.

With regards to groundwater, the EIR should be recirculated to specifically review impacts to groundwater, especially given the City’s reliance on groundwater as surface water within the State becomes more scarce. (See Exh. 11.) Finally, the EIR appears to rely on Project Design Features to base its conclusion that the Project would have no significant hydrology or water quality impacts, stating that such features would “reduce potential Project and cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts to less than significant levels.” (DEIR, p. IV.I-30.) Reliance on Project Design Features improperly compresses the DEIR’s disclosure and analysis functions. (Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 655-656.) A City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

“mitigation measure cannot be used as a device to avoid disclosing project impacts.” (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 663-664.) An EIR cannot incorporate “the proposed mitigation measures into its description of the project and then conclude [] that any potential impacts from the project will be less than significant.” (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 655-657.) The EIR’s shortcut is “not merely a harmless procedural failing…[it] subverts the purposes of CEQA by omitting material necessary to informed decisionmaking and informed public participation.” (Id. at 658.)
C. The EIR Fails to Disclose All Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources In response to the Riverpark Coalition’s comments regarding the lack of analysis of other tribal governments having a connection with the Project site, the City claims it has fulfilled its duties under AB 52. Because of the Project’s site connection to several tribal governments, we urge the City to sustain efforts to analyze, disclose, and mitigate the impacts of the Project on tribal cultural resources. We agree with comments made by Anna Christensen, Chair of the Sierra Club Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force and have attached them as Exhibit 12.

D. The Project Will Expose New and Existing Residents to Unsafe Air Quality.

The Project site is located between the 405 and 710 freeways at their interchange in what has been termed a “diesel death zone.” The Project site is a mere 85 feet south of the 405 Freeway and 660 feet east of the 710 Freeway. (DEIR p. IV.B-17.) The Project’s location, by itself, renders the site unsuitable for residential development. The DEIR admits that the Project site’s freeway-centric location, alone, would expose new residents to levels of pollution beyond the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s threshold of significance for excess cancer risk. (IV.B-56.) Therefore, the Project would “Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations,” triggering DEIR Threshold IV.AQ-3. The City should not approve a Project it knows will harm the residents it seeks to house. The City should instead use its police powers to protect its residents and instead explore alternate uses, such as use for a park, that will not expose users to 24/7 vehicular and diesel pollution.

The DEIR details the site’s unsuitability for residential development. The DEIR’s air quality section begins by explaining that “Residential areas are []considered sensitive to poor air quality because people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods.” (IV.B-18.) Next, the DEIR notes that “high volume roads and freeways are the primary sources of diesel exhaust emissions (a TAC) within urban areas. Freeways or urban roads experiencing 100,000 or more vehicles/day could expose sensitive receptors City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

to adverse health risks.” (DEIR p. IV.B-43.) “The primary concern is the effect of diesel exhaust particulate, a TAC, on sensitive uses.” (Ibid.) The DEIR also explains the potential harms of TACs, and diesel in particular. For this reason, “CARB recommends that local agencies avoid siting new, sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway.” (Ibid.) Yet the Project site is only 85 feet from the 405 Freeway and scarcely more than 500 feet from the heaviest diesel truck corridor in Southern California, the 710 Freeway. (DEIR p. IV.B-17 and IV.B-43.) As a result, the DEIR finds, “the maximum cancer risk at the Project Site from DPM emissions generated by diesel-vehicle travel along the I710, I-405 and Wardlow Road for residents and workers are 1.2 in one hundred thousand (or 12 per one million) and 8.4 in ten million (or 0.84 per one million), respectively. As such, the cancer risk for residents at the Site would exceed the SCAQMD suggested significance criteria of 10 per one million.” (IV.B-55-56.) The DEIR summarizes, “the impact from exposure to pollutants from I-710, I-405 and Wardlow Road are considered potentially significant because cancer risk for residents at the Site would exceed the SCAQMD suggested significance criteria.” (IV.B-56.) Residential exposures to diesel particulate pollution at the Project site exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s significance criteria for excess cancer risk. The Project should not be approved.

Despite these clear findings, the DEIR finds that Project could reduce cancer risks to an acceptable level through Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2. This measure would “incorporate the following design features to reduce potential cancer risk:
o Install, operate, and maintain an HVAC system that uses high-efficiency filters of Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 14 or higher for the residential units (suggested use of MERV 16);
o Locate the air intakes for the uses as far from the freeway as possible; and o Provide a disclosure letter to all new residents that discusses the potential risk from living within close proximity of the freeway and roadway segment, and points out that opening windows reduces the effectiveness of implemented reduction measures and increases individuals’ exposure and hence risk.”
However, as DEIR admits, MM AQ-2 is only truly effective when “doors and windows are kept mostly closed.” (DEIR p. IV.B-56.) How likely is that for residents who will not be living that far from the ocean, especially when it is much more economical to rely on ocean breezes from a window than pricey air conditioning? Understanding this, the DEIR acknowledges, “Consequently, because most occupants of the proposed Project are anticipated to open their windows or doors at least part of the day, any pollutant reduction City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

attained through the use of high-efficiency filters would be compromised based on the amount of time doors and windows are left open.” (DEIR p. IV.B-57.) Thus, it appears that the DEIR itself recognizes that its mitigation measure for the air quality impacts of bringing residents into an unacceptably polluted landscape will not be effective. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be effective if they are to be relied upon in an EIR. “Unrealistic mitigation measures…do not contribute to a useful CEQA analysis.” (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 433.)
Additionally, the EIR is unclear about the implementation of MM AQ-2. While it claims to require that the applicant “install, operate, and maintain” an HVAC system and filters, the implementation details are left unclear. How often will filters be changed? How will this be managed, funded, and implemented in perpetuity? Neither the mitigation measure nor the Conditions of Approval provide this information. Without assurance that MM AQ-2 will be funded and enforced throughout the life of the Project, there is not substantial evidence to support the DEIR’s conclusion that impacts will be mitigated below a level of significance. (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1189-90.)
Understandably, members of the public submitted comments during the DEIR process raising concerns about the danger the Project poses to new residents. In response to Comment 11a-1, the FEIR stated, “This comment does not identify an impact potentially resulting from the Project, but rather focuses on the environment’s impact on the Project. As explained above, the environment’s impacts on the Project are generally outside of the scope of CEQA.” This is incorrect, and the response is inadequate.

Although an EIR need not analyze the environment’s impacts on a Project, an EIR must still disclose, analyze, and mitigate environmental impacts that will be exacerbated by a Project. As the Supreme Court found, “when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users.” (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377– 378.) Bringing 624 residents to the site, 24/7, will exacerbate the air quality dangers posed by the Project site. Further, CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance when a Project “will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15065 (a)(4).)
The Project will have significant and adverse health impacts on human beings without assured and enforceable mitigation. We urge the Commission to heed the warnings of the DEIR and reject the proposal to subject 624 residents to round-the-clock pollution.

City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

E. The Project Will Expose Residents to Unsafe Levels of Noise.

It is undisputed that living next to a freeway is loud. This Project would hundreds of people to the freeway noise of two of Southern California’s busiest, and loudest, freeways. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared that exposure to high noise levels presents a “health risk in that noise may contribute to the development and aggravation of stress related conditions such as high blood pressure, coronary disease, ulcers, colitis, and migraine headaches…Growing evidence suggests a link between noise and cardiovascular problems. There is also evidence suggesting that noise may be related to birth defects and low birth-weight babies. There are also some indications that noise exposure can increase susceptibility to viral infection and toxic substances.”2

Potentially deadly cardiovascular impacts can be triggered by long-term average exposure to noise levels as low as 55 decibels.3
Exposure to even moderately high levels
of noise during a single 8 hour period triggers the body’s stress response. In turn, the body increases cortisol production, which stimulates vasoconstriction of blood vessels that results in a five to ten point increase in blood pressure. Over time, this noise-induced stress can result in hypertension and coronary artery disease, both of which increase the risk of heart attack death. 4
Studies on the use of tranquilizers, sleeping pills,
psychotropic drugs, and mental hospital admission rates suggest that high noise levels cause adverse impacts on mental health. 5
2 EPA Noise Effects Handbook, http://www.nonoise.org/library/handbook/handbook.htm, incorporated by reference; see also EPA Noise: A Health Problem http://www.nonoise.org/library/epahlth/epahlth.htm#heart%20disease, incorporated by reference. 3 World Health Organization Media Centre, http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/WHO/MediaCentre/PR/2009/20091008_1?language [elevated blood pressure and heart attacks], incorporated by reference; http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/a68672.pdf [finding demonstrated cardiovascular impacts, including ischemic heart disease and hypertension after long-term exposure to 24 hour average noise values of 65-70 dBA], incorporated by reference.
4 WHO Guidelines for Community Noise, p. x and pp. 47-48. The report is available in its entirety online at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/a68672.pdf; see also, Maschke C (2003). “Stress Hormone Changes in Persons exposed to Simulated Night Noise”. Noise Health 5 (17):
35–45. PMID 12537833, http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463- 1741;year=2002;volume=5;issue=17;spage=35;epage=45;aulast=Maschke, incorporated by reference; Franssen EA, van Wiechen CM, Nagelkerke NJ, Lebret E (2004). “Aircraft noise around a large international airport and its impact on general health and medication use”. Occup Environ Med 61 (5): 405–13. doi:10.1136/oem.2002.005488. PMID 15090660. 5 WHO, p. x. and pp. 48-49.

City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

High noise levels also have dramatic developmental impacts on small children, many of whom might one day reside in the Project. Children who are exposed to higher average noise levels have heightened sympathetic arousal, expressed by increased stress hormone levels, and elevated resting blood pressure. As proposed, the Project would expose community members to levels of noise that are unsafe for cardiovascular health, mental health, societal well being, and child development.

During the DEIR comment period, Caltrans wrote, “residential construction next to freeways is an incompatible land use and local jurisdictions need to require soundwalls tall enough to reduce traffic noise. To ensure compliance with established noise standards and guidelines, and to protect future occupants from potential adverse effects associated with traffic noise levels exceeding these standards, soundwalls need to be implemented in the zoning, architectural design, and construction of units. Otherwise, future traffic noise controversy can be expected.”
The FEIR essentially disregarded Caltrans’ comments, writing in Response 1-4:
(1) that the residential units would be located slightly further from the freeways; (2) that noise measurements did not exceed sound limit; and (3) that CEQA does not require this analysis anyway. Sound walls will not be considered. The FEIR’s response is inadequate. Caltrans, as the State’s foremost expert on freeways, was explicit in its comment that residences and freeways are incompatible land uses.

The DEIR’s noise levels may be underestimated. The DEIR’s noise analysis averaged noise levels over 15-minute intervals, which obscures both short-term and impulsive noise that can be most disturbing to residents. (DEIR p. IV.K-5.) Noise levels were measured at noon and 3 pm, outside of the commute hours when traffic noise would be highest. Additionally, the DEIR’s noise measurements were taken on February 3, 2021 (ibid), a Wednesday morning before Covid vaccines were widely available and traffic had fully rebounded to pre-Covid levels. In any case, nearly all of the recorded ambient noise levels exceeded the 55 dBA level at which health impacts can occur, and site 5 exceeded 70 dBA, a level the State of California deems “unacceptable” for residential use. (DEIR p. IV.K-19.) The Project site’s ambient noise also exceeds the City’s existing limits for residential uses and for other residential zones in the City.

Consequently, the Project would likely have a significant adverse impact on human beings by exposing residents to noise they would otherwise miss, a CEQA impact that cannot be dismissed and that must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines s. 15065.) Sound walls should be considered in this analysis.

F. The EIR Fails to Adequately Address Impacts to Biological Resources.

City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

The EIR claims, “While Southern Tarplant (Centromadia parryi) is known to occur in the area, thorough surveys, conducted at different times of year, did not locate any specimens of this specie.” (DEIR p. IV.C-2.) Further, the EIR did not even list it as a species with a likelihood of being found on the site. (DEIR pp. IV.C-15 and 16.) The southern tarplant has a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Rank of 1B.1 and is considered a rare species under CEQA. The conclusions of the EIR’s biological resources section are curious, given that biological resources consultant LSA documented 830 individuals on the adjoining property. During the environmental review process for the 3701 Pacific Place project, which would be located next door to the Riverpark Project, LSA submitted an updated assessment of the tarplant population. This assessment found, “when combining the results from 2019 and 2020, LSA has estimated a total of approximately 830 southern tarplant individuals occurring within the project limits, all of which would be permanently impacted by the proposed project.” (LSA Letter dated August 21, 2020, Exhibit 13.)
As a result of the EIR’s failure to disclose that Southern tarplant could potentially occupy the site, the Project fails to include any mitigation for impacts to Southern tarplant individuals that may be present now or that could colonize the site in the future.

As the Department of Fish and Wildlife wrote in their comments on the Notice of Preparation, “CDFW recommends avoiding any sensitive natural communities found on or adjacent to the Project. CDFW also considers impacts to SSC a significant direct and cumulative adverse effect without implementing appropriate avoid and/or mitigation measures.” (emphasis added.) CDFW continued, “The DEIR should include measures to fully avoid and otherwise protect Sensitive Natural Communities from Project-related impacts. Project implementation may result in impacts to rare or endangered plants or plant communities that have been recorded adjacent communities as threatened habitats having both regional and local significance.” The EIR contains no such measures. The EIR must be revised to require preconstruction surveys and measures to protect, in place, any tarplant individuals found.

G. The Proposed Traffic Mitigation is Unsafe.

CEQA prohibits the imposition of speculative mitigation measures. (Pub.

Resources Code § 21081.6(b) [must be “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.”]) Further, CEQA requires that mitigation measures be analyzed for efficacy and for environmental impacts they may, themselves, create. (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645; CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4.)
City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

The Project’s main access driveway would be located on Wardlow Road. (FEIR p. 29.) The Project’s trip generation would introduce new trips onto a road segment that has had an unacceptable Level of Service of E since at least 1993. (Exhibit 14, March 12, 1993 City Memorandum.) The EIR found the potential impact to be unsafe. Line-ofsight analysis of vehicle movements at the proposed access driveway on Wardlow Road determined that vehicles at the proposed driveway would lack adequate sight distance along Wardlow Road. This could “substantially increase hazards.” (I-11.) The EIR proposes to mitigate the impacts of these new trips with a flashing light via Mitigation measure MM Trans-1. (DEIR p. IV.M-32.) Per the final EIR, “This mitigation would result in the installation of a traffic signal on Wardlow Road at the Project driveway.” (FEIR p. 31.) Without this mitigation, the Project’s impacts on traffic would remain significant and require the City to support and approve a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

However, the City has considered a traffic signal at this location in the past. The City specifically chose not to install a traffic signal at this location because it would be unsafe. Environmental Impact Report No. 64-87, dated April 14, 1988, for a proposed, but never built residential development in Wrigley Heights stated: “The City Traffic Engineer has previously indicated that because of the elevation and geometrics, it is not possible to construct a new North/South street to Wardlow.” (Exhibit 14, March 12, 1993 City Memorandum.) In 1988, there was no A-Train (Blue Line), there were no bollards on Wardlow Road, and there was far less traffic. The City provides no support for any assertion that the flashing light proposed by the Project will make the situation safe. The proposed mitigation measures do nothing to improve the line-of-sight for vehicles at the intersection. The only substantive change appears to be flashing lights hanging from a utility pole. At this location, Wardlow Road is both curved and steep.

Threshold TR-3 confirms that none of the measures related to the proposed traffic signal at the new intersection improve the line-of-sight in any way. (FEIR p. 18.) The EIR fails to even guarantee which, if any, measures will be taken in conjunction with the new signal. The FEIR states, twice, that the traffic signal related equipment may include a number of features.

The EIR fails to explain how a traffic signal that was previously considered unsafe is now acceptable. Traffic on Wardlow has doubled since 1993. Either the proposed mitigation measure MM Trans-1 remains unsafe and will not be installed, rendering it speculative, or the EIR proposes an unsafe mitigation measure without disclosing, analyzing, and mitigating the significant impacts on driver, pedestrian, and cyclist safety.

Either way, the City’s EIR violates CEQA. The EIR must be revised and recirculated.

City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

Conclusion
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We urge the Commission to reject this harmful Project in favor of the long-planned and much-needed Los Angeles River park that would be forever foreclosed if the City approves this Project. If the City chooses to continue its consideration of the Project, we look forward to the City’s completion of the required analyses described herein, and recirculation of the EIR, before it does so.

Sincerely,

Michelle Black
Sunjana Supekar

Exhibits:
(1) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Output filtered for Census Tract 6037572100 and Data Dictionary, downloaded from
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/document/calenviroscre en40resultsdatadictionaryf2021.zip on Aug. 27, 2022.
(2) Excerpts of the April 12, 2021 Riverpark Coalition Letter Opposing 3701 Pacific Place Development
(3) NOP Comments from Dr. Tilly Hinton, PhD.
(4) Excerpts of the Long Beach General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element (5) Excerpts of West Long Beach Livability Implementation Plan (6) Excerpts of West Long Beach I-710 Community Livability Plan (7) Excerpts of Los Angeles River Master Plan
(8) Excerpts of Lower Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan (9) Excerpts of the Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element (10) Excerpts from 1977 EIR, and map of remaining horse overlay districts. (11) Harry Saltzgaver, Long Beach Press-Telegram, “Long Beach keeps pace, leads efforts to become water independent,” August 16, 2022, available at:
https://www.presstelegram.com/2022/08/16/long-beach-keeps-pace-leadsefforts-to-become-water-independent/. (12) Comments on tribal cultural resources.

City of Long Beach Planning Commission
September 1, 2022

(13) Letter from LSA re Southern Tarplant at 3701 Pacific Place, August 21, 2020, available at https://longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/medialibrary/documents/planning/environmental/environmentalreports/pending/3701-pacific-place/c3_- _focused_special_status_plant_survey_aug_2020.
(14) City of Long Beach Memorandum re Metro Blue Line Wardlow Road Station Relocation, March 12, 1993.

EXHIBIT 1
21 Census Tract
Total
Population California County ZIP Approximate Location Longitude Latitude CES 4.0 Score CES 4.0 Percentile 6037572100 1113 Los Angeles 90806 Long Beach -118.2035057 33.8238924 45.24 82.25 22 CES 4.0 Percentile Range Ozone Ozone Pctl PM2.5 PM2.5 Pctl Diesel PM Diesel PM Pctl
Drinking
Water
Drinking Water
Pctl
80-85% 0.041 22.19 11.5390719 61.77 0.691 95.15 339.04 34.73 23 Lead Lead Pctl Pesticides Pesticides Pctl Tox. Release Tox. Release Pctl Traffic Traffic Pctl Cleanup Sites

48.55 49.50 3.86 52.45 14570.18685 98.95 3559.885 97.89 9 24 Cleanup Sites
Pctl
Groundwater
Threats
Groundwater
Threats Pctl Haz. Waste
Haz. Waste
Pctl
Imp. Water
Bodies
Imp. Water
Bodies Pctl Solid Waste Solid Waste Pctl

58.17 28.3 78.12 0.01 1.80 11 86.96 0.25 11.59
25 Pollution
Burden
Pollution
Burden Score
Pollution
Burden Pctl Asthma Asthma Pctl Low Birth Weight
Low Birth
Weight Pctl
Cardiovascular
Disease

58.49 7.14 88.72 97.81 91.99 7.25 92.11 19.77
26 Cardiovascular
Disease Pctl Education Education Pctl Linguistic Isolation Linguistic
Isolation Pctl Poverty Poverty Pctl Unemployment

86.54 15.1 55.53 1.3 9.46 20.1 34.48 3.8
27 Unemployment
Pctl Housing Burden Housing Burden Pctl Pop. Char. Pop. Char. Score Pop. Char.

Pctl

28.20 NA NA 61.07 6.33 67.23
28 1
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results Data Dictionary
Data Dictionary
This document accompanies the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 results available as an excel spreadsheet.

CalEnviroScreen 4.0 was released October 2021.

The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 results are available to view in the online map.

For more information and to access additional data, see the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 webpage.

Variable Name Description
Census Tract Census Tract ID from 2010 Census
Total Population 2019 ACS population estimates in census tracts California County California county that the census tract falls within ZIP Postal ZIP Code that the census tract falls within
Approximate Location
Approximate city, town, or area where each census tract is located based on US Census Incorporated Places (2020, Cities), US Census Designated Places, (2020, Designated Places), and the CA Department of Tax and Fees City and County Boundaries and City Annexations (2021, Unincorporated Areas) boundary files. All tracts that did not fall within one of these boundaries were assigned "unincorporated county area" based on that tract's county. This is for reference purposes only and should not be used to determine whether a census tract falls within a city or town boundary.

Longitude Longitude of the centroid of the census tract Latitude Latitude of the centroid of the census tract
CES 4.0 Score CalEnviroScreen Score, Pollution Score multiplied by Population Characteristics Score
CES 4.0 Percentile Percentile of the CalEnviroScreen score CES 4.0 Percentile Range Percentile of the CalEnviroScreen score, grouped by 5% increments Ozone Amount of daily maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration Ozone Pctl Ozone percentile
PM2.5 Annual mean PM2.5 concentrations
PM2.5 Pctl PM2.5 percentile
Diesel PM Diesel PM emissions from on-road and non-road sources Diesel PM Pctl Diesel PM percentile
Drinking Water Drinking water contaminant index for selected contaminants Drinking Water Pctl Drinking water percentile
Lead
Potential risk for lead exposure in children living in low-income communities with older housing
Lead Pctl Children's lead risk from housing percentile
Pesticides
Total pounds of selected active pesticide ingredients (filtered for hazard and volatility) used in production-agriculture per square mile Pesticides Pctl Pesticides percentile
Tox. Release
Toxicity-weighted concentrations of modeled chemical releases to air from facility emissions and off-site incineration (from RSEI) Tox. Release Pctl Toxic release percentile
29 2
Traffic
Traffic density in vehicle-kilometers per hour per road length, within 150 meters of the census tract boundary
Traffic Pctl Traffic percentile
Cleanup Sites
Sum of weighted EnviroStor cleanup sites within buffered distances to populated blocks of census tracts
Cleanup Sites Pctl Cleanup sites percentile
Groundwater Threats
Sum of weighted GeoTracker leaking underground storage tank sites within buffered distances to populated blocks of census tracts Groundwater Threats Pctl Groundwater threats percentile Haz. Waste
Sum of weighted hazardous waste facilities and large quantity generators within buffered distances to populated blocks of census tracts
Haz. Waste Pctl Hazardous waste percentile
Imp. Water Bodies
Sum of number of pollutants across all impaired water bodies within buffered distances to populated blocks of census tracts Imp. Water Bodies Pctl Impaired water bodies percentile Solid Waste
Sum of weighted solid waste sites and facilities (SWIS) within buffered distances to populated blocks of census tracts
Solid Waste Pctl Solid waste percentile
Pollution Burden
Average of percentiles from the Pollution Burden indicators (with a half weighting for the Environmental Effects indicators)
Pollution Burden Score
Pollution Burden variable scaled with a range of 0-10. (Used to calculate CES 4.0 Score)
Pollution Burden Pctl Pollution burden percentile
Asthma Age-adjusted rate of emergency department visits for asthma Asthma Pctl Asthma percentile
Low Birth Weight Percent low birth weight
Low Birth Weight Pctl Low birth weight percentile
Cardiovascular Disease
Age-adjusted rate of emergency department visits for heart attacks per 10,000
Cardiovascular Disease Pctl Cardiovascular disease percentile Education Percent of population over 25 with less than a high school education Education Pctl Education percentile
Linguistic Isolation Percent limited English speaking households Linguistic Isolation Pctl Linguistic isolation percentile Poverty Percent of population living below two times the federal poverty level Poverty Poverty percentile
Unemployment
Percent of the population over the age of 16 that is unemployed and eligible for the labor force
Unemployment Pctl Unemployment percentile
Housing Burden Percent housing-burdened low-income households Housing Burden Pctl Housing burden percentile
Pop. Char. Average of percentiles from the Population Characteristics indicators Pop. Char. Score
Population Characteristics variable scaled with a range of 0-10. (Used to calculate CES 4.0 Score)
Pop. Char. Score Pctl Population characteristics percentile 30 3
Data Dictionary for Demographic Profile Tab
Variable Name Description
Census Tract Census Tract ID from 2010 Census
CES 4.0 Score CalEnviroScreen Score, Pollution Score multiplied by Population Characteristics Score
CES 4.0 Percentile Percentile of the CalEnviroScreen score CES 4.0 Percentile
Range Percentile of the CalEnviroScreen score, grouped by 5% increments California County California county that the census tract falls within Total Population 2019 ACS population estimates in census tracts Children < 10 years (%) 2019 ACS population estimates of the percent per census tract of children under 10 years old
Pop 10-64 years (%) 2019 ACS population estimates of the percent per census tract of people between 10 and 64 years old
Elderly > 64 years (%) 2019 ACS population estimates of the percent per census tract of elderly 65 years and older
Hispanic (%) 2019 ACS population estimates of the percent per census tract of those who identify as Hispanic or Latino
White (%) 2019 ACS population estimates of the percent per census tract of those who identify as non-Hispanic white
African American (%) 2019 ACS population estimates of the percent per census tract of those who identify as non-Hispanic African American or black Native American (%) 2019 ACS population estimates of the percent per census tract of those who identify as non-Hispanic Native American
Asian American (%) 2019 ACS population estimates of the percent per census tract of those who identify as non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander Other/Multiple (%) 2019 ACS population estimates of the percent per census tract of those who identify as non-Hispanic "other" or as multiple races 31 4
Description of Zeros and Missing Values
This summarizes the zero and NA values from the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 results excel spreadsheet. 8035 California Census Tracts are used in the CalEnviroScreen analysis.

Indicator Ozone PM

2.5 Diesel
PM
Drinking
Water Lead Pesticides Use
Toxic
Releases Traffic
# of
Zeros 0 0 0 0 4 5135 37 0
# of NAs 0 0 0 28 96 0 0 35
Indicator Cleanup
sites
Groundwater
threats
Hazardous
Waste
Impaired
Water
Bodies
Solid
Waste
# of Zeros 2677 2012 480 3273 3670
# of NAs 0 0 0 0 0
Indicator Asthma LBW CVD
# of Zeros 0 14 0
# of NAs 11 227 11
Indicator Education Linguistic
isolation Poverty Unemployment Housing Burden
# of Zeros 30 326 0 16 0
# of NAs 103 320 75 335 145
What do indicator raw values of zero and NA mean?
NA or missing raw values:

When an indicator has a missing value (“NA”), it typically means no monitoring or reporting was conducted or no population was reported within that census tract. For example, ambient air quality measures are not available for all California census tracts because many places do not have an air monitor close enough to reliably estimate air quality in that community.

There are 23 out of 8035 census tracts that have zero population reported by the U.S. Census in the 2015-2019 ACS. These were assigned “NA” for all population characteristic indicators. In addition, census tracts with highly unreliable estimates for the educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and rent-adjusted income indicators were assigned “NA.” The lead indicator has a socioeconomic component and thus has similar unreliable estimates that are assigned "NA". These variables are derived from the household data rather than individual level data (see the report for more detail). The low birth weight indicator has a minimum requirement of 50 births over the analyzed time period otherwise the indicator is assigned an "NA". 32 5
Zero raw values:

A value of zero, typically implies that monitoring or reporting was conducted, but no impacts were present. For many exposure and environmental effects indicators, this means that no facilities or sites were located within 1000 meters of a populated area of the census tract. For example, 2677 census tracts did not have a Cleanup site within 1000 meters of a populated area of the census tract. These census tracts were given a value of zero. Similarly, a zero for a Population Characteristics indicator such as poverty, for example, means people live there but there are no residents under the poverty level.

What do percentiles of zero and NA mean?
NA or missing percentiles values:

Indicators that include missing values (“NA”) are PM 2.5, Traffic, Drinking Water, Low Birth Weight and all socioeconomic factor indicators. In these cases, missing values were assigned no percentile (given an “NA”) and did not contribute to their overall CalEnviroScreen score. For example, if a census tract was missing both Drinking Water and Lead scores then the denominator of the exposure indicators was adjusted to six instead of eight indicators.

Zero percentile values:

Many census tracts for exposure and environmental effects indicators have a raw value of zero. We do not include these census tracts in the percentile calculation, which would give the false impression that an impact is present. For example, around 64% of census tracts have none of the select pesticides used. If these were used in the percentile calculation, a value of zero would correspond to the 63rd percentile. It is more appropriate to assign these places a percentile value of “0” corresponding to no impact. This means that for the pesticide indicator, 2792 (8035 minus 5243) census tracts make up the percentile range. Indicators with missing values (“NAs”) are never included in the percentile calculation. The Education indicator has 7902 census tracts in the percentile calculation (8035 minus 30 (zeros values) minus 103 (missing values) = 7902). 33 EXHIBIT 2
34 Hermosa Beach Office
Phone: (310) 798-2400
Fax: (310)798-2402
San Diego Office
Phone: (858) 999-0070
Phone: (619) 940-4522
Chatten-Brown, Carstens & Minteer LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
www.cbcearthlaw.com
Douglas Carstens
Email Address:
[email protected]
Direct Dial:
310-798-2405
April 12, 2021
Via email ([email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected])
Mayor Robert Garcia
Council Members Mary Zendejas, Cindy Allen, Suzie Price, Daryl Supernaw, Stacy Mungo, Suely Saro, Roberto Uranga, Al Austin, Rex Richardson City Clerk Monique De La Garza
City Manager Tom Modica
Long Beach City Hall
411 W. Ocean Blvd.

Long Beach, CA 90802
Re: April 13, 2021 City Council Hearing, Agenda Item 8 (21-0308, 21- 0309): Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Pacific Place Project, 3701 Pacific Place and 3916-4021 Ambeco Road (Mitigated Negative Declaration-10-19-20)
Dear Mayor, City Council Members, City Manager, and City Clerk, On behalf of the Riverpark Coalition, The River Project, and LA Waterkeeper, we submit these comments opposing the Planning Commission’s approval of the Pacific Place Project (“Project”) as proposed and the City’s reliance on a mitigated negative declaration (MND) prepared for it. Riverpark Coalition is a collection of community groups and individuals including residents of western Long Beach. This communitybased coalition works to promote public-serving open space in nature-deprived areas of western Long Beach. The River Project is a non-profit organization dedicated to planning 35 City of Long Beach City Council
April 12, 2021

and action to protect, reclaim, and restore vital ecosystems in Los Angeles County. The River Project’s mission is to realize a regenerative, equitable, just, and climate-resilient Los Angeles through evidence-based watershed planning, and positive action that provides local government and communities with tools to safely adapt to rapidly changing conditions. LA Waterkeeper is a non-profit organization that fights for the health of the region’s waterways, and for sustainable, equitable and climate-friendly water supplies. LA Waterkeeper supports the restoration of the LA River in a way that maximizes ecological health while safeguarding local communities.

Riverpark Coalition appealed the Planning Commission’s December 17, 2020 approval of the Project MND because of numerous flaws in the environmental review for the Project. We incorporate by reference our initial letter opposing the Project MND, submitted on November 16, 2020. (Exhibit (“Exh.”) A.) In addition to the objections stated in that letter, we request that the City Council grant our appeal for the below reasons.

I. The Project Will Have Significant Public Health and Environmental Justice Impacts.

Development of the Project will have numerous significant environmental impacts that must be studied in an EIR, as outlined below and in our previous letter to the Planning Commission. (Exh. A.) Many of these impacts will have significant environmental justice consequences. The Project Site is located on a site formerly used for oil production activities, including oil wells and oil brine treatment. (Exh. B, Project MND, p.108.) As discussed further below in Sections II, III, and VIII, disturbance of the property in order to develop the Project Site will lead to further surface and groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the Project Site. The City must act to grant this appeal and prevent the site from becoming another disaster like the Exide Battery Facility, which poisoned communities in East Los Angeles. (Exh. C, Jessica Garrison, “Exide ordered to clean up toxic substances near Vernon plant,” LA Times, Dec. 18, 2013, available at:
https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2013-dec-18-la-me-exide-20131219-story.html; Exh. D, Tony Barboza, “Auditor slams California for Exide cleanup delays, says cost could reach $650 million,” LA Times, Oct. 27, 2020, available at:
36 City of Long Beach City Council
April 12, 2021

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-27/auditor-slams-states-managementexide-cleanup-says-it-may-cost-650-million.) Instead of installing a cap on the contaminated site, which we do not believe will be sufficient to prevent contamination and leaching into surface and groundwater, the City and DTSC must commit to a full cleanup and remediation of the site to protect the public health and safety of residents of western Long Beach.

We are particularly concerned with the grading that has already been done on the site. The DTSC Draft Response Plan indicates twelve areas of elevated concentrations of toxins on the site, including arsenic, total petroleum hydrocarbon (“TPH”), and lead. (Exh. E, DTSC Response Plan, pp. 139, 196, available at https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/community_involvement/1460157096/LBIPOOI_3rd%20DRAFT%20Response%20Plan_10-15-2020_Part%201%20of%202.pdf.) The areas of elevated concentrations are distributed across the site. (Exh. E, DTSC Response Plan, p. 196.) When the developer graded the site, those toxins were likely dispersed, impacting the health and safety of the adjacent community. Los Cerritos Elementary School, a public park and multiple residences are adjacent to the Project site.

Further, the DTSC Draft Response Plan’s discussion on exposure pathways did not provide notice that this site is but a few hundred feet from an elementary school and Los Cerritos Park, frequented by residents and their children. (Exh. E, DTSC Response Plan, p. 161.) No evaluation was done at these vulnerable locations. A full EIR is required to establish the baseline environmental setting and analyze impacts to these sensitive receptors.

II. The Tookey Parcel, Adjacent to the Project Site, Contains Toxic and Hazardous Substances, and Development of the Project Site would Exacerbate Risks from These Substances.

The Project Site is located in an area unsafe for development like the Project. The Tookey Parcel is a 0.25 acre parcel located on Ambeco Road and adjacent to 3701 Pacific Place, at the Project site. (Exh. F, Roux Associates, Inc., “Site Assessment Plan and Report of Findings Addendum, Tookey Parcel, Ambeco Road, Long Beach, California,” 37 City of Long Beach City Council
April 12, 2021

April 10, 2020, p. 1 (“Tookey Parcel Report”).) The Tookey Parcel Report reveals the presence of hazardous substances at the Tookey Parcel site.

Fourteen metals regulated under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations were detected in soil samples at the site. (Exh. F, Tookey Parcel Report, p. 218.) Of these, arsenic was detected in a concentration above a screening level and site-specific action level. (Ibid.) Arsenic is a confirmed carcinogen and can cause numerous acute and long-term health effects, including cancer, developmental effects, diabetes, pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular disease. (Exh. G, World Health Organization, Arsenic Fact Sheet, available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/arsenic.) The soil analysis also revealed the presence of toluene above the laboratory method reporting limit at the Tookey Parcel site. (Exh. F, Tookey Parcel Report, p. 11.) Toluene is a volatile organic compound (VOC) that is linked to several acute and longterm health impacts, including central nervous system dysfunction and cardiac impacts. (Exh. H, U.S. EPA, Toluene Fact Sheet, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/toluene.pdf.) Numerous other VOC constituents were detected in soil vapor samples above laboratory method reporting limits as well. (Exh. F, Tookey Parcel Report, p. 219.) Because the adjacent Tookey Parcel contains toxic and hazardous substances, there is at least a fair argument of a reasonable possibility that the Project will have significant environmental impacts. Thus, the City Council should grant the appeal and require the City to prepare an EIR that investigates and addresses these impacts.

III. The City’s Environmental Review Must Include the DTSC Analysis of the Project Site.

The Planning Commission approved the Project MND even though the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) was undergoing a separate and subsequent environmental review process for the Draft Response Plan analyzing toxic hazards risks for the Project site. DTSC received comments from the community from November 16, 2020 through January 7, 2021, and held a community meeting on 38 City of Long Beach City Council
April 12, 2021

December 2, 2020. DTSC only just released its master response to the comments that were received during that time period, on April 6, 2021. (Exh. I, DTSC Master Response; Exh. J, DTSC Responsiveness Summary.) These reports must be analyzed and reviewed by the public and decisionmakers prior to approval of the Project. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 394 [post-approval environmental review not allowed].)
The DTSC Master Response reveals several concerning issues that must be analyzed further in an EIR. The site “does not drain into the stormwater system and in fact is subject to dangerous sheet flow off the Site and into both the LA River and the larger stormwater conveyance system.” (Exh. I, p. 412.) This will certainly have water quality impacts and impacts to the water system. In Friends of the Los Angeles River v.

City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Superior Court case no. BS 067338), the court found the fact that water would flow over a parking lot and potentially carry oily waste into the Los Angeles River was substantial evidence supporting a fair argument the commercial project in that case could have a significant impact on the environment and therefore required an environmental impact report to address. Exhibit K includes various materials regarding that case, including a comment letter from Lawyers for Clean Water and a brief from the Attorney General. Comments made in that letter and brief about water runoff into the Los Angeles River are applicable to this case as well and we request the City to respond to them. The judgment and administrative record from the Friends of the Los Angeles River case are incorporated in this letter by reference. Similarly, in the present case, water flowing from the project site over a parking lot and into the Los Angeles River can create significant adverse environmental impacts.

The report notes that the “City is responsible for assessing potential impacts associated with surface water related to the operations of the development. Water quality analysis associated with construction and operations is the City’s responsibility.” (Exh. I, p. 412.) The City must analyze these impacts before approving the Project.

The DTSC Master Response notes that groundwater quality at the Project site is highly degraded, and notes that “historic oil and gas production in the area and on-Site contributed to poor water quality.” (Exh. I, p. 414.)
39 City of Long Beach City Council
April 12, 2021

The DTSC Master Response also provided explanation regarding the “cap” that will be installed to attempt to mitigate the Project site’s toxicity (Exh. I, pp. 415-16), the surcharging process DTSC underwent in October 2020 prior to CEQA review (Exh. I, pp. 416-18.), and the alternative of excavating and removing toxic soils at the site (Exh. I, pp. 418-20.). This information should have been in front of the public and decisionmakers and analyzed before the Planning Commission approval of the Project.

IV. The City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element Requires Implementation of the Riverlink Plan.

Under CEQA, lead agencies must analyze whether a proposed project is inconsistent with applicable land use policies, such as the governing general plan. (Cal.

Code Regs, tit. 14 (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15125, subd. (d).) If substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the proposed project conflicts with the General Plan, then an EIR is required. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 930.) The City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element requires implementation of the Long Beach Riverlink Plan. (Exh. L.) Implementation Strategy LU-M-86 requires the City to: “Update and implement the Long Beach Riverlink Plan to create a continuous greenway of pedestrian and bike paths and linkages along the east bank of the Los Angeles River, as well as to connect to existing and future parks, open space and beaches along western portions of the City.” (Exh. L, p. 603.) The Project will surely conflict with this implementation measure, as it will foreclose public access and green space on the Project site. Thus, an EIR must be prepared to analyze this significant impact.

V. The Project Will Have Significant Biological Impacts that Must Be Analyzed in an EIR, Including Impacts to Southern Tarplants.

The MND identified that the Project would impact the southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), a special status species on the Project site; approximately 830 southern tarplant individuals were located on the site. (Exh. B, Project MND, pp. 110-11, 113.) Southern tarplant is considered a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) List 1B species, which indicates that it is considered rare, threatened, or 40 City of Long Beach City Council
April 12, 2021

endangered within California by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Riverpark Coalition previously objected to the proposed mitigation of impacts to these species, noting that transplantation of the southern tarplants would likely be ineffective. (Exh. A, Riverpark Coalition MND letter, p. 33.)
Prior to the surcharge work beginning in October 2020, and prior to the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project, the Project applicant removed all vegetation from the Project site, including the southern tarplants. It appears this removal was done without any permits from DTSC, the City of Long Beach, or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, despite repeated requests for such information. The unauthorized removal of rare plants violates the California Endangered Species Act, CEQA, the Native Plant Protection Act (Fish & Game Code § 1900 et seq.) and constitutes a significant impact under CEQA. The southern tarplants did not survive the removal.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) submitted a letter commenting on the MND with respect to the Project’s biological impacts, including environmental impacts resulting from the unauthorized vegetation removal. (Exh. M, CDFW letter, available at: https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/265257- 2/attachment/_GXmGIUvfe0NjRJWXs_NF6RntAFKdSl00gDTjZ1hAGR0WJWWSU1C TRaEks0YnW2lKcnABgf1LIY7cUWF0.) In the letter, CDFW recommended that “The vegetated area that was removed before adequate surveys were conducted should be identified as a significant impact.” (Exh. M, p. 608.) CDFW also noted that the MND’s planned mitigation of southern tarplant impacts would be ineffective, stating that the “Project may result in population declines or local extirpation of the species.” (Exh. M, pp. 612-13.)
CDFW also recommended additional analysis and mitigation of impacts to Crotch’s Bumble Bee (Exh. M, pp. 608-09); bat species, including California Species of Special Concern (Exh. M, pp. 609-11); burrowing owl (Exh. M, pp. 611-12); southern tarplant (Exh. M, pp. 612-13); special status plants (Exh. M, pp. 614-15); nesting birds (Exh. M, pp. 615-16); tree removal (Exh. M, pp. 616-17); and aquatic resources (Exh. M, pp. 617-618.) Each of these exceeds the fair argument standard, requiring the City to prepare a full EIR. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) 41 City of Long Beach City Council
April 12, 2021

VI. The City’s Continued Non-Provision of Documents Requested Under the Public Records Act Hinders Public Review.

Counsel for Riverpark Coalition filed a Public Records Act request on November 23, 2020, prior to the Planning Commission’s approval of the MND (Request # C009364- 112320). The City responded a month later, on December 23, 2020, stating that responsive records exist and will be disclosed. However, the City has yet to provide any documents.

The Public Records Act at Government Code section 6253, subdivision (c) requires public agencies to respond to requests for public records within 10 days of receipt of a request, and authorizes extensions of no more than 14 days only under unusual circumstances. Even if a 14-day extension were warranted, the City cannot justify a delay of over four months in providing documents.

Because the Riverpark Coalition has been unable to obtain these documents, it has not had the opportunity to review all possible documents relating to the Project site. Thus, the Project should not move forward until the public has had the opportunity to review these documents and raise all potential concerns regarding the Project site.

VII. The Project Site Was Intended for Much Needed Park Development in Western Long Beach.

There is an enormous disparity of park and open space access in the City of Long Beach. Six out of seven members of the Long Beach Post Community Editorial Board recently published an editorial entitled “Make Green Space Not Development The Priority On The LA Riverfront,” urging the City Council to prioritize green space on the LA River and to “stop plans for development in order to conduct a full Environmental Impact Report and to continue to advocate for the River Park.” (Exh. N, Long Beach Post, Community Editorial Board, “Make Green Space Not Development The Priority On The LA Riverfront,” Apr. 9, 2021, available at: https://lbpost.com/voices/editorial-makegreen-space-not-development-the-priority-on-the-la-riverfront.) 42 City of Long Beach City Council
April 12, 2021

According to the Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation of Marine’s (“DPRM”) 2003 Strategic Plan, the West park district has only 1 acre of parkland per 1,000 residents, while the East park district has 16 acres per 1,000 residents. (Exh. O, p. 630.) To respond to this disparity, DPRM included Strategy 1.1 as part of its Strategic Plan, which established a target of 8 acres per 1,000 residents. (Exh. O, p. 631.) Strategy

1.1 identified 50 acres in Wrigley Heights for park development. (Exh. O, p. 631.) The City must maintain its commitment to provide much needed park space in western Long Beach by reserving the Project site for park access.

VIII. The Project Will Have Additional Significant Impacts to Water Resources.

The Project will have additional significant impacts to water resources. The surcharge is directly loading weight (1 million lbs) and displacing the only storm sewer pipe serving the site and the neighborhood to the east, including Los Cerritos Park. The displacing of the pipe segments will cause the most highly contaminated “toothpaste consistency” soil to leak into the storm drain pipe which discharges directly into the LA River. The displacement of the pipe segments will also cause the storm drain to cease working as intended resulting in flooding to the area.

The surcharge is directly loading weight on and potentially causing damage to two abandoned oil wells on the site, immediately north of the proposed building and two active oil pipelines. Exhibit P shows the location of the oil wells, surcharge pile, and their position relative to the storm drain.

The plans from developer InSite detail onsite treatment of storm drainage from the nearly 14 acres of impervious surface (asphalt and concrete paving, and the building) plus some storm drainage from the access road leading to the site. (Exh. Q.) The treated stormwater will then be dumped into the existing storm drain under the building. These 14 acres were never intended to drain into the storm drain pipe (referenced above) which will likely not be working as intended after the surcharge work is completed; instead, the permeable earth absorbed much of the rain during storm events. 43 City of Long Beach City Council
April 12, 2021

The InSite plans detail onsite storm drainage tying into the existing 30 inch storm drain, yet available plans from the County Flood Control District indicate a storm drain pipe 24 inches in diameter, a 36% smaller capacity. (Exh. Q; Exh. R, County Flood Control District Plans.) Exhibit S is a graphic showing the difference in drain diameters.

Further, as mentioned above, the Project is located on a site contaminated from former oil drilling activities. Compaction, as is required prior to building on the site, is going to displace groundwater, and displacement of groundwater is going to spread contamination to new locations. This is a significant environmental effect that must be addressed in an EIR.

For all these reasons, a full EIR is needed to analyze and mitigate these impacts to water resources.

IX. The Project Site is Not Stable Enough to Support Construction of the Project.

The Project Site is not suitable to support construction of the Project. We incorporate by reference a May 27, 2009 Final Remedial Investigation Report for the Former Oil Operators North Site, 3701 Pacific Place, Long Beach, California, prepared by LFR Inc. (“May 2009 Report”). This report is available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/deliverable_documents/8662384510/LB%20In d.%20Park_May%2027%202009_LFR_CRG_RI%20Report%20%28Full%20%26%20F INAL%29.pdf.

In that report, LFR states that GEOFON, Inc. performed a geotechnical investigation to provide an evaluation of subsurface conditions at the Site in relation to the design and construction of a proposed business park development. (Exh. T, Excerpt from May 2009 Report, p. 659.) GEOFON concluded that surface conditions at the time were not suitable for supporting structures on shallow foundations. (Exh. T, Excerpt from May 2009 Report, p. 660.) The sump materials have highly variable engineering properties and are too compressible for supporting structures or fills. (Ibid.) A full EIR is required to evaluate these impacts.
44 City of Long Beach City Council
April 12, 2021

X. The Project Variance is Not Supportable Because it is a Self Imposed Hardship, and the Requirement of a Variance is an Significant Land Use Impact.

The Project includes application for a variance from height restrictions to allow for a building height of 43 feet 11 inches, almost 16 feet over the maximum allowable height of 28 feet. There is no justification that would support a variance.

Under the Long Beach Municipal Code, a variance may only be approved in cases of undue hardship where it is necessary to enjoy a property right and does not convey a special privilege or remedy a self-imposed hardship. (Long Beach Municipal Code §§

21.15.2890, 21.25.306; Broadway, Laguna, etc., Ass'n v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 767, 772). An inconvenience is not sufficient to show an undue hardship. (Long Beach Municipal Code §§ 21.15.2890.) In this case, the excessive height of the building is a self-imposed hardship related to the building design the project applicant desires. There is no basis for granting a variance from the generally applicable Municipal Code.

Further, the requirement of a variance is a significant land use impact that should have been identified as an inconsistency with the zoning ordinance and analyzed in a full EIR. (Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 930-31 [finding that a project’s inconsistency with city land use regulations triggered a full EIR].) XI. Conclusion.

For the foregoing reasons, we urge the City Council to grant this appeal and direct the Planning Commission to require the City to prepare a full EIR and ensure the requirements of CEQA are adequately followed. Thank you for considering our comments. We look forward to the City’s preparation of an EIR for this Project that carefully considers the direct and cumulative environmental impacts of the Pacific Place Project and that contains a thorough analysis of alternatives and mitigation measures 45 City of Long Beach City Council
April 12, 2021

designed to reduce and avoid these adverse impacts on the City of Long Beach and its residents.

Sincerely,
Sunjana Supekar
Douglas P. Carstens
Enclosures:

A. Riverpark Coalition November 16, 2020 Letter Opposing MND B. Excerpts from Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, October 19, 2020.

C. LA Times Article, Jessica Garrison, “Exide ordered to clean up toxic substances near Vernon plant,” Dec. 18, 2013.

D. LA Times Article, Tony Barboza, “Auditor slams California for Exide cleanup delays, says cost could reach $650 million,” Oct. 27, 2020.

E. DTSC Draft Response Plan, Long Beach Industrial Park, Revised Oct. 15, 2020.

F. Site Assessment Plan and Report of Findings Addendum, Tookey Parcel, prepared by Roux Associates, Inc., Apr. 10, 2020.

G. Arsenic fact page, World Health Organization
H. Toluene fact page, US Environmental Protection Agency I. DTSC Master Response to Comments, Draft Response Plan, Apr. 6, 2021.

J. DTSC Responsiveness Summary, Draft Response Plan, Apr. 6, 2021.

K. Materials relating to Friends of the Los Angeles River v. City of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Superior Court case no. BS 067338.

L. Excerpts of City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element.

M. November 17, 2020 Comment Letter from CDFW on the Project MND N. Long Beach Post, Community Editorial Board, “Make Green Space Not Development The Priority On The LA Riverfront,” Apr. 9, 2021.

O. Excerpts from Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation, and Marine 2003 Strategic Plan Executive Summary, Apr. 7, 2003.

P. Diagram showing surcharge loading weight on oil wells on site Q. Conceptual site plans for InSite Pacific Self Storage R. County Flood Control District Plans
S. Graphic showing the difference in drain pipe diameters T. Excerpts from May 27, 2009 Final Remedial Investigation Report for the Former Oil Operators North Site, prepared by LFR Inc.
46 EXHIBIT A
47 Hermosa Beach Office
Phone: (310) 798-2400
San Diego Office
Phone: (858) 999-0070
Phone: (619) 940-4522
Chatten-Brown, Carstens & Minteer LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
www.cbcearthlaw.com
Douglas Carstens
Email Address:
[email protected]
Direct Dial:
310-798-2400 Ext. 1
November 16, 2020
Ms. Amy Harbin, AICP
Planner
City of Long Beach
Development Services Department
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor
Long Beach CA 90802
[email protected]
Re: Objection to Pacific Place Project 3701 Pacific Place and 3916-4021 Ambeco Road (Mitigated Negative Declaration-10-19-20)
Dear Ms. Harbin,
On behalf of the Riverpark Coalition, we submit these comments opposing the Pacific Place Project (the Project) as proposed and the City’s reliance on a mitigated negative declaration (MND) prepared for it.1 Riverpark Coalition is a collection of community groups and individuals including residents of West Long Beach. This community-based coalition works to promote public-serving open space in nature-deprived areas of West Long Beach. (See Enclosure 1, Riverpark Coalition Call to Action.)
The Project’s census tract in West Long Beach ranks worse than 85 percent of the rest of the state for pollution burden, attributable to contaminated sites, solid waste and hazardous vehicle emissions in the area. (See https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen (last visited Nov. 14, 2020.) The Project area is also a designated “Disadvantaged Community” per California Senate Bill (SB) 535. The area is a predominantly Hispanic and Asian community that is 82% people of color. The area has more people living with asthma, emergency department visits for asthma symptoms, and deaths from asthma, than 91% of census tracts throughout California.

Of great concern to the Riverpark Coalition, proponents of the Pacific Place Project (Project) are attempting to replace over 19 acres of open space along the Los Angeles River with a large-scale commercial warehouse, storage, office, and parking lot development that would have adverse impacts on the environment with regard to air quality, aesthetics, biological resources, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, historic and cultural resources, tribal resources, and hydrology and water quality, among other impacts. The Project will also eliminate any possible relief and recreational opportunities, whereas currently the surrounding community 1 The Initial Study and MND is available at this link:
http://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/medialibrary/documents/planning/environmental/environmental-reports/pending/pacific-place-project3701-pacific-place/pacific_place_mnd-101920, last visited on November 16, 2020. 48 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

is able to use portions of this space and nearby areas for passive and active recreation, including biking, horse-riding, jogging and yoga.

This Project site is divided into two components: the Artesia parcels and the McDonald Trust parcels. As proposed, the Project on the Artesia parcels (Artesia Project) will transform a former golf driving range into a self-storage unit, recreational vehicle (RV) storage area, and a self-serve car wash with a waste disposal station. Specifically, the Artesia Project would develop an asphalt parking lot to accommodate over 500 vehicles, including trailers, campers, boats, and trucks. The Project’s three-story structure would be permitted to build additional office space and would be 40 feet high, exceeding the current maximum building height of 28 feet under proposed Commercial Storage (CS) zoning. (MND, p. 3-1.) The Project on the McDonald parcels (McDonald Project) would include a single-story warehouse and a 10-truck loading dock. This development would be permitted for and assumed to consist of warehouse space and office space that would be built on the McDonald Trust parcels north of the Artesia parcels. (Notice of Intent (NOI), p. 2.) Combined, the Project area totals approximately 19.41 acres. (NOI, p. 1-2.) Of particular concern, there are 13 abandoned oil wells in the Project area, surrounded by land that formerly stored toxic waste and sewage that is now buried. (NOI p. 2.) The Project requires numerous entitlements including a general plan amendment, conditional use permit, site plan review, specific plan amendments, and a zone change.

With regard to the Pacific Place Project, the City of Long Beach (City) has failed to prepare a legally adequate initial study as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is improperly omitting consideration of potentially significant Project impacts and lacking evidentiary support for claims that Project impacts would be insignificant.

CEQA serves two basic, interrelated functions: ensuring environmental protection and encouraging governmental transparency. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) CEQA has been termed a “bill of rights for an environmental democracy” 2 because of the manner in which it promotes and protects public participation in public agency decisions. In connection with the Projects’ review under CEQA, the City has prepared an initial study and mitigated negative declaration.

A lead agency prepares an initial study in order to determine whether an environmental impact report (EIR), a negative declaration, or an MND is the appropriate environmental review document. (14 CCR § 15365, herein “CEQA Guidelines.”) The initial study must consider whether any aspect of a project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant 2 Byron Sher, California State Legislator 1980-2004 Planning and Conservation League, “Everyday Heroes Protect the Air We Breathe, the Water We Drink, and the Natural Areas We Prize, Thirty-Five Years of the California Environmental Quality Act,” 2005, available at https://www.pcl.org/media/prior-c/CEQA-Everyday-Heroes-full_report.pdf. 49 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

adverse impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1).)3
Failure to adequately analyze all of a
project’s potentially significant impacts or provide evidence to support conclusions reached in the initial study is a failure to comply with the law.

The preparation of an MND for a Project that would eliminate one of the two last remaining large pieces of open space in West Long Beach, unearth toxic soil, and increase air contamination, traffic, and construction impacts in an already pollution-burdened and naturedeprived community is unconscionable. Because a fair argument exists that the Project will have a significant environmental impact, an EIR must be prepared.

I. The Surrounding Area of Los Cerritos is Extremely Pollution-Burdened.

The MND fails to adequately reference or disclose updated air quality data addressing the “high pollution burden” surrounding the Project area. According to CalEnviroScreen 3.0,4 CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for “pollution burden” and vulnerability, the Project’s census tract ranks worse than 85 percent of the rest of the state for pollution burden, attributable to contaminated sites, solid waste and hazardous vehicle emissions in the area. (See https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen.) The Project area is also a designated “Disadvantaged Community”5 per California Senate Bill (SB) 535, a bill that was passed to identify and target funds to assist communities disproportionately burdened by pollution. (Grayson Schmidt, Asthma Alley: Long Beach ranks worst in U.S. for air quality, CRONKITE 3 The purpose of the initial study is to provide the lead agency with adequate information regarding a project to determine the appropriate environmental review document and “documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment.” (Ctr. for Sierra Nevada Conservation v.

County of El Dorado (2012) 2020 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1170, citations omitted.) There must be a basis within the record to support the conclusions reached by the initial study. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1201.) “Where an agency… fails to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate.” (El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v.

County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1597, citations omitted.) 4 CalEnviroScreen is a tool created by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores and rank every census tract in the state. (CalEnviroScreen 3.0, Cal. Off. Environmental Health Hazard Assessment <https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30> (last visited Nov. 15, 2020). A census tract with a high score is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than a census tract with a low score.
5 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities Map, using CalEnviroScreen 3.0 results June 2018 Update, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535 (follow “click to open this map in a new window” hyperlink; then search find address or place field for “3701 Pacific Place Long Beach, California 90807.”)
50 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

NEWS (Oct. 1, 2019), https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2019/10/01/long-beach-air-qualityproblems/.) West Long Beach is divided by heavily-trafficked freeways that carry countless truck routes leading to and from major ports, warehouses, and commercial distribution centers.

These routes increase “diesel particulate pollution due to the diesel-powered ships, trains, trucks, cargo handling equipment and other machinery involved in freight movement in Southern California.” (Pierce Nahigyan, Environmental Health Hazards Impacting the City of Long Beach, LONG BEACH BUSINESS JOURNAL (May 6, 2019),
https://lbbusinessjournal.com/environmental-health-hazards-impacting-the-city-of-long-beach.) The MND also overlooks the Project area’s community demographics and how they could render the area especially susceptible to the potential environmental impacts of the Project.

In other words, the MND completely fails to acknowledge the serious and adverse environmental justice impacts this Project would have. The area is a predominantly Hispanic and Asian community that is 82% people of color with an asthma score of 91, meaning the area has more people living with asthma, emergency department visits for asthma symptoms, and deaths from asthma, than 91% of census tracts throughout California.

The area also includes a wide range of other sensitive receptors that would be significantly impacted by the Project. The area’s population is 11% children under the age of 10-years and 11% elderly, over the age of 65-years—both of whom are especially vulnerable to cancer, asthma, heart disease, and other health impacts aggravated by pollution. Although the MND admits that the Project is proposed near “single-family residences, the Los Cerritos Elementary School, and Los Cerritos Park (approximately 160 feet east northeast of the Project site),” the MND does not meaningfully acknowledge the Project’s close proximity to prominent cycling routes like the Los Angeles River Bikeway and equestrian pathways such as the Los Angeles River Regional Equestrian Trail. The MND also overlooks areas slated to be revitalized for passive and recreational use along the LA River.

The MND must account for all sensitive receptors surrounding the Project area, as well as the high pollution burden that they already endure. As written, the MND is not an adequate informational document because it lacks critical data that is required to properly analyze and mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts. Furthermore, the MND’s deficiencies prevent the reader from comprehending how the Project would combine with and exacerbate the area’s current pollution burden. A full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing environmental impacts at the Project area and feasible mitigation measures is required.

II. The Project Would Adversely Impact the City’s Already Limited Supply of Parks and Open Space in West Long Beach.

West Long Beach residents have one acre of parkland per 1,000 residents. It is currently a federally-defined park poor community as shown in Table 1 below and the 2007 Long Beach RiverLink Report (Enclosure 2.)
51 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

Table 1. Long Beach - Parks Needs Assessment.

Western Long Beach 1 acre per 1000 residents
South Long Beach 2.7 acres per 1000 residents
Eastern Quadrant of Long Beach 16.7 acres per 1000 residents Long Beach Citywide 5.4 acres average citywide
Source: (RiverLink planning document, p.1 (Enclosure 1), http://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/park/medialibrary/documents/business-operations/about/in-development/riverlink-report/. (last visited Nov.14, 2020.) Due to historical development trends that favored industry with high levels of pollution, western Long Beach has a severe need for more parks and open space. In 2002, the City’s Open Space and Recreation Element formally established a goal to reverse this harmful trend and achieve an average of eight (8.0) acres of recreational open space per 1,000 residents.

Subsequently, in 2007, the Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine authored the RiverLink planning document (RiverLink). The RiverLink provides a vision of an integrated open space system and a framework to connect westside neighborhoods and greater Long Beach with the Los Angeles River (LA River.) (See Enclosure 2.) When fully implemented the RiverLink was supposed to contain 263 acres of open space. Long Beach’s vision for the LA River is one of a “River that provides aesthetic, recreational, and ecological benefits, in addition to serving its flood control purposes.” (See LA RiverLink planning document, http://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/park/media-library/documents/businessoperations/about/in-development/riverlink-report/ (last visited Nov. 15, 2020.) The RiverLink plan specifically stated for the “Wrigley Height-North” portion “Riverlink proposes keeping the driving range and improving the excess River right -of-way as a riparian woodland to complement the adjacent wetland at Dominguez Gap (see Exhibit 18).” (Encl. 2, RiverLink, p. 11.) On the “Wrigley Heights-South” portion, Riverlink “proposes that as much of the area as possible become an open space destination containing a restored wetland, riparian woodland, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and a neighborhood park with a playground, picnic areas, and other amenities (see Exhibit 21).” (Encl. 2, RiverLink, p. 12.) With the current proposed project and others similar to it that put planned greenspace to other uses (such as the Riverwalk project in 2015), the open space vision in the RiverLink document would never be achieved. Such an impact is significant and requires preparation of an EIR.
52 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

Currently the eastern side of Long Beach has seventeen times more acreage dedicated to parks and open space than the westside of Long Beach, where the Project is now proposed. The Project area presents an unparalleled opportunity to bridge this gap by creating a park and preserving open space in an area that needs more of both. Further, this site is one of West Long Beach’s last two remaining large pieces of land suitable for open space parkland. Paving over this land to build a parking lot and storage center would permanently deepen east and West Long Beach’s parkland disparity. However, the City can reject the development of this brownfield site for storage and warehousing and instead work with Federal, State, and Local Agencies to address what will benefit West Long Beach: more urban forests and revitalized public parkland to serve as the lungs of this neighborhood and encourage public-serving open space in western Long Beach. The MND denies any recreational impacts will occur. (MND, p. 5-76). Instead, the recreational impacts of the Project in permanently foreclosing opportunities for maintaining and expanding open space are significant and require preparation of an EIR.

Davenport Park, once a landfill turned industrial site in North Long Beach, was recently converted into a flourishing park. This former brownfield was acquired by the Redevelopment Agency in 2001 with North Long Beach Project Area Funds. (See Parks, Recreation and Marine website, Ed “Pops” Davenport Park information, http://www.longbeach.gov/park/park-andfacilities/directory/ed-pops-davenport-park/ (last visited Nov. 14, 2020.) The Davenport Park project is a prime example of how this project area in West Long Beach could and should be used. Revitalizing the little open space that remains is critical to achieve the City’s 2002 and 2007 commitments: to increase average park acreage in West Long Beach and aid disadvantaged communities disproportionately saddled with environmental pollution.

III. The MND Fails to Adequately Analyze Air Quality and Construction-Related Impacts.

CEQA requires the MND to assess both direct and indirect impacts on air quality, and to determine whether the Project will result in increases of the six “criteria pollutants” for which there are national air quality standards: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead. (United States Environmental Protection Agency website, Criteria Air Pollutants, https://www.epa.gov/criteriaair-pollutants (last visited Nov. 16, 2020).) The Project’s close proximity to two major freeways (405 and 710 Freeways) along with its plan to build a large-scale parking lot, storage facility and truck loading dock, will increase vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) to and from the site, growing West Long Beach residents’ exposure to harmful vehicle emissions. Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material. (See California Air Resources Board, Overview:

Diesel Exhaust & Health, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health (last visited Nov. 16, 2020).) This mix of particles, emitted from trucks, buses, trains, ships, and other equipment with diesel engines, forms a toxic blend of over “40 toxic air contaminants.” (See California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Health Effects of Diesel 53 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

Exhaust (May 21, 2001), https://oehha.ca.gov/air/health-effects-diesel-exhaust.) These toxic air contaminants (TAC) “include many known or suspected cancer-causing substances, such as benzene, arsenic and formaldehyde.” (Id.) In 2012, after a formal meeting of international health experts, “the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)… classified diesel engine exhaust as carcinogenic to humans.” (International Agency for Research on Cancer: World Health Organization, IARC: Diesel Engine Exhaust Carcinogenic (June 12, 2012), https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr213_E.pdf.) This finding was based on “sufficient evidence that exposure to [diesel PM] is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer.” (Id.) Therefore, communities like West Long Beach, living near well-established diesel truck routes, “have a higher cancer risk from airborne toxics.” (Marla Cone, U.S.

Neighborhoods Struggle with Health Threats from Traffic Pollution, Scientific American (October 11, 2011), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/us-neighborhoods-struggle-with-healththreats-from-traffic-pollution/.) Nitrogen oxides (NOx) is produced as a result of emissions from the burning of fuels in vehicles and stationary sources. (See California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Health Studies of Criteria Pollutants, https://oehha.ca.gov/air/health-studies-criteriaair-pollutants (last visited Nov. 16, 2020).) When NOx mixes with volatile organic compounds (VOC), like aerosol sprays and paint, they blend to form ozone. Ozone exposure is known to cause “headaches, coughing, dry throat, shortness of breath, a heavy feeling in chest, and fluid in the lungs.” (The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Ozone overview, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ozone/default.html (last visited Nov. 16, 2020).) Long-term exposure to NOx and ozone may even lead to chronic asthma. (Id.) In 2016, a “large study found evidence that people with lung cancer faced greater risk from [NOx], ozone, and other outdoor air pollutants… researchers found that exposure to these air pollutants shortened their survival.” (See American Lung Association, Nitrogen Oxide, https://www.lung.org/cleanair/outdoors/what-makes-air-unhealthy/nitrogen-dioxide (last visited Nov. 16, 2020); Eckel SP, Cockburn M, Shu Y-H, et al. F. Air pollution affects lung cancer survival. Thorax. 2016: 71:
891-898.)
Here, the MND’S Air Quality section only seems to consider the diesel PM impacts from construction and not from the operation of the MacDonald’s parcel as a warehouse. (MND, p. 5-

14.) In particular, the MND limits its discussion of exposure to sensitive receptors to diesel PM exposure from construction activities, not from diesel truck traffic created as a result of the warehouse. (MND, p. 5-18.) Furthermore, the MND doesn’t describe the types of vehicles that will visit the warehouse beyond stating that there will be “134 daily vehicle trips.” (MND, p. 5-

15.) However, it does acknowledge trucks will visit the warehouse by stating: there are 18 truck parking spots (MND, pp. 5-15, 3-3), limits on truck idling as a noise mitigation measure, and 10 truck dock doors (MND, p. 5-68). Nevertheless, the MND states that the operational emissions from the MacDonald site will be very low (see MND, p. 5-17). There is no valid evidence to support an assertion that daily diesel truck trips to and from the warehouse would result in less than 1 pound of PM2.5 and 1 pound of NOx per day.
54 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

Furthermore, the MND does not analyze any additional impacts from the fact that the warehouse will be refrigerated and that at least some of the heavy-duty trucks will use transport refrigeration units (TRUs), which are known to result in higher emissions. (See California Air Resources Board, Information about Transport Refrigeration Unit, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/transport-refrigeration-unit (last visited Nov.16, 2020).) Although the MND recognizes transport refrigeration units (TRUs) will use the Project’s warehouse, (MND, p. 5- 73), it does not account for studies that have shown that TRUs can emit up to 6 times more NOx and 29 times more PM than a truck’s main engine. (Staff, Emissions trading and refrigerated truck engines under scrutiny, The Guardian (Nov. 10, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/10/emissions-trading-and-refrigeratedtruck-engines-under-scrutiny.) Although the MND’s Air Quality Introduction clearly states that the Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (“Basin”), it hides the fact that the Basin is designated as a state and federal non-attainment area. In fact, the Basin is in extreme nonattainment for federal ozone standards, meaning that it is the highest level of nonattainment. Rather than stating this simple fact, the MND forces the reader to analyze a chart to determine the attainment status of the of the Basin for criteria pollutants. After exhaustively detailing how regional ambient air quality is measured, the MND briefly states in a footnote on page 5-17 (Cumulative Impacts section) “Los Angeles County is also a nonattainment area for lead, but the concern for lead emissions is limited to specific industrial sources such as battery manufacturing and reprocessing facilities,” followed by no mention of specific negative health related impacts from either criteria pollutants or lead. Reading this, a member of the public would reasonably overlook this critical information and might even assume that there are no traces of lead at the site—which has not been established by the MND. (See California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1249.) It is also difficult to decipher the air quality data in Table 4 (Air Quality Levels Measured at the Long Beach Monitoring Stations) within the text and a reader who is unfamiliar with how ambient air quality is measured would not easily grasp that the Project has been proposed in a federal non-attainment area that would likely be exacerbated by the Project’s construction and operational emissions.

The MND’s air quality analysis regarding construction-related emissions is also vague and too conclusory. This section does not adequately disclose the long-term health risks that exposure to construction emissions such as diesel exhaust and TACs pose. (The Report on Diesel Exhaust, Cal. Air Res. Bd., http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/de-fnds.htm (last visited Nov. 14, 2020).) Absent substantive analysis, the MND’s Air Quality section asserts on page 5-7 that “the majority of the populace can overcome short-term air quality health concerns” without acknowledging that the Project is being proposed in a vulnerable community that already has more asthma-related emergency room visits than 91% of all census tracts in California.

Long Beach’s air quality is already poor, attributable to the geography of the region, decades of non-attainment of air quality standards, and the high number of vehicle trips and resultant exhaust emissions. Although the MND claims that Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions will not be significant due to a majority of local clientele 55 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

and shorter vehicle trips to and from the site it (MND, p. 5-46), it does not account for how the emissions will interact with existing pollution at the site, and how those emissions will interact over time. The Project will also attract visitors, during both the construction and operational phases, which will increase traffic and emissions, further impacting air quality in the area.

Furthermore, the Project would require use of diesel-powered trucks and earth-moving machinery on what is likely highly contaminated soil. Therefore, containing fugitive dust and preventing it from spreading to surrounding sensitive receptors is critical. The MND claims developers will adhere to strict “[d]ust watering” regiments to control fugitive dust. (MND, p. 5-11.) However, neighbors recently documented construction activities proceeding in the Project area without any watering of the soil. Such reckless indifference to the community surrounding the Project area is unacceptable and a sign that the Project proponents do not plan to adhere to the strict watering regimen they describe in the MND. The MND has failed to provide feasible mitigation or project alternatives to prevent exposure to significant construction or air quality impacts. Additional investigation and mitigation measures are required. For example, West Long Beach residents have documented construction activities occurring on the Project site up to approximately 9:30 pm on the night of November 12, 2020 in violation of City construction and noise ordinances.

IV. Construction Noise Impacts are Understated and Insufficiently Analyzed.

The Project is positioned near noise-generating infrastructure, including the I-405 and I-710 Freeways, an active railway, and the Los Angeles River. Construction of a vast array of commercial developments, including a storage facility, a 500-slot parking lot, RV storage area, truck-loading dock, and self-serve car wash would require a range of construction equipment, vehicles, and construction materials. Such a labor-intensive process has the potential to generate light and noise pollution that will disturb residents and interfere with wildlife behavior along the LA River. These construction activities will also negatively impact the Los Cerritos Park, which supports active and passive recreational use across from the street (Del Mar Avenue) near the project area.

The MND fails to propose any mitigation measures that might ameliorate light and noise impacts such as installing a temporary noise wall. Further, the MND’s conclusion that all construction and operational noise impacts are mitigated below the level of significance is groundless. Its analysis does not account for or even attempt to mitigate obvious noise impacts such as large vehicles idling outside the Project area, car doors slamming, or operation of the 10- truck loading station. Recently the nearby neighborhood of California Heights has experienced increased noise when the city allowed a trucking firm to operate a truck yard in a corner of airport property. While the hours of operation were supposed to have been limited to business hours, the truck yard operated 24-7 with incessant noise from the trucks and the loud beeping of backup alarms. The City did nothing to enforce the permit conditions. Effective and enforceable permit conditions such as limiting operational hours for the project, among other measures, must be required here. The MND should analyze these impacts and discuss proper mitigation 56 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

measures. An EIR should be prepared to discuss the Project’s light and noise impacts during the proposed construction period.

V. The Project Initiated an Unpermitted and Premature Surcharge Test.

In furtherance of the proposed Project, the applicant began unearthing large amounts of soil and started an unpermitted surcharge test before adequately assessing the soil. Generally, developers drill and pull up core samples in several places at a potential site before development to decipher the nature of the site that they plan to build on and to create a plan to decide how to address potential environmental conditions. On occasion, developers will mix in amendments to stabilize the soil or move contaminated soil to a dump site. Next, developers typically prepare for a surcharge test (typically 1-2 years long), followed by measuring how much soil sank during the test period. Surcharge tests are vital to decide if a site is stable enough to hold the building being contemplated and should not be performed before environmental review.

Here, the Project proponent has violated City ordinances and risked community exposure to toxic substances. The applicant started a surcharge test before analyzing the environmental conditions that exist at the site. At minimum, the developers should have performed core sampling and evaluation before starting their surcharge test, which is a standard component of an EIR. The ongoing surcharge at the site is, by design, pushing down on the existing soil and along with it the existing subterranean structures such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer, abandoned oil wells, and at least one oil pipeline (see Figure 3 below, the Diagram of Premature Surcharge Program). The oil pipelines, sewers, and the 83-year-old abandoned oil wells are not designed to support the load of approximately 54,000 tons of soil being imposed upon them and are likely suffering damage already.

VI. The Developer’s Premature Surcharge Program Violates CEQA.

Prior to development, the soil beneath the Project requires a test program, called a surcharge test, to measure the bearing capacity of the area beneath the building footprint for construction purposes. The Artesia Acquisition Company (the Artesia Parcel Developer) prematurely started this test during the pendency of environmental review, which violates CEQA. Even though the Project has not been fully entitled, the Artesia Developer graded the Project site and removed vegetation, including sensitive southern tarplant species. All grading and vegetation removal proceeded without public notice and before the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) completed its study of the Project area. DTSC has released its proposed response plan with a comment from November 16 to December 18, 2020. No action on the current application should proceed until that response plan is formulated. The necessity for a response plan highlights the need for an EIR before further reviewing the proposed Project. (See DTSC Events Calendar – Event Detail, Public Meeting for the Long Beach Industrial ParkEventshttps://apps.dtsc.ca.gov/calendar/event_details.cfm?event_id=5725&cur_date=12/02/ 2020 (last visited Nov. 14, 2020.)
57 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

In addition to violating CEQA, the surcharge program is damaging structures at the Project area. Based on a preliminary analysis of the survey provided in the MND, the surcharge operations currently being conducted will negatively impact existing subterranean structures including at least two oil wells, two monitoring wells, an existing 30” storm drain, an existing 30” sanitary sewer, and at least one existing oil line.

Figure 3. Diagram of Premature Surcharge Program.

As explained by the California Supreme Court, “[a] fundamental purpose of [CEQA review] is to provide decisionmakers with information they can use in deciding whether to approve a proposed project[.]” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 394.) The Supreme Court further cautioned against post hoc environmental review, explaining that it has “expressly condemned this use of [CEQA].” (Id.) Here, the MND is misleading because it relies on conditions before grading and vegetation removal for the purpose of setting a baseline to measure the Project’s impacts without disclosing the unpermitted and therefore illegal activities that are occurring or have occurred already For example, the MND proposes one of two mitigation alternatives to offset “potential impacts to the southern tarplant species.” (MND, 5-24.) Yet, the Artesia Parcel developer has already graded and removed southern tarplant species from the site in preparation for their premature surcharge program.6
The Artesia Developer’s surcharge program is a particular cause 6 The State Attorney General should be advised of the illegal and unpermitted activities of tarplant removal and unpermitted surcharging. We are herewith including three California Attorney General comment letters identifying California Environmental Quality Act issues other environmentally damaging projects proposed in disadvantaged communities. (Enclosure 3.) These letters are available on the Attorney General’s website:
58 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

for concern given the site’s history of contaminated soil, abandoned oil wells, and the need for a full EIR, which will take additional time to prepare. As currently formulated, the MND prejudices informed decision-making and violates CEQA.

VII. Potential Impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources Are Not Properly Analyzed.

The Los Cerritos area of Long Beach has a long and storied history. It is home to residents who have lived in West Long Beach for generations. Some are descendants of the Gabrieleno-Tongva people, with parents and grandparents who worked at oil refineries and witnessed toxic dump sites, like the one beneath the Project area’s surface. In 1930, cogstones were found at the Rancho Los Cerritos, which makes this location a Sacred Site. More recently, a Tongva village (Tevaaxa’nga) was recorded as being located along the river near the Rancho Los Cerritos. Similarly, a Los Cerritos resident of Gabrieleno-Tongva ancestry documented two tribal village sites that were likely in the immediate vicinity of the Project area. Indigenous survivors of European settlement lived on these sites to work as farmers and horseman on the Los Cerritos Rancho. This open space is precious and preserving this land is critical for cultural preservation. We question whether the Native American Heritage Commission has been meaningfully informed about the nature of the Project. The City is required to comply with AB 52 consultation requirements.

The Project area is eligible to be designated a Tribal Traditional Landscape. As with National Register sites, it is not necessary to have artifacts or physical evidence on a Sacred Site or Traditional Tribal Landscape for a place to be considered worthy of preservation. The MND improperly concludes that the Project would not result in a significant adverse impact to any identified or eligible historical resources. Mitigation measure MM CULT-1 further states that if “cultural (archaeological) resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation activities…[t]he Project Applicant/Developer shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist, subject to approval by the lead agency, to evaluate the significance of the find and determine an appropriate course of action.” (MND, p. 5-28). This measure is vague and improperly deferred in violation of CEQA. There is no valid reason that village sites, artifact finds, equestrian trails, and historic pathways on and adjacent to the Project have not yet been evaluated in a historic resource report to determine its eligibility for the California Register and to list its character defining features.

Another example of the historic cultural significance of the Project site is found in the Diary of Father Pedro Font, who documented the Portola Expedition traveling near the Project area. This historic diary is readily available for evaluation. Father Font was the chaplain of Juan Bautista de Anza's expedition that explored Alta California from 1775 to 1776. His diary, With Anza to California, serves as the principal account of this expedition. Father Font refers to the https://oag.ca.gov/environment/ceqa/letters. These letters are incorporated in this letter by reference.
59 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

view of the alluvial delta of the Los Angeles River looking southward toward the San Pedro Bay. (See Figure 1). On May 29, 1776, he recorded that the expedition travelled south along the Los Angeles River and made a stop at the “Los Cerritos,” which in those days was a reference to a water/spring source and the old name for Signal Hill (Willow Springs) according to Sarah Bixby Smith in her book “Adobe Days.” This means the expedition’s historic travels included a southward trek toward the ocean from the San Gabriel mission using the Los Angeles River and adjacent lands for trail and camp purposes, the very same lands constituting the Project site.

Furthermore, the book Adobe Days by Sarah Bixby Smith describes life in the late 19th Century in the area and is a testimonial to the cultural significance of the area including the Project site.

Figure 1. Map of the trail and river at the time of Anza and Portola.

There is no reason to defer the formulation of mitigation for when cultural resources are encountered during Project construction. CEQA requires more.

The MND’s assertion that the Project is too degraded or too low in elevation to contain any tribal cultural evidence is inaccurate as both cultural evidence and human remains have been unearthed in similar locations and therefore cannot be assumed not to exist at the project site.

The description of the cultural/archaeological area around the project is limited to 0.5 miles and excludes the existing Rancho Los Cerritos, which may be small now but until sold off by the Bixby's, the Rancho Los Cerritos is included the Project area. Excluding this historic site from the MND’s examination of potential historicity of the Project site is not acceptable as it erases potential culturally significant evidence without acknowledging it. An EIR is required.

VIII. The MND Neglects Drainage Issues and Flood Zones Near the Project.

In the MND’s Hydrology and Water Quality section, the analysis improperly concludes that the “Project development would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff…[and] q_ '- (to San
2 s s u m pc16n '---
t San Luis Obis p o
El 8ueh6n
Antonio)
Sent e Merie River
S11nt11 Rose River
AN ZA"S 1775-76
EXPED I T I O N s , n,,
D,1r./>1ra
o Cemp
& Ml$Sion
• Pre:,ldlo
i5 PYeoldlo and Ml:,:,ion
• To'w'n/V01ege
Miles 2 0
Leagues 6 .S
/Mexc 111t1ten / LIi A ssu mpt11 River
'-:~ - - - 7 - - -----... --:'--..o/~- - / Sente Clere River El cojo/ / (to San Die~)
Rencherle N ueve / ----..._ Puertezuelo
Ague
Le R1ncon11d 11 ~ ~
Escond1d11/ San - / S anta Barbara Cnanne/ Gabri e l/
Sen Miguel 1s1en d
S11nte Rose lslen d S11nt11 Cruz lslend
Por iuncul 11 R iverSen Gebrtel River-------
60 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

because “[t]he Project site is outside of 100-year flood hazard zones… no mitigation is required.” (MND, 5-61.) The MND does not acknowledge that heavy metals, oil, grease, trash, and other contaminants typical of urban runoff will inevitably be generated in the normal operation of the Project. Runoff from site surcharging and cleanup operations will also contain contaminants. These will adversely impact the nearby LA River, and ultimately flowing to surrounding properties.

Although the MND acknowledges that the Project’s “[o]nsite drainage would generally be directed to a series of catch basins along the site perimeters (MND, p.3-2), it fails to consider the risk that toxic runoff would be directed to the land and equestrian trail to the west of the Project site, and Los Angeles River-adjacent communities to the south, both of which already have a documented history of cumulative negative flooding impacts.

The MND and the City of Long Beach’s Modeled Stormwater System maps show no storm-water drain pipes in the Project location or along the trail/river land, which is clearly identified as the “Dominguez Gap basin,” south of the 405. This basin concept is the only designated infrastructure to receive runoff from the Los Cerritos berm/levee and from the now “surcharged” parcels to the east of the river. This basin also collects any runoff (up-stream) that has not been diverted to the inside the river channel. Runoff from the north and east in the Los Cerritos and Virginia Country Club areas that has not made it into the designated storm drains continues southward until it picks up a big head and floods all in its path. The City relies on detention basins to reduce impacts from discharge of these contaminants into the Los Angeles River and nearby properties but does not address the possibility that a storm event might overwhelm existing basins.

The City’s Basin concept for the area surrounding the Project is insufficient and substandard for the increased runoff needs since the 1930s and 1940s and 1950s completion of the Federal levee project. To guard against significant contamination of the LA River and surrounding properties, the Project should be required to sample stormwater to track potential water contamination and install permeable surfaces to reduce runoff. Failure to impose feasible mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts violates CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002.)
IX. The Project Area is Adjacent to a Flood Zone.

The Project is adjacent to a FEMA-designated flood zone (FEMA flood zone A), which runs the risk of injuring construction workers, visitors, and nearby residents if a flood were to occur during the Project’s construction or operation. (Figure 2). It is also possible that the Project would contribute to increased flooding, negatively impacting a nearby equestrian bridle/hiking trail, as well as equestrian communities to the south.

For example, projects like the 1998 Los Angeles County Drainage Area (LACDA) Flood Control Project actually increased negative flood impacts in neighborhoods surrounding the Project site. The LACDA project's increased height and slope of the Los Cerritos levee, coupled 61 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

with wider toe width made runoff faster and shifted it closer to private property lines with less open area for absorption in what remains in the “retention basin.” By reducing the margin of open space in between that used for retention basin and absorption, and also pushing the bridle/hiking trail into the “swale” within the basin, the LACDA Flood Control Project created more flood impact instead of reducing (as the LACDA mission stated).

Here, the Project’s high-density design and surcharge action will create high west-facing slopes that form a “funnel effect.” This funnel effect will run over mostly impermeable surfaces such as asphalt and concrete, channeling runoff more rapidly than before. The MND should analyze and craft improved mitigation measures to address Project impacts on flood control and hydrology within the floodplain.

Figure 2. FEMA Flood Map.

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Rate Insurance Map Panel. The flood map for the selected area is number 06037C1955F, effective on 09/26/2008. Visit:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery. Next, enter: 3701 Pacific Place Long Beach into the search query. The FIRM Map has been cropped to provide increased readability. (last visited Nov. 14, 2020.) X. The Project May Have Significant Impacts on Traffic.

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments’ environmental screening tool, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, indicates that the Project area is in the 98th percentile for high traffic density (traffic score), meaning it is more impacted than 98 percent of California’s other census tracts. The Project’s plan to invite large trucks to its loading dock and recreational vehicles to its storage area will only worsen the area’s high score and rate of vehicle emissions.

The Project is also positioned near the 710 Freeway, an area dubbed a “diesel death zone” because it has some of the worst pollution ratings in California. (Andrea Vidaurre and Taylor Thomas, California is sitting on a solution to ‘diesel death zones’ – will we use it? Long Beach Press-Enterprise (Dec. 4, 2020); Laura J. Nelson, 710 Freeway is a ‘diesel death zone’ to neighbors — can vital commerce route be fixed? Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2018.) 62 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

In the MND’s Traffic section, the analysis sets forth that “although the Project would generate vehicle trips (VMT), it is reasonable to assume that many users of the Artesia parcels self-storage units would choose the Project facility because it is closer than currently used facilities. Thus, these users would reduce VMT compared to current practice… as such… emissions generated by the Project are not considered to be substantial.” (MND, p. 5-46.) First, it relies on mere speculation—there is no substantial evidence to support the claim that residents in the Los Cerritos area would utilize the Project storage units or parking lot. It is possible that they might resent the Project and avoid it completely. Second, even if local residents embraced and frequented the Project site, localized trips to and from the Project would likely compound the area’s traffic density, increasing vehicle idle time and total emissions. Elderly residents with asthma and young children at the nearby Elementary School would be disproportionately burdened with these negative traffic impacts. Increased traffic and larger commercial vehicles traveling near the school might also pose a safety threat to children walking to Los Cerritos park.

An EIR is required. The MND should analyze these potentially significant impacts and craft appropriate mitigation measures.

XI. Aesthetic Impacts May be Significant.

This Project will change the character of the Los Cerritos neighborhood. The Project would drastically change the feeling of open space along the Los Angeles River by replacing vacant land with asphalt, metal, and bare concrete. The Project will attract large vehicles entering and exiting the site, as well as hundreds of square feet of commercial space along the banks of the Los Angeles River.

CEQA establishes a rebuttable presumption that any substantial, negative aesthetic effect is to be considered a significant environmental impact for CEQA purposes. (Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1604.) Thus, “any substantial, negative effect of a project on view and other features of beauty could constitute a ‘significant’ [aesthetic] environmental impact under CEQA.” (Id.) CEQA Guidelines also explain that an aesthetic impact would be considered significant if the Project would “substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, Appendix G, I(c).)
Here, the Project will be out of scale with most buildings in the Los Cerritos community, towering over the mostly single-residential properties. Historic integrity can be lost or affected by visual barriers that mark a change the continuity of an area. This immense commercial Project is proposed on a rare piece of open space in West Long Beach—that supported Tongva villages and guided early explorers like Father Pedro Font and the Portola Expedition. This area is a cultural resource that should be preserved for the Los Cerritos community and future generations.

As proposed, the Project would significantly impact and change historic open space along the Los Angeles River. The integrity of the space would be permanently altered, there would be 63 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

continued loss of the historic flood zone, and access and the feeling of open space along the river would be permanently impaired. The Project’s proposed parking lot would be visible from the Los Cerritos Elementary School. The Project’s proposed storage yard and warehouse would be visible from Los Cerritos Park, blocking all views of the Los Angeles River. Because the Project will be made of metal and glass, neighborhoods surrounding the Project would likely be impacted by glare during the day and warehouse light glowing at night. Thus, this neighborhood could experience aesthetic impacts from both Project construction and operation that the MND fails to consider.

XII. The MND's Analysis of the Project's Potential Hazardous Impacts is Insufficient.

In the MND’s Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 states that “the City shall not issue a Certificate of Occupancy for development on the McDonald Trust parcels until any regulatory agency involved has issued a document approving … in conformance with that agency’s requirements.” (MND, p. 5-56). This mitigation measure would not be formulated until after Project approval, and after its efficacy or potential environmental impacts could no longer be assessed by the public or decision-makers. Deferred mitigation violates CEQA. (Endangered Habitats League v County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777, 793-94; Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) Deferral is permitted when a mitigation measure commits to specific performance standards, but no such standards are included here.

The MND's analysis of the project's potential hazardous impacts is insufficient and fails to satisfy CEQA's basic purpose to "inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant effects" of the proposed project. (CECA Guidelines § 15002 (a)(1).) The Project area has an extensive history of oil extraction and is marked by 13 abandoned oil wells, some abandoned as recently as the late 1990s to early 2000s. (MND, p. 5-49.) Neighbors have reported that under the soil is a giant pool of oil sludge that likely contains more than waste production of crude oil. The Project area was previously used as a dumping ground and still contains thick layers of crude oil byproduct, solid waste, and noxious gas that have accumulated over the years. (MND, p. 5-49.) In fact, Signal Hill had a contract with Oil Operators to accept waste from their sewage plant for many years. Residents have also reported midnight dumping at the Project area. A thorough investigation of the site is required and should include drilling 30-50-foot core samples to discover what is under the sheeting that was installed for the golf driving range. The same should be done on all the Pacific Place parcels.

Subsurface investigations should instruct whether industrial uses or building at a specific location are even feasible, which the MND does not show. The MND’s discussion on Hazards and Hazardous Materials is so brief that it's difficult to determine whether all the parcels involved are being assessed for hazardous materials. There is no clear discussion regarding whether the site appears on environmental databases as having a recognized, controlled or historical environmental condition on the site. We question why this site is not listed on DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List.) The MND simply defers identification of potential contaminants in this historic oil drilling site and former 64 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

dumping ground, and states that testing will take place prior to construction, a later point in time when it will not be analyzed as required under CEQA. DTSC is proposing a Response Plan with a comment period running from November 16 to December 18. As stated in a October 26, 2020 letter to a member of the Riverpark Coalition from DTSC, “The surcharge program activities began on 10/08/2020 and are expected to conclude on or about 11/13/2020. As agreed with DTSC, Artesia will upload photos of field activities and air monitoring data on a weekly basis onto the project’s website (www.3701pacificplace.com) starting this week of 10/26/2020.” No further work should be conducted or authorized until an EIR is prepared. Allowing site activities in furtherance of the Project to proceed prior to an EIR violates CEQA’s prohibition against piecemealing and segmentation of project activities.

A. Potentially Dangerous Fugitive Dust from the Project Site is Entering Los Cerritos Elementary School and Will Worsen with Project Construction.

Los Cerritos Elementary School at 515 West San Antonio Drive is within 0.25 mile of the Project site in the City of West Long Beach. Neighbors have reported dust blowing from the Project to the nearby school, collecting on the Metro railway, and floating into Los Cerritos Elementary School when trains pass by. An EIR is required to determine the nature of the dust that has been and will be blowing into and settling at Los Cerritos Elementary School and to ensure adequate mitigation measures are crafted and enforced.

B. Gasses Emanating from the Soil Have Not Been Adequately Addressed in the Existing Plans.

Residents have reported noxious gasses are escaping from the Project area. To guard against building damage or spontaneous combustion a vapor-proof membrane will be required.

The most common way to install such a membrane is to place the building on a vapor-proof membrane underlain by a network of perforated pipes. The pipes collect the gasses and vent up and through the roof. This type of precaution is standard procedure. Yet, the MND’s Hazards and Hazardous Materials mitigations “HAZ1-HAZ5” fails to investigate what type of membranes might limit an accumulation of noxious gas. (MND, p. 5-55.) The Project’s proposed storage facility presents further problems, which the MND entirely ignores. Because no membrane can capture all escaping gases, when a building has rooms that are not accessed very often, there is a growing risk that gasses will accumulate. Thus, the Project must commit to good explosion-proof ventilation system and alarms, approved by the Long Beach fire department.

DTSC’s October 26, 2020 email to a member of the Riverpark Coalition referenced above stated “In order to be protective of the public and out of an abundance of caution, DTSC required the developer (Artesia) to implement monitoring activities at the Site during soil movement and import. These activities include real-time monitoring of soil gases (per SCAQMD Rule 1166) and real-time air monitoring (per the Site’s Ambient Air Monitoring Plan [AAMP]).” The results of such monitoring must be disclosed and made part of an EIR for the proposed Project.
65 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

It is important to note that asphalt parking lots work like a vapor membrane. Pouring asphalt over a region releasing noxious gas is essentially laying the groundwork for gas build up and potential combustion. Such gasses usually escape at the perimeter or through cracks.

However, they can also escape through light poles, drains, or cracks that develop because of the instability of the underlying soil. Project areas where gas concentrates are hazardous and an advanced system needs to be designed to deal with this issue. Unfortunately, such plans are not discussed or even contemplated in the MND. An EIR is required.

XIII. The MND’s Land Use and Planning Section Is Inadequate.

CEQA requires MNDs to discuss inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans, and regional plans. (Tit. 14, Cal. Code Regs. § 15125(d).) In order to determine whether there are inconsistencies, the environmental document should analyze whether the project would conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Here, the MND fails to meaningfully account for significant inconsistencies and discrepancies between the Project and current land use plans and policies, and requested zoning permits.

The MND does not evaluate the Project’s many conflicts with existing zoning requirements and fails to provide any analysis whatsoever of the Project’s consistency or conflict with a number of highly relevant policies. For example, the MND does not evaluate the Project’s compatibility with the City’s LA River Master Plan, and fails to identify significant inconsistencies with the RiverLink planning document. (See LA River Master Plan (last visited Nov. 14, 2020; See Long Beach RiverLink planning document, http://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/park/media-library/documents/businessoperations/about/in-development/riverlink-report/: (last visited Nov.14 2020.) The MND also fails to examine or even mention the Project’s inconsistency with horse overlay zones that cover sections of the surrounding Los Cerritos neighborhood. (Ord. C-6533 § 1 (part), 1988.) These horse overlay zones were approved to preserve and protect Los Cerritos’ unique culture and cherished community.

The Project sits near one of the last remaining equestrian-zoned properties within the City of Long Beach, located adjacent to the Los Angeles County Flood Control/Historical Equestrian Trail. This area has specific and unique needs which incorporate utilization and access of the existing sized strip of County Land parallel to the Flood Control region for ingress/egress, emergency services, access to the Equestrian trail and preservation of the zoning and intended use of residents’ lands. Approving the Project would adversely impact equestrian-zoned properties and adjoining trails. West Long Beach community members have worked for years to maintain groups like the Wrigley Equestrian community while furthering the City’s ambitious RiverLink plan, in hopes of strengthening community connection to natural spaces throughout Long Beach. The Riverpark Coalition encourages the City to work with stakeholders and community advocates to preserve and help realize this shared vision. 66 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

XIV. Impacts to Biological Resources (Southern tarplant) Would be Significant.

The Project would require the removal of southern tarplant, a special-status plant species with a 2B.2 California Rare Plant Rank that is known to occur onsite. (MND, p. 5-20 [“southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), was observed onsite”]; “an estimated total of 830 southern tarplant individuals were identified within the Project limits for the Artesia Parcels.”) Southern tarplant is considered a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) List 1B species, which indicates that it is considered rare, threatened, or endangered within California by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS).

Stating the southern tarplant populations will be avoid “if possible” as the MND does (MND p. 5-24), is impermissible and ineffective deferred and vague mitigation of likely impacts to this special status species. Nor is potential transplantation of them shown to reduce impacts.

Scientific literature has not shown that transplantation of sensitive species into areas of microhabitat where they do not occur is an effective mitigation strategy in assuring long-term persistence of the species. For example, CDFW commented to this effect in a July 17, 2017 letter to the County of Los Angeles regarding the draft EIR for the Centennial Project specific plan (State Clearinghouse Number 2004031072) in a letter written by Julie A. Vance, the Regional Manager. Therefore, CDFW does not support transplantation of rare plants as a mitigation strategy. CDFW recommends avoidance of rare plant populations by delineation and observation of a no-disturbance buffer from the outer edge of the plant populations or specific habitat types, including a sufficient buffer area that ensures habitat is available for pollinators, maintains the current topography and drainage conditions of existing plant populations, and minimizes anthropogenic impacts. Impacts to the southern tarplant should be regarded as significant and an EIR prepared to develop adequate mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate their removal.

XV. We Are Calling Upon State Officials and Agencies to Support the Community and Demand a Full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Be Prepared.

The Riverpark Coalition is advising public officials (both elected and administrative) that they should support the community in demanding a full EIR before considering the proposed Project.

The Attorney General has demanded full EIR review rather than reliance on an MND in other disadvantaged communities potentially affected by environmentally damaging projects. (Enclosure 3.) Similarly, an EIR should be required for this Project.

DTSC is a responsible agency, as defined by CEQA. It will be conducting a public comment period for a Response Plan for the Project site. DTSC's public comment period begins on November 16 and runs through December 18 with a public hearing to be held on December 2, 2020. (See DTSC Events Calendar, Public Meeting for the Long Beach Industrial ParkEvents <https://apps.dtsc.ca.gov/calendar/event_details.cfm?event_id=5725&cur_date=12/02/2020> 67 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

(last visited Nov. 14, 2020).) DTSC should demand that the City prepare an EIR prior to DTSC finalizing its review of the Response Plan so that DTSC will be able to evaluate the response adequately.

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is also a responsible and trustee agency pursuant to CEQA. The presence or likely presence of cultural resources on site demand a full investigation through an EIR. AB 52's requirements for consultation regarding projects that may affect Native American cultural resources would be aided by the preparation of a full EIR.

The State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) must be regarded as a trustee agency because of the impacts the Project could have on cultural resources associated with the preSpanish and Spanish colonial period in the same way the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail is associated with the California State Historic Park in Los Angeles.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife is a responsible and trustee agency because of the presence of protected species such as the southern tarplant. In order to fully assess the project's impacts on this and other protected species, CDFW should require an EIR.

The Regional Water Quality Board should also investigate potential contaminated water migrating from the site to surrounding properties towards the Los Angeles River.

Finally, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) should be consulted and should investigate potentially toxic area emissions, odors and noxious gases escaping from the Project area, and how the Project could affect those emissions.

Conclusion
Thank you for considering our comments. We look forward to the City’s preparation of an EIR for this Project that carefully considers the direct and cumulative environmental impacts of the Pacific Place Project and that contains a thorough analysis of alternatives and mitigation measures designed to reduce and avoid these adverse impacts on the City of Long Beach and its residents.
68 City of Long Beach
November 16, 2020

We ask that you inform us of any future Project notices pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.2 and applicable Municipal Code requirements. We further request that you retain all Project related documents including correspondence and email communications as required by CEQA. (Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 837 [agency “must retain writings”].) Sincerely,

Alison Hahm
Douglas P. Carstens

Enclosures:

1. RiverPark Coalition Notice to Neighbors

2. RiverLink Report.

3. Attorney General Letters about Mitigated Negative Declarations by Attorney General Xavier Becerra and
Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Abigail Blodgett (Feb. 7, 2020, regarding Latitude Business Park,
DAG Jessica Wall (Jan. 27, 2020, regarding Bridge Point South Bay IIWarehouse Project), and DAG Robert Swanson (January 31, 2019)
69 Enclosure 1
70 RIVERPARK COALITIO

RIVERPARK COALITION
~!\ f - 0 \ ll
;: \ (,
(\. ---- ~ ------- !-:::jl
Dear Neighbors,
... ""I
We need your support in stopping the proposed development at 3701 Pacific Place, the former Golf Driving Range Oust south west of Crown Point, across from Los Cerritos Elementary and Park). What they plan on developing is a storage site consisting of an asphalt parking lot for 580 vehicles (trailers, campers, boats, trucks), a three-story structure and office space (77,000 sf with 11 Truck Loading Docks) and a carwash. This site was formerly a storage of toxic waste and sewage that was buried and covered by a plastic membrane in the 1980s to limit to neighborhood exposure to the toxic materials and gases. In order to build this new development they are grading and moving this toxic soil, kicking up hazardous dust that is carried by the prevailing winds into our community.

Our western Long Beach has a severe need for more parks and open space, because of our historical development that favored industry which resulted in higher levels of pollution. With your support, we can stop the development of this brownfield site and work with Federal, State, and Local Agencies to address what will really benefit our communities; more forested parks and open space to serve as the lungs of our neighborhoods and create parity between eastern and western Long Beach. The eastern side of Long Beach has seventeen times more parks and open space than our western side.

The alternative to illegal use of this land for motocross is not more asphalt that creates urban heat islands; this is a shortsighted approach. Let's think about the long-term health of our neighborhood and the future generations. There will never be another opportunity for the city to acquire and develop this many acres for parkland. This is our only chance.
1 71

RIVERPARK COALITION
What we ask from you, our neighbors, is letters opposing this project based on whatever issues you find of concern. Some examples:
• Loss of the last large piece of open space to development • Construction noise
• Stirring up of contaminated soils
• Storage yard and warehouse visible from the Los Cerritos Park • Declining property values because the creation of industrial use • Not a fit with our community
Feel free to use all or part of these points in your letter or add others as you see fit.

Helpful background:
1) The City has not requested a full EIR, only what is called a Mitigated Negative Declaration. You may review the document at:
h.tt.P://www.longbeach.gov/lbdsfplanning/environmental/reports/ 2) There are a few points that you may find questionable, such as the fact that:
a) The Development has not been fully entitled, yet the developer has been allowed to grade the site flat and remove all vegetation
b) The developer has been allowed to build a fifteen foot mound of dirt for the purposes of compacting the soil called surcharging (they call it a test) that is commonly done after the permit for construction has been issued. A construction permit has not been issued to date.
c) The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has not completed its study of the site, not held a public meeting, yet grading has spread potentially contaminated dust into our neighborhood.
d) Traffic caused by the proposed development has not been fully analyzed, nor how it will impact our air quality or traffic patterns. e) Potentially contaminated storm drainage has not been adequately studied or addressed.
t) Property Re-Zoned from Open Space to Industrial in 2018, without adequate notice to Neighbors of Los Cerritos, Wrigley or Bixby Knolls. 3) Letter of protest must be received by November 16"1, Mail or Email to:

NAME:

TITLE:

EMAIL:

ADDRESS:

PHONE:

Public Review:

Ms. Amy L. Harbin, AICP
Planner
[email protected]_ov
City· of Long Beach,
Development Services Department,
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 570-6872
From October 19, 2020 to November 16, 202Q
2 72

RIVERPARK COALITION
For more information and to join Riverpark Coalition, please visit our Facebook group:
htt s://www.facebook.com/ rou s/706635480263221
Sincerely,
Riverpark Coalition
-·
,.~--~
- LOCATION MAP
j
11 DOMINGLEZ GAP
WEllANlS
~ ....... .. ,,... ...
--- " ' 'l>< '-
' ••• • BAKER Sf,
fARK
J
f"rl
.
~~WRIGLEY HEIGHTS
DOG¥~, .... .,._,
-
...... -o I"~ '~°"' ...
, .. -·~
Q
" '
0 3
73 Enclosure 2
74 Long Beach RiverLink
February 2007
75 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Th~ Lo,ng Beach Department of Parks, Recreation &nd Marine· would .

Uke to thank and acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to the Riv~rlink plan: ·
San Pedro Bay Estuary Project
Susan Zoske, Director
Design t~E;tm
606 Studio, Department of Landscape Architecture
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
· Edward Anay?I
James Chaddick
Jon Loxley
Jeremy Person
Professional Advisory Group
Lynn CaP,ouya, ASLA, L:yn11 Capouya, Inc.

Mark von Wodtke, FASLA, Claremont Environmental Design Group Meg R. Beatrice, AIA, Architecture M
Mark Grisafe, AIA, ~on Yeo & Associates
Ruth Meghiddo, AIA
Rick Meghiddo, AIA
Jon Summers, AIA
Rick Harter, Ex~cu~ive Director, Lo~ Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council (2004)
Mike Bassett, Executive 'Director, Conservation Corps of Long Beach A special thanks to Susan .Zoske and Joan Greenwood for conceiving of a cost effective approach to accomplishing the Riverlink study and assembling the consultant team.

Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine
Phil T. Hester, Director
Dennis Eschen, Manager of Planning and Development
Geoffrey Hall, Special Projects Officer
76 RIVERLINK GENESIS
The Riverlink concept took root in January 2003, when the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine contracted with the San Pedro Bay Estuary Project, a local nonprofit agency, to manage a study of the opportunities to create a continuous greenway along the east bank of the Los Angeles River. The west bank of the Los Angeles River was not included in the study due to the close proximity of the 71 O Freeway and the discussions that were taking place regarding its potential redesign. However, it will be possible to transfer some of the design concepts to the west bank as the overall 71 O Freeway plan is implemented.

The Riverlink project team was comprised of graduate students from Cal Poly Pomona's Department of Landscape Architecture - a group known as the "606 Studio." The team held a series of 12 public outreach meetings in neighborhoods along the Los Angeles River, and then set about to develop their plan.

Long Beach RlverUnk:

Comtellng City to RI81,Saw:10
tl"t'•""""" .rl ~,_ ~\Iii-do• ;;,1;,. l(ffl,,......, 0...,, C'._,.iN •Pi>tiJ,M.11111,,UMl4'MJ,iP°itnlO-H

OPEN SPACE NEEDS
The RiverLink plan was presented to the public in June 2003, as the students' Master's Degree project. It was then refined by a committee of volunteer design professionals who critiqued and supplemented the plan, and by feedback from the
community in a second series of meetings.

The plan was presented to the Parks and Recreation
Commission in December 2004 as the San Pedro Bay Estuary Project's final report. It was approved in concept by the Parks and Recreation Commission in April 2005, with staff suggested revisions and recommendations.

The City has a great need for additional parkland, especially along the western edge of the City, where the Los Angeles River is located. The City's Open Space and Recreation Element approved in October 2002 established a goal of having an average of eight (8.0) acres of recreational open space per 1,000 residents. Currently, the city has a citywide average of 5.4 acres.

Exhibit 1 I Park Acres per 1,000 __________ Residents by City Area ... w • •• 1 , 0
No rlh 1 , 0
S ou tl> Z. 7
Ea • t 1 6 , 7
0 5 1 D 1 5 20
1 However, as shown in Exhibit 1,
there is tremendous disparity in
the distribution of open space
across the City. The eastern
quadrant of the City has 16.7
acres of open space per 1,000
residents, whereas the northern
and western quadrants have
a mere 1.0 acre per 1,000
residents. The southern section
is not much better with just 2. 7
77 acres per 1,000 residents. Thus, it is essential that the City continue to concentrate its park development efforts in underserved areas.

The map below (Exhibit 2) shows all of the opportunities that have been identified for new park space, as of February 2007.

Exhibit 2

GREEN VISION MAP
710.8 Acres of
Poten1ia1 Parfl Development
---- n.~---..._.. ............. ................................... r.., ........... ~ ........ 1, ........ ... .. ~ ........ ___,,,,, ---.,...,Mf ..... ...,...__, ..... MQl!lt .... '-"'U..,.~- ,..lllrt9!.-.s. ............. lf.,t.ll The large majority of these opportunities are in the city's underserved areas, and many of them are along the Los Angeles River. Riverlink views these opportunities as an integrated system, rather than viewing them as individual projects.

RIVERLINK VISION
RiverLink seeks to define a sense of place and envision possibilities for an integrated open space system for the west side of Long Beach. The plan provides a framework to connect west side neighborhoods, and greater Long Beach, with the Los Angeles River greenway.
2 78
Exhibit 3 shows more specifically what the framework or system could look like when Riverlink is fully implemented.

LOMG BUCH RIVERLIHK
DffOml'-------.. POI
Bird's Eye View of
Riverl.ink System in the Westside of
Long Beach, California
Exhlblt3 j
Long Beach's vision for the Los Angeles River, which is not unlike that of the City of Los Angeles', is one of a river that provides aesthetic, recreational, and ecological benefits, in addition to serving its flood control purposes. Where RiverLink differs from the City of Los Angeles' plan is that it does not currently envision a reconfiguration of the existing flood control levees.

The following are renderings taken from the City of Los Angeles' Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan:
---- ~ 1
I I
- - '
·..:. . ~r.-- .,,,~ .c. -~ _, ~_
79 3
0 Los Angeles is not the first metropolitan area to renovate a channelized, urban river.

The following photos are examples of urban rivers in other cities:

San Jose, CA

RIVERLINK GOALS
~.i~- . . . - ·-·
•·-,~. _;·· ~. -~,;~
~ -...... ~,.. -·$•· ' .. •• .,. --9 ~-=--•
Denver, CO
Vista, CA Richmond, VA
Indianapolis, IN
The main goals of Riverlink are:
• To identify areas for the acquisition of additional open space.

As previously mentioned, the City is seeking to provide eight (8.0) acres of recreational open space for each 1,000 residents of the city. To achieve this, approximately 1, 100 acres needs to be added to the current inventory of 2,855 acres.
• To identify ways to connect city residents to the Los Angeles River.

This is primarily oriented toward improving physical access to the bicycle and pedestrian trails on the levees and open spaces along the River. • To identify locations along the Los Angeles River where the native habitats could be restored.

This is to preserve the scarce remnants of Long Beach's biological heritage, and to allow that heritage to recover to the point that its existence will no longer be threatened. Furthermore, this is to provide places of contact where residents can understand and value that heritage.
• To improve the aesthetics of the Los Angeles River and the City. 4 80

RIVERLINK COMPONENTS
Riverlink addresses the historical Los Angeles River basin, or habitat zone, in Long Beach. This habitat zone is shown in blue in Exhibit 4. Habitat is generally defined as the environment in which biological populations (e.g., vegetation, insects, animals) live and grow. Six types of vegetation were known to have existed within the habitat zone: native grassland, riparian woodland, oak woodland, coastal sage scrub, emergent wetland, and tidal wetland.

RiverLink has four main components within the habitat zone:
❖ Destinations
❖ Gateways
❖ Pathways
❖ Connections
Each of these components will be discussed separately. It is important to note that Riverlink is a conceptual plan. The large majority of the Destinations, Gateways, Pathways, and Connections presented are simply ideas to be discussed and pursued.

DESTINATIONS
Destinations are places where accessible
recreational open space or habitat restorations
are located. The locations of the destinations
proposed by Riverlink are depicted as stars in
Exhibit 4.
5 * .- i
1 1 i, --... ',i . ! :..... ..
*
..
...
81 Destination 1: SCE Transmission Right-of-Way
This site, which is the northernmost destination, provides an open visual access way to the Los Angeles River from Atlantic Avenue, without the need to cross through an established residential neighborhood (see Exhibit 5). The site is also near horse trails and stables on flood control right-of-way, and near economically underproductive commercial and industrial properties that could be added to create a community scale park, possibly extending as far south as Artesia Boulevard.

Exhibit 6 is a rendering of what the SCE right-of-way could look like. 6 Sl!ele Perl\/
Play Ground
--
I Exhibit6 I
Large
High le sion
Power L. and
Support Structures
82 Destination 2: DeForest Park and Wetland
Deforest Park is a 16-acre park adjacent to the Los Angeles River (see Exhibit 7).

South of the park is a 34-acre Los Angeles County flood detention basin. The detention basin is planned for a habitat restoration with walking trails, observation overlooks and educational displays (see Exhibit 8). A "nature center building" at the edge of the park with a classroom and an outdoor amphitheater is a long-term possibility. RiverLink supports and incorporates this proposed use. The development concept is to take the dry season flows from three major storm drain lines and reconfigure the flows into a stream like condition.

Natural wetland processes will be utilized to clean the water before its eventual discharge into the Los Angeles River. The project will recreate deep and shallow water habitats, as well as native habitats adjacent to the stream and on the upper slopes of the detention basin. The walking trails will be designed so as to protect the native habitats, while providing adequate exposure and viewing education and nature watching.
7 I ExhlbltB I
Wetlands
Control
Weir
83 Destination 3: Market Street Overlook
The intersection of Market Street and Long Beach Boulevard is the historical commercial hub of North Long Beach, and it is only two blocks from the Los Angeles River (see Exhibit 9). The levee of the River is close to the elevation of Market Street, and the River bends at that location to provide a dramatic view sweeping from the downtown Los Angeles skyline to the Palos Verdes Peninsula.

Taking advantage of the that opportunity, RiverLink proposes a pedestrian plaza spanning across the DeForest Detention Basin, as an extension of Market Street as a main street square for North Long Beach (see Exhibit 10).

We and•
Contrlll
Wera I Exhibit 10 I
8 84
Destination 4: Dominguez Gap
Dominguez Gap contains two flood retention and recharge basins in a 50-acre area, with one basin located on each side of the Los Angeles River (see Exhibit 11).

Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works is in the process of restoring the eastern
basin, which extends from Del Amo Boulevard
to the 1-405 Freeway, as riparian wetland (see
Exhibit 12). Public access trails, overlooks,
and educational displays will also be included.

The west basin will continue to be used for
ground water recharge of storm runoff and will
be enhanced with native plantings.

Exhibit 13 provides an idea of what the project
will look like when it is finished.
9 I Exhibit 13 1
Willow 'Woodlands
A
NORTH
Nol lo Sc;ele
85 0
Destination 5: Reid Boy Scout Camp
The Reid Boy Scout Camp is located adjacent to the Dominguez Gap East Basin on its west and adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad Line on its south (see Exhibit 14).

This site is 10 acres of open space used by the Boy Scouts for camping and administrative offices (see Exhibit 15).

Riverlink recommends that the site be considered for acquisition as an open space destination, if it is ever proposed for conversion to another use. 10 86
Destination 6: Wrigley Heights - North
Riverlink proposes keeping the driving
range and improving the excess River
right-of-way as a riparian woodland to
complement the adjacent wetland at
Dominguez Gap (see Exhibit 18).
11 Wrigley Heights is a SO-acre area split into
two parts by the 1-405 Freeway. The
northern portion, or Wrigley Heights -
North, contains two main parcels, a site
that is part of the Los Angeles River flood
control right-of-way and a privately owned
site used as a driving range (see Exhibits
16 & 17).

I Exhibit 1 s J
87 Destination 7: Wrigley Heights - South
The southern section of Wrigley Heights,
or Wrigley Heights - South, contains four
properties. Two of these are small
properties the City has acquired. A large
privately owned parcel separates the City
owned parcels (see Exhibits 19 & 20). The
Los Angeles River flood control right-ofway is the fourth parcel.

RiverLink proposes that as much of the
area as possible become an open space
destination containing a restored wetland,
riparian woodland, pedestrian and bicycle
paths, and a neighborhood park with a
playground, picnic areas, and other
amenities (see Exhibit 21). Any private
development in this area should be
buffered from the Los Angeles River rightof-way by a setback, not less than 15 feet wide, of riparian woodland plants.
6 A . '
~ --~
~IOO
-- ~ .,-(i,.-
12 88
Destination 8: Wrigley Greenbelt - North
This is the area of excess Los Angeles River right-of-way extending from Wardlow Road to Willow Street (see Exhibit 22). It is east of the fenced right-of-way and has been partially landscaped (see Exhibit 23).

Further improvements proposed are additional native landscaping, especially replacing existing ice plant, decomposed granite walking/jogging trails, exercise stations, and vegetated swales and/or the day-lighting of existing storm drain lines to create a streamlike amenity. 89 13
0 Destination 9: Wrigley Greenbelt - South
This is the area along the river from Willow Street to Hill Street (see Exhibit 24). In this area, DeForest Avenue separates the residential neighborhood from the Los Angeles River, but only the back yards of homes front on DeForest, and the edge of DeForest adjacent to the river right-of-way is unimproved.

RiverLink proposes to narrow the DeForest Avenue roadway and improve the edge adjacent to the River with a decomposed granite walking/jogging path, with exercise stations and an alee of riparian woodland trees (see Exhibit 25).

I Exhibit 25 1
14 90
Destination 10: Los Angeles River Greenway
,. : .. ~. • ' ('.:.& • .,,,,., I J ·,.,·
• " I ,.._· :.
•!·;.:· " ~!~
•i~er:' .. ,;;a~ . ~· ----' • ')a! -~- .- ' ;.a. "' . -._ : J., - -,: .• - ......... -'9\ • w -•• Ill~ •1. : ~ '=: ~ ·-"~· • .-. '
,.- .. ,_ ---- ~~" ~ .. -_6.i. ~- J tt~·-i~ : J -~!: 'if: .a ........ ' _.. .' .... - ' ·' • f•,S:.:. • jiiil ,a . -~· ' I ·: • \ - ~:.-- , .• • ••.-i ...... ·~- . • .• , ~. ~- ,t!;~} ··-=·~,";_::· ..... ; ... ~,:- : ='~. ~,,1.-:1 •\o\~'-' • -• ,, . . ·t ' . !
... ,· . . .... .. ._. 0· ........ • • · -~: , t: '.le . . • I . !,ii •• -'<;\ _,~_,,. •• ".. , • . . -~- ,- -~ . -~- ,: ·: 1rt. - ... ~~,. : ••(~ • ~- . •,.. ..._ 11· • • • . • .,-.,..- )i ·
•
• . I . . '• . .
r.,,:,rm , .
,~... . . • • • ,< e ~ ;1'
--~~-/ . ,r-.... ~ -,~~
~-~ ........ ~::.,;.=.:::

This is the area between Hill Street and
Pacific Coast Highway (see Exhibit 26). The
City owns a number of scattered parcels in
this area, generally between homes and the
Los Angeles River.

RiverLink proposes linking these parcels,
wherever possible, and constructing a
greenway similar to the Wrigley Greenbelt.

Bridge abutments at Pacific Coast Highway
and at Willow Street provide sizable turf
areas. These should be preserved as
landscaped areas, expanded into unneeded
roadway rights-of-way, where possible, and
improved as mini-parks.

Exhibit 27 is a photo of the recently completed greenway area between 21 st and Hill Streets, which is at the northern end of this destination.

I Exhibit 21 j
91 15
0 Destination 11: City Public Service Yard
In the area between Pacific Coast Highway and Anaheim Street, the City owns and uses most of the blocks adjacent to the Los Angeles River as the City's corporate yard (see Exhibits 28 & 29). With consolidations of operations, some of the area is believed to be excess and is being evaluated for reuse.

As the property to the east is all in industrial use, the site is not viewed as suitable for use as part of Riverlink. However, one unused building on the site, a former Pacific Electric Railway depot, is of historic and aesthetic importance. This building should be preserved and moved to a park site to be reused as a community recreation center, or used as a rest area adjacent to the Pacific Coast Highway - Los Angeles River connection. Further, reuse of the sites should be buffered from the River by a setback, not less than 15 feet wide, landscaped with riparian woodland plants.

Finally, an area should be reserved adjacent to Anaheim Street for a bicycle connection to the LARIO Trail and small landscaped rest area, and the public right-of-way under the Anaheim Street Bridge retained.
16 92
Destination 12: Riverside Park (Drake/Chavez Greenbelt) This is the area along the Los Angeles River from Anaheim Street to Ocean Boulevard.

This is about a 25-acre area, including unused and underused industrial property and vacant public right-of-way (see Exhibits 30 & 31). The City has acquired this property, which will connect Drake and Cesar E. Chavez Parks together under and around various roadway overpasses and bridges.

RiverLink proposes that the area be used to
create a neighborhood park closest to the
residential neighborhood of Willmore City, and a
saltwater tidal wetland closest to the River (see
Exhibit 32). Existing industrial buildings will be
investigated for reuse as an urban nature center.

Whenever possible, unused street rights-of-way
and bridge abutments should be landscaped, or
covered with murals or river rock treatment
consistent with the Cesar E. Chavez Park
design theme. It should be noted this particular
conceptual plan does not account for the
potential realignment of the 710 Freeway.

RiverLink will adjust to that design.
17 ~--- -~
1 I f~-l
93 Destination 13: Golden Shore Biological Reserve
This six-acre area, which is the southernmost destination, is a former small boat launch ramp that has been converted into a saltwater marsh at the mouth of the Los Angeles River (see Exhibits 33 & 34).

I Exhibit 35 1 ·
I Exhibit 34 ]
As proposed in RiverLink, a rest area is being
developed on part of the rock dike that
defines the wetland from the River to provide
an overlook area for viewing the wetland and
the river, and as a rest area at the terminus of
the LARIO Trail (see Exhibit 35).

A grant has been received to make this
improvement. Educational signage has been
installed, and a gateway obelisk will provide
information about the wetland and more
clearly make the beginning of the LARIO
Trail.
l
ll
11 "
i
18 94

GATEWAYS
The second component of Riverlink is Gateways. Riverlink seeks to identify the native Los Angeles River habitat zone by creating gateway markers along major thoroughfares to indicate the entry into the habitat zone. The locations of the gateways proposed by Riverlink are depicted as hexagons in Exhibit 36.

City cl CaflOII
City or Ccmplon
Cilyol
P111movnt Gateways are those points where a visitor
begins the journey along a pathway towards a
connection or destination.

As envisioned, the gateway markers would
be obelisks in the roadway medians (see
Exhibit 37). The obelisks would be uniform in
size and format, but would contain design
-----'_j... ,if elements specific to the architectural history ., _, a- ~! of the neighborhood being entered and would f: ; j, ! f:( contain neighborhood identifying graphics.

I · 1 ' I
~.,.

The following photos are public art pieces utilized as gateway markers in other cities:

San Diego, CA Palm Dessert, CA San Francisco, CA Des Moines, IA 95 19
0 PATHWAYS
The third component of Riverlink is Pathways. Riverlink proposes a large network of pathways (see Exhibit 38).

I Exhibit 38 1
.. &1 J; . " : 5. l, i
...
~Of
Pararnounl
!I
l
!\
!
I
l
Pathways facilitate movement in and around the neighborhoods to the Los Angeles River (see Exhibit 39).

I Exhibit 39 1
20 96
The following photos are examples of pathways in other cities:

Los Angeles, CA Phoenix, AZ Phoenix, AZ Tucson, AZ
Pathways also encourage pedestrian activity by providing amenity zones where people can stop and rest comfortably (see Exhibit 40).

The following photos are examples of amenity zones (rest areas} in other cities:

San Francisco, CA San Diego, CA San Jose, CA
There are two types of pathways in RiverLink - the Los Angeles River Trail (LARIO Trail} and "Citylinks."
97 21
0 LARIO Trail
The LARIO Trail is a regional trail with bicycle and
pedestrian areas on the top of the Los Angeles
River's levee, and an equestrian trail, north from
Wardlow Road, generally adjacent to the base of
the levee (see Exhibit 41). This is a Los Angeles
County trail system that provides a regional
connection.

As important and heavily used as the LARIO Trail
is, it has deficiencies in width, rest locations,
shade, traveler orientation and perceived safety.

Built as a maintenance road on the River levee, it
lacks the amenities of a full recreational trail.

Riverlink proposes to provide those amenities by
creating landings on the sides of the levees to
provide extra room for rest areas without
interfering with the travel on the top of the levee
(see Exhibit 42).

P.-c. Co .. :;t Hw~
The following photos are examples of river overlooks in other cities:

New York, NY San Luis Obispo, CA Chattanooga, TN
22 98
Citylinks
"CityLinks" are bicycle and pedestrian pathways that connect neighborhoods to the LARIO Trail. From north to south, the proposed CityLinks are:

Southern California Edison has a transmission line right-of-way that crosses North Long Beach in an east/west direction from the Los Angeles River to the eastern edge of north Long Beach only a few blocks from the city's northern border (see Exhibit 43).

Easements should be acquired throughout the right-of-way with eventual potential connection to the San Gabriel River through Bellflower and Lakewood.

There is an existing connection from the LARIO Trail to DeForest Park just north of the DeForest Wetland (see Exhibit 44). This connection should be maintained and enhanced with a rest area, and extended as a Class 2 (on-street) bicycle path to Jaymills Avenue and South Street.
99 23
0 Market Street provides an opportunity to make an additional connection to the LARIO Trail (see Exhibit 45). Market Street currently terminates at the edge of the DeForest Detention Basin. From that point, a relatively small grade difference separates Market Street from the levee of the DeForest Basin, and the levee of the DeForest Basin provides a connection to the LARIO Trail. Market Street then provides a Class 2 (on-street) bicycle path opportunity across North Long Beach.

Del Mar Avenue adjoins the Dominguez Gap East Basin (see Exhibit 46). It can be linked to the LARIO Trail through the pathways being developed for the Dominguez Gap Wetland Restoration Project. It then connects to a Class 2 (on-street) bicycle path on San Antonio Drive. This can also provide a connection to the Wrigley Heights - North and South Destinations.
24 100
A Citylink is proposed at the Wrigley Heights - South destination (see Exhibit 47). This would connect back to the Wardlow Road Class 2 (on-street) bicycle path.

The former Pacific Electric right-of-way runs diagonally across the city from the north to south, from the middle of the city on the western boundary to the southeast corner.

From the western border to Willow Street at Long Beach Boulevard, the right-of-way has been used for the MTA Blue Line. Approximately one-half of the former right-ofway has been developed, and one-half is vacant, with the City owning most undeveloped blocks. Blocks at Orizaba Park and Rotary Centennial Park have been developed as parks. Acquisition of additional sections is underway. Eventually, a mix of Class 1 (off-street) and Class 2 (on-street) bicycle paths will extend from Alamitos Bay to the LARIO Trail at Spring Street (see Exhibit 48). 101
25 0
Before leaving the Pacific Electric right-of-way, it is interesting to note how it will look and function as a pathway as the various right-of-way properties are acquired and developed as parkland. The photos below show the Rotary Park site, which is located on the former right-of-way, prior to and after development.

Another Citylink is 14th Street ~ee Exhibit 49). 14th Street Park is a five block-long linear park in the middle of 14 Street. This was once the right-of-way of a Pacific Electric Railway spur.

This will be rebuilt as a Class 1 (off-street) bicycle path from the future Seaside Park at Chestnut Avenue to the Long Beach Boulevard Blue Line stop at Anaheim Street. A Class 2 (on-street) bicycle path on the north side of Anaheim Street from Magnolia Avenue to Golden Avenue, a frontage road west of Golden could accommodate a Class 1 section to connect to the LARIO Trail, or to Riverside Park (Drake/Chavez Greenbelt} under the Anaheim Street Bridge. Alternately, this pathway could connect to the Riverside Park by crossing Anaheim Street at Daisy Avenue. 26 102
The next CityLink pathway is the Los Angeles River to Downtown Connection (see Exhibit 50).

This recently constructed pathway
uses the underpass under Shoreline
Drive to connect the Civic Center and
the Transit Mall at 1st Street with the
LARIO Trail. Class 2 (on-street) and
~--.i.....:J1t•--lllil Class 3 (on-street, no lane) bicycle path sections on 6th and th Streets,
and Chestnut Avenue would connect
the underpass to the Civic Center.

The proposed extension of 1st Street,
and installation of a traffic signal,
provides another link to the downtown
area.

The final CityLink is Daisy Avenue (see Exhibit
51). Daisy Avenue is a north/south street with
a wide and unique median and relatively light
traffic between Willow Street and Pacific Coast
Highway. South of Pacific Coast Highway, it is
a more typical residential street that then
allows a connection to the Riverside Park trail
south of Anaheim and to the LARIO Trail at
Anaheim.
103
27 CONNECTIONS
The fourth, and final, component of Riverlink is Connections. Connections link pathways together, and they are of particular importance as they provide access to the LARIO Trail or the destinations. The locations of the connections proposed by Riverlink are depicted as diamonds in Exhibit 52.

CttyoJ
C.rson
Cityol
Para
Such connections will be marked by pavement markings that have a directional content with a swirl pattern or "eddy" leading to a directional arrow. This can be done in the sidewalk markings and in lamp pole logos (see Exhibit 53). 28 104
The following photos are examples of connections in other cities:

Santa Monica, CA Athens, GA San Jose, CA
Connections along the greenway provide universal access to the Los Angeles River, and improve the public perception of safety (see Exhibit 54).

The following photos are examples of greenway connections in Los Angeles and other cities:

Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles, CA
Chattanooga, TN Phoenix, AZ
105
29 SUMMARY
To summarize, Riverlink provides a vision of an integrated open space system and a framework to connect west side neighborhoods, and greater Long Beach, with the Los Angeles River. When fully implemented, Riverlink will comprise 263 acres of open space. Of this amount, 217 acres are not currently counted in the city's acreage total.

FUNDING

LOMG BEACH RIVERLINK
DlJOIST'------,-_ PIii
Bird's Eye V,ew of
RiverUtik System
In the Westside of
Long Beach, California
Funding obtained for Riverlink as of February 2007 includes:
• $14.4 million in grants for land acquisition, with up to $2 million more expected from Los Angeles County. Eighteen (18) acres have been purchased to date.

Purchases include two parcels in Wrigley Heights: South, the MTA property, the ceramics factory property, and the Union Pacific Railroad property in Riverside Park (Drake/Chavez Greenbelt).
• $700,000 in grants received for feasibility studies and design costs associated with the DeForest Wetlands. A grant for $3 million to develop the wetlands has been submitted.
• $190,000 in grants for Golden Shore rest area. Construction is set to begin in Fall 2007.
• Los Angeles County has spent approximately $7 million on the design and construction of the Dominguez Gap wetlands. The project is 50 percent complete.
• Lastly, a portion of the $25 million CDBG park bond approved by the City Council will be devoted to Riverlink projects.
30 106

NEXT STEPS
On February 15, 2007, the Parks and Recreation Commission approved Riverlink (as presented herein) in concept, and recommended that plan be forwarded to the Planning and Building Department for inclusion in the General Plan update, which is currently underway.

City staff will continue to seek new grant funding from Proposition 84, the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, and other state and federal agencies. Staff will also evaluate the potential for private sector support.

Lastly, staff will continue moving forward with the individual Riverlink projects with assistance from other City departments, the County of Los Angeles, the Trust for Public Land and other interested agencies and organizations, City leaders, and the citizens of Long Beach.
107
31 Long Beach RiverLink
108
Enclosure 3
109

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

1515 CLAY STREET, 20TH FLOOR
P.O. BOX 70550
OAKLAND, CA 94612-0550
Public: (510) 879-1300
Telephone: (510) 879-0090
Facsimile: (510) 622-2272
E-Mail: [email protected]
February 7, 2020
Via Overnight Mail and E-Mail
Joanne Coletta
Community Development Director
Corona Community Development Department
400 South Vicentia Avenue
Corona, CA 92882-2187
[email protected]
RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Latitude Business Park (SCH #2020019017) Dear Ms. Coletta:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Corona’s Joint Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (collectively, the MND) for the Latitude Business Park (the Project). After reviewing the MND, the California Attorney General’s Office believes the MND does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) due to its insufficient project description, flawed environmental impact assessments, and inadequate mitigation measures. We are also concerned about Corona’s process for evaluating the Project, including its failure to consult with responsible agencies and its rushed timeline for approving the Project.

We respectfully submit these comments to urge Corona to conduct further environmental analysis in an environmental impact report to ensure the Project’s impacts are understood, disclosed, and mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. 1 I. THE PROJECT SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT AN ENORMOUS INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH

MULTIPLE WAREHOUSES IN A HIGHLY POLLUTED COMMUNITY PREDOMINANTLY OF COLOR.

The Project consists of 15 industrial buildings and warehouses on 75 acres of land, and is located within 85 feet of a residential community of color. The buildings will host over a million square feet of different land uses that typically have significant environmental impacts, including 1 The Attorney General submits these comments pursuant to his independent power and duty to protect the environment and natural resources of the State. (See Cal. Const., art. V, § 13; Gov.

Code §§ 12511, 12600-12612; D’Amico v. Bd. of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 14-15.) 110
February 7, 2020

warehousing (535,205 square feet), light industrial (205,767 square feet), industrial park (174,055 square feet), manufacturing (159,744 square feet), and related office space (undetermined square footage is included with the other land uses). To support these activities, the Project will have 66 loading docks, 60 truck trailer spaces, and an unspecified amount of parking spaces. Further, the Project will generate approximately 4,127 vehicle trips a day, including trips from refrigerated and unrefrigerated diesel trucks.

The MND states the Project will have five buildings that are designated for warehouse and manufacturing uses, including the largest buildings on the Project site. Warehouses generate substantial environmental impacts since they are used to transport goods in heavy-duty trucks that run on diesel fuel. This large influx of truck traffic creates air pollution, noise, and traffic impacts that burden nearby communities. Among other pollutants, diesel trucks visiting warehouses emit nitrogen oxide (NOx) – a primary precursor to smog formation that causes respiratory problems like asthma, bronchitis, lung irritation, and lung cancer – and diesel particulate matter (PM) – which can lead to cancer, heart disease, respiratory illnesses, and premature death.2 Trucks and on-site loading activities can also be loud, bringing disruptive noise levels during all hours of the day and may cause hearing damage for residents and workers after prolonged exposure.3 Further, the thousands of daily truck and passenger car trips that will be generated by the Project’s warehouses will contribute to traffic jams, deterioration of road surfaces, and traffic accidents in Corona.

The Project is located at the northwest corner of Tom Barns Street and Temescal Canyon Road, at the intersection of a large residential area in Southeastern Corona and the unincorporated community of El Cerrito. There are single-family homes immediately across Liberty Avenue along the northern border of the Project and a sprawling neighborhood on the other side of Interstate 15 to the west. According to 2013 – 2017 data from the American Community Survey, there are at least 775 people living within 1,000 feet of the Project, 55 percent of whom are people of color.
4 There are also sensitive receptors near the Project,
including the El Cerrito Outdoor Sports Park 0.3 mile to the north, the El Cerrito Middle School

0.4 mile to the north, and the Gumdrop Kids Daycare 0.9 mile to the southwest. All of these community residents will be exposed to the Project’s environmental impacts.

2 California Air Resources Board (CARB), Nitrogen Dioxide & Health, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/nitrogen-dioxide-and-health; CARB, Summary: Diesel Particulate Matter Health Impacts, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/summary-diesel-particulatematter-health-impacts; Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. 3 See, e.g, Noise Sources and Their Effects,
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm (stating that a diesel truck moving 40 miles per hour, 50 feet away, produces 84 decibels of sound). 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EJSCREEN, https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/.
111
February 7, 2020

The neighborhoods surrounding the Project already face disproportionately high levels of pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 3.0, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the Project’s census tract has more pollution than 88 percent of census tracts in California. 5 The census tracts to the north and
east of the Project have even greater pollution burdens. Most of the pollution problems in the Project’s census tract and the surrounding area are attributable to serious air quality issues in the community—the tracts are in the 93rd – 94th percentile for PM2.5 and the 85th – 91st percentile for ozone.

The air pollution in Corona and surrounding areas grows dramatically each year due to the rapid expansion of the logistics industry in the Inland Empire. Over just the past decade, more than 150 million square feet of industrial spaces, which includes mostly warehouses, have been built in this region.
6 These warehouses, and the dozens of approved warehouses that are still under construction, attract diesel trucks and the accompanying air pollution into residential neighborhoods. As a result, the South Coast Air Basin, which contains the Inland Empire and the Project site, is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM2.5 by the EPA and as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 by CARB. The Project will add even more air pollution to this highly burdened area.

II. THE MND FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.

A. The Project Description is Insufficient.

The CEQA Guidelines require an initial study to describe the project. 7 Project
descriptions should contain all details that are essential components of a project since an “accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity.”8 In this case, the MND’s project description does not adequately describe the Project because it omits key details that are essential for accurately assessing the Project’s environmental impacts.

First, even though the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Project states that the Project will include a “high-cube warehouse use area,” the MND’s project description does not describe the Project’s warehouse facilities with any specificity, including how much square footage can

5 California EPA and OEHHA, CalEnviroScreen 3.0,
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30. 6 Los Angeles Times, When Your House is Surrounded by Massive Warehouses (Oct. 27, 2019), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-27/fontana-california-warehouses-inlandempire-pollution. 7 CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (d)(1). “In interpreting CEQA, [courts] accord the CEQA Guidelines great weight except where they are clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 380 n.2. In practice, the CEQA Guidelines are treated as law. 8 San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 731 (quotation omitted).
112
February 7, 2020

accommodate high-cube warehouse activities or which types of activities will occur in the Project’s warehouses.
9 These details are important since high-cube warehouses generate significantly more truck traffic, noise, and air quality impacts than other types of warehouses, and the scope of impacts vary depending on the type of operations that occur at the warehouses.

According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a high-cube warehouse typically has at least 200,000 square feet of floor space and can serve as a fulfillment center, parcel hub, cold storage facility, transload facility, or a short-term storage building.10 Since the Project includes at least two large buildings that could be used as high-cube warehouses, the project description should clearly state whether these buildings, or any other buildings at the Project, will be equipped as high-cube warehouses, how much space will be used for high-cube warehouse activities, and the types of operations that will occur in these areas.

Second, the Project’s Noise Study briefly states that trucks utilizing the Project’s parking spaces and loading docks will “consist of regular trucks and refrigerated trucks,” but the MND fails to include any discussion of whether the Project will have cold storage facilities.11 If the Project’s buildings have cold storage, the Project’s environmental impacts could be dramatically greater since refrigerated trucks produce substantially more air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions than trucks that visit standard storage facilities. As explained by CARB:

Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) are refrigeration systems powered by diesel internal combustion engines designed to refrigerate or heat perishable products that are transported in various containers, including semi-trailers, truck vans, shipping containers, and rail cars. Although TRU engines are relatively small, ranging from 9 to 36 horsepower, significant numbers of these engines congregate at distribution centers, truck stops, and other facilities, resulting in the potential for health risks to those that live and work nearby.
12 This critical detail should be disclosed in the MND.

Third, the MND’s project description fails to describe how many parking spaces will be provided for vehicles other than trucks. This is an important aspect of the Project considering its large size, and is information that is necessary to accurately assess traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. Without this information, there is no way to correctly determine how many passenger cars will visit the Project site, which is critical to accurately assessing the Project’s environmental impacts. Therefore, the project description should fully disclose the planned parking spaces for the Project.

9 Compare Traffic Impact Analysis, p. 14; with MND, p. 2. 10 Institute of Transportation Engineers, High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis, at p. 3 (Oct. 2016),
https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=a3e6679a%2De3a8%2Dbf38%2D7f29%2D2961becdd498. 11 Compare Noise Study, p. 12; with MND, p. 2.
12 CARB, Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU or Reefer) Regulation, https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truckstop/trus/trus.htm.
113
February 7, 2020

B. The MND Relies on an Air Quality Assessment that Uses Faulty Methods to Analyze Environmental Impacts.

The purpose of CEQA is to ensure that a lead agency fully evaluates, discloses, and, whenever feasible, mitigates a project’s significant environmental effects.13 To comply with CEQA, a lead agency must make “a reasoned and good faith effort to inform decision makers and the public” about a project’s potential impacts.14 If a lead agency fails to analyze a certain aspect of a project’s potential environmental impact, a court may conclude that the limited facts in the record support a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental impact.15 CEQA’s requirements for full disclosure are not satisfied if an environmental impacts analysis uses outdated models and inaccurate information, as the Project’s Air Quality Assessment did here.

First, the MND’s Air Quality Assessment uses CARB’s outdated 2014 Emission Factors Model (EMFAC2014) to calculate air emissions from mobile sources instead of the current model (EMFAC2017).16 This difference is significant since EMFAC2017 uses the latest scientific data available to evaluate environmental impacts. 17 For example, the new model
includes higher NOx emissions, PM emissions, and idling emissions rate for heavy-duty trucks.

Considering the serious air quality problems already present in the communities surrounding the Project, it is essential for the MND to provide accurate estimates of how the Project will contribute to air pollution. Corona should use the current EMFAC2017 model to assess the Project’s mobile source emissions.

In addition, the Air Quality Assessment uses only three land use designations to analyze emissions—office park, industrial park, and unrefrigerated warehouse—even though the MND states the Project will host additional land uses that typically have serious environmental impacts.
18 As previously discussed, the MND’s Traffic Impact Analysis states that the Project will include a high-cube warehouse area, but the Air Quality Assessment fails to analyze the environmental impacts from this particular land use type. Similarly, the MND’s Noise Study indicates that refrigerated trucks will visit the Project, but the Air Quality Assessment fails to analyze the impacts from using the Project for cold storage or the associated refrigerated trucks that will visit the Project.
19 The MND also claims that the Project will include 159,744 square

13 Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1.
14 See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com. v. Bd. of Port Comrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1367, as modified on denial of rehearing (Sept. 26, 2001). 15 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. 16 Air Quality Assessment, p. 19.
17 CARB, EMFAC2017: An Update to California On-Road Mobile Source Emission Inventory, https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017_workshop_june_1_2017_final.pdf. 18 Air Quality Assessment, Attachment A, pp. 1, 25-27.
19 There are many examples of air quality assessments that separately analyze emissions from the refrigerated portions of warehouse projects along with unrefrigerated portions. See, e.g, City of Fontana, Cherry Distribution Facility: Air Quality Impact Analysis (Nov. 20, 2019), 114
February 7, 2020

feet of manufacturing activities, but this land use is similarly ignored in the Air Quality Assessment. Corona should revise its Air Quality Assessment to include an accurate and complete assessment of emissions from all of the Project’s operations.

Further, to estimate emissions from mobile sources, the Air Quality Assessment applies the same length of vehicle miles traveled for each analyzed land use type—only 9.37 miles. 20 It
is unclear what this mileage is based on, since it is unlikely that vehicles visiting the Project’s very different land uses—warehouses, manufacturing buildings, industrial facilities, and offices —will all travel this identical and relatively short distance. The Project includes industrial, warehouse, and manufacturing uses, where heavy-duty trucks will be hauling consumer goods from the Project site to destinations all over California and potentially out of the State. Most of these destinations are much farther than 9.37 miles from the Project, including the Port of Long Beach (approximately 35 miles to the west) and the San Bernardino International Airport (approximately 25 miles to the northeast). Considering the distances frequently traveled by trucks serving the logistics industry, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommends that lead agencies use a default truck trip length of 40 miles one-way for air quality assessments.
21 Some lead agencies calculate the appropriate truck trip length by averaging the distances between a project and the edge of the air basin in several directions.22 Even the California Emissions Estimator Model’s (CalEEMod) default trip length for passenger cars is higher than the trip length for the Project—16.6 miles each way, although the SCAQMD often states in its comment letters that this length is not appropriate for industrial and warehouse projects. Regardless of which method is chosen, the MND should calculate vehicle trip lengths based on the actual likely destinations of trucks and passenger cars visiting the Project and explain the basis for the chosen trip lengths. In its current form, the MND’s Air Quality Assessment is defective since it relies on a single, arbitrary trip length to analyze the Project’s impacts.

Finally, the Air Quality Assessment applies the same vehicle fleet mixture for each land use despite the vast differences between these uses.
23 The most recent version of CalEEMod
includes default vehicle fleet mixes that can be modified by the user since it is commonly understood that different types of land uses attract different types of vehicles at different rates.24

https://www.fontana.org/DocumentCenter/View/31595/CDF-Appendix-B---Air-Quality-ImpactAnalysis. 20 Air Quality Assessment, Attachment A, p. 25.
21 The SCAQMD’s recommended truck trip length is frequently used to analyze air quality emissions in CEQA documents. See, e.g., City of Jurupa Valley, Aqua Mansa Commerce Park Specific Plan Draft EIR, Appendix C1a: Air Quality Study, pp. 50-51 (Dec. 2019), https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2017071034/2/Attachment/WEcK20. 22 See, e.g., City of Rancho Cucamonga, Phelan Development 9th and Vineyard Warehouses Initial Study, p. 37, https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019129018/2/Attachment/YxQQ3U (finding an average weighted truck trip length of 53.26 miles).
23 Air Quality Assessment, Attachment A, p. 26.
24 CalEEMod User’s Guide, p.38 (Nov. 2017), http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4. 115
February 7, 2020

In particular, projects that contain warehouses tend to have far more trucks visiting their facilities than other land uses, so the SCAQMD recommends that lead agencies assume that 40 percent of vehicle trips from warehouses are from trucks.25 Thus, Corona’s failure to analyze the emissions from the mix of vehicles that will visit the Project likely underestimates the emissions the Project will generate and renders the MND flawed.

C. The MND Fails to Include an Analysis of Cumulative Air Quality Impacts.

The CEQA Guidelines mandate all assessments of environmental impacts to include an analysis of cumulative impacts that “take[s] account of the whole action involved.”26 A proper cumulative impacts analysis considers the incremental impact of a project combined with the impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.27 The analysis of a project’s own impacts is an inquiry that is distinct from considering the project’s cumulative impacts.28 If an initial study finds no significant cumulative impact, it must “[e]xplain[] the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant.”29 In this case, the MND fails to include any discussion of cumulative air quality impacts, and the MND’s Air Quality Assessment assumes the Project will have no cumulative impacts since it did not find any significant air quality impacts from the Project itself.30 This conclusory assertion ignores CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts assessments. Further, given the Project’s location in a community that already suffers from serious air pollution concerns, it is essential that the MND includes a proper cumulative impacts analysis. Even if the Project’s air quality impacts may not be significant in isolation, they become more concerning when combined with the pollution produced by other nearby warehouses and industrial sites. This failure to analyze cumulative impacts renders the MND inadequate and unlawful.

D. The MND Fails to Analyze the Project’s Consistency with Corona’s General Plan.

The CEQA Guidelines require an initial study to examine whether a project “would be

25 CalEEMod User’s Guide, Appendix E: Technical Source Documentation, p. 15 (July 2013), http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/caleemod-appendixe.pdf. 26 CEQA Guidelines, § 15355; id., Appendix G.
27 Id., § 15065, subd. (a)(3); Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 118 (“[T]he guiding criterion on the subject of cumulative impact is whether any additional effect caused by the proposed project should be considered significant given the existing cumulative effect.”).
28 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 719-21 (holding that relatively small air quality impacts from a project do not eliminate the need to consider the project’s combined impacts with other development).
29 CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (c)(3)(C).
30 See generally MND; Air Quality Assessment, p. 25.
116
February 7, 2020

consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls.”31 Despite this requirement, the MND quickly concludes that the Project does not conflict with Corona’s General Plan since the Project site does not have to be rezoned from light industrial use. 32 The
MND does not analyze whether the Project will conflict with any policies in Corona’s General Plan, including several policies that will apply to the Project:
 Policy 1.8.12: Requires “nonresidential uses be located and designed to maintain the quality and character of the neighborhood and prevent traffic, noise, odor, lighting, and other adverse impacts on adjoining housing units”;
 Policy 1.12.8: Requires new industrial properties to “be compatible with adjoining uses in consideration of the following principles: … Location of driveways to minimize conflicts with adjoining uses,” and “[m]itigation of noise, odor, lighting”; and
 Policy 1.12.11: Requires “heavy truck and vehicle access in industrial areas be managed to ensure that it is safe and efficient and minimizes noise, odor, vibration, and safety impacts on adjoining uses.”
33 Corona also has new proposed policies in its Draft 2040 General Plan Update that, if adopted, will apply to the Project. Pursuant to SB 1000’s requirements, the General Plan Update includes several policies designed to reduce impacts in environmental justice communities:
 Policy HC-2.1: Requires proposals for new industrial uses to “incorporate the adequate use of setbacks, barriers, landscaping, or other design measures as necessary to minimize air quality impacts and achieve appropriate health standards”; and  Policy HC-2.2: “Designate and maintain truck routes that … avoid[] residential areas, schools, or other sensitive land uses so as to minimize exposure to the noise, air pollution, and vibration associated with trucks.”
34 Since the MND fails to discuss the Project’s consistency with the policies contained in Corona’s General Plan, the MND’s assessment of land use impacts is flawed.

31 CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (d)(5).
32 MND, p. 6.
33 City of Corona General Plan, pp. 43, 53-54 (Mar. 2004), https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=4637.
34 City of Corona 2040 General Plan, p. HC-4 (Dec. 2019), https://www.coronaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=17292.
117
February 7, 2020

E. The MND Does Not Include All Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce the Project’s Potentially Significant Impacts.

CEQA requires a lead agency to adopt all feasible mitigation measures that minimize the significant environmental impacts of a project.35 An MND’s mitigation measures must be specific, binding, and enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.36 In this case, the Project’s MND lists potential significant impacts to air quality, noise, geology, transportation/traffic, and biological resources, but finds that a handful of mitigation measures will make those impacts less than significant. The mitigation measures proposed by the MND are insufficient to protect the community from significant environmental impacts, especially given the Project’s close proximity to residents and other sensitive receptors.

For example, the MND checklist states that the Project may “[e]xpose sensitive receptors to pollutants,” but the MND only includes one mitigation measure to address this potentially significant impact: “The project shall use Tier 4 diesel construction equipment during project construction. The project’s grading plans shall clearly note the use of this equipment.”37 This measure is a good way to reduce construction impacts, but is not the only method that should be used to lower the Project’s air quality impacts during construction. Further, the MND fails to include any mitigation measures that address air quality impacts from the Project’s operations.

We urge Corona to consider adopting additional specific, binding, and enforceable mitigation measures to address the Project’s air quality impacts from its construction and operation. Please see Attachment A for a list of air quality, noise, and traffic measures that would further mitigate the Project’s impacts on the surrounding communities. These measures have been adopted in comparable or smaller projects, indicating that they are feasible.

F. Corona Ignored its Mandate to Consult with Responsible and Trustee Agencies.

CEQA requires a lead agency to consult with responsible and trustee agencies that have jurisdiction over resources impacted by a proposed project prior to adopting an MND.38 Despite this requirement, the Project’s MND states that Corona distributed the MND to statewide agencies via the State Clearinghouse.39 This limited consultation resulted in Corona failing to notify the SCAQMD—the regional agency with jurisdiction over the air basin where the Project is located—of the Project and its potential impacts. Therefore, Corona did not comply with CEQA’s consultation requirements for this Project.

35 Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1). 36 Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, subd. (b); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15071, subd. (e) & 15126.4, subd. (a)(2).
37 MND, pp. 11, 16.
38 Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15073, subd. (c). 39 MND, p. 5.
118
February 7, 2020

III. CORONA MUST PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE THE PROJECT’S IMPACTS.

One of the “basic purposes of CEQA” is to “[i]nform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.”40 The threshold for determining whether an environmental impact report (EIR) is required is low – an EIR must be prepared by a lead agency if substantial evidence supports a “fair argument” that that “any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment.”
41 Corona must prepare an EIR for the Project since there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will have significant environmental impacts. As discussed above, the Project is a large business park that will consist of over a million square feet of warehouse, manufacturing, and industrial uses that typically have significant environmental impacts. The Project will include 126 spaces for trucks, and generate approximately 4,127 vehicle trips a day in Corona and the surrounding areas. Considering the Project’s large scope, mixed industrial uses, and residential location, there is a fair argument that the Project will cause significant environmental impacts. The MND’s deficient analysis of direct and cumulative environmental impacts also creates a fair argument that the Project will have impacts that have not be adequately analyzed and disclosed.42 Therefore, CEQA requires Corona to prepare an EIR that fully analyzes the Project’s impacts.

Further, it is highly unusual for a local government to approve a project of this size and type without preparing an EIR. Several jurisdictions close to Corona are considering warehouse projects that are similar to the Project, but are preparing EIRs rather than negative declarations to analyze the projects’ impacts, including:
 Barker Logistics Project (Riverside County): a 694,630-square foot warehouse building with paved surface parking for 385 automobiles and 124 trucks/truck trailers on a 31.55- acre property;
 Goodman Logistics Center III (Fontana): a three-building industrial park containing 1,118,460 square feet of building area on 47.5 acres;
 Indian Street Commerce Center (Moreno Valley): a 446,350-square foot building with warehouse, light industrial, and office uses on 19.64 acres; and  Slover/Cactus Avenue Warehouse (San Bernardino County): a 257,855-square foot warehouse on 13.27 acres.

These projects are all significantly smaller than the Project or a similar size, yet are receiving more environmental review. Therefore, an EIR for this large Project is necessary.

40 CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(1).
41 Id., § 15063, subd. (b)(1); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2005) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1399–1400. 42 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. 119
February 7, 2020

IV. CORONA MUST PROVIDE ITS PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WITH ADEQUATE TIME TO CONSIDER PUBLIC COMMENTS.

CEQA requires the decision-making body of a lead agency to consider an MND along with all comments received during the public review process prior to approving a project.43 However, Corona’s Notice of Completion for the MND states that public comments are due on February 8, 2020 and the City’s Planning Commission will consider the Project the next business day on February 10, 2020. Since the comment deadline is a Saturday, Corona’s planning staff indicated on our January 21, 2020 call that the City will accept comments until February 10, 2020. As a result, Corona may receive public comments on the Project that will not be considered by the Planning Commission prior to its February 10 hearing to consider the Project.

Corona’s solution to this problem is to present public comments to the City Council prior to its planned adoption hearing for the Project on March 4, 2020, but this is not sufficient to satisfy CEQA’s requirement that all decision-making bodies have a meaningful opportunity to consider public comments for a proposed project. Therefore, we urge Corona to reconsider this rushed timeline for considering the Project to ensure that both the Planning Commission and City Council have sufficient time to consider all public comments, including the comments we provide in this letter. At the very least, Corona should delay the Planning Commission’s upcoming hearing by 30 days or more.

V. CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. We encourage Corona to comply with CEQA’s requirements and adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate the environmental impacts of the Project prior to its approval. The Attorney General’s Office is available to provide assistance to Corona as it works on its CEQA compliance for the Project.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss these issues further.

Sincerely,

ABIGAIL BLODGETT
Deputy Attorney General
For XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General

43 CEQA Guidelines, § 15074, subd. (b).
120
February 7, 2020

Attachment A: Air Quality Mitigation Measures
Measures to mitigate air quality impacts from construction include:
 Requiring off-road construction equipment to be electric, where available.  Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
 Requiring on-road haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled.  Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.  Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area.  Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area.
 Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than three minutes.  Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
 Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts.  Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
 Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
 Limit the Project’s construction days and times.

Measures to mitigate air quality impacts from operations include:
 Limiting the times and days that the project operates, such as only daytime hours on weekdays.
 Require project proponent to follow CARB’s guidance for siting warehouses at least 1,000 feet away from sensitive land uses to avoid health impacts.44  Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 modelyear emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
 Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zeroemission beginning in 2030.

44 CARB, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, at p. 4 (April 2005), https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.
121
February 7, 2020

 Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided.
 Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
 Forbidding trucks from idling for more than three minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
 Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air district, and the building manager.
 Installing and maintaining air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility.
 Installing and maintaining an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality.
 Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
 Constructing plugs for transport refrigeration units at every dock door, if the warehouse use could include refrigeration.
 Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking spaces at the project.
 Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity.
 Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel.  Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.  Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages singleoccupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking.  Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking.  Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards.  Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
 Establishing and enforcing truck routes that avoid residents and sensitive receptors.  Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route.
 Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.
 Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending California Air Resources Board-approved courses. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. 122
February 7, 2020

 Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.  Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.

Measures to mitigate noise impacts include:
 Constructing physical, structural, or vegetative noise barriers on and/or off the project site.
 Locating or parking all stationary construction equipment as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and directing emitted noise away from sensitive receptors.  Verifying that construction equipment has properly operating and maintained mufflers.  Requiring all combustion-powered construction equipment to be surrounded by a noise protection barrier.
 Limiting operation hours to daytime hours on weekdays.  Paving roads where truck traffic is anticipated with low noise asphalt.  Orienting any public address systems onsite away from sensitive receptors and setting system volume at a level not readily audible past the property line.

Measures to mitigate traffic impacts include:
 Designing, clearly marking, and enforcing truck routes that keep trucks out of residential neighborhoods and away from sensitive receptors.
 Constructing new or improved transit stops, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and crosswalks, with special attention to ensuring safe routes to schools.  Consulting with the local public transit agency and securing increased public transit service to the project area.
 Implementing traffic control and safety measures, such as speed bumps, speed limits, or new traffic signs or signals.
 Placing facility entry and exit points on major streets that do not have fronting sensitive receptors.
 Restricting the turns trucks can make entering and exiting the facility to route trucks away from sensitive receptors.
 Constructing roadway improvements to improve traffic flow.  Preparing a construction traffic control plan prior to grading, detailing the locations of equipment staging areas, material stockpiles, proposed road closures, and hours of construction operations, and designing the plan to minimize impacts to roads frequented by passenger cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-truck traffic. 123

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1300 I STREET, SUITE 125
P.O. BOX 944255
SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2550
Public: (916) 445-9555
Telephone: (916) 210-6384
Facsimile: (916) 327-2319
E-Mail: [email protected]
January 27, 2020
Ms. Erica Gutiérrez
Senior Regional Planner
County of Los Angeles, Department of Regional Planning
320 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bridge Point South Bay II – Warehouse Project (SCH # 2019099067)
Dear Ms. Gutiérrez:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the County of Los Angeles’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Bridge Point South Bay II Warehouse Project (“the Project”) in the unincorporated community of West Carson. The MND uses a flawed emissions model and proposes insufficient mitigation for the Project’s potentially significant impacts. We respectfully submit these comments urging the County to conduct further environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to ensure the Project’s environmental impacts are understood, disclosed, and mitigated to the maximum feasible extent.
1 I. THE PROJECT SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A WAREHOUSE IN A HIGHLY POLLUTED COMMUNITY OF COLOR.

The Project is a 203,877-square-foot concrete warehouse building planned within 15 feet of a residential community of color. The warehouse will have 21 dock doors and expects 74 daily truck trips to and from the Project, along with 283 passenger vehicle trips by on-site employees. It is expected to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. While the MND provides that the Project will not be a cold storage warehouse, it foresees that some diesel transport refrigeration units (TRUs) may utilize the Project site. Trucks with TRUs emit

1 The Attorney General submits these comments pursuant to his independent power and duty to protect the environment and natural resources of the State. (See Cal. Const., art.

V, § 13; Gov. Code, §§ 12511, 12600–12; D’Amico v. Bd. of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 14–15.)
124
January 27, 2020

significantly higher levels of toxic diesel particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and greenhouse gas emissions than trucks without TRUs.

The Project is located on the southeast corner of Normandie Avenue and Torrance Boulevard in a dense residential area. The site borders existing homes to the north, west, and east—some as close as 15 feet from the site boundary. According to the 2017 American Community Survey, 2,249 individuals live within approximately 1,000 feet of the site, 84 percent of whom are people of color.2 In addition to residents, there are multiple sensitive receptors within a mile of the site, including two elementary schools,3an Early Head Start Center, and the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.

The local community is dealing with increased air pollution, traffic, and noise as logistics facilities proliferate in the area. North of the Project site, the Farmer Brothers coffee roasting facility was replaced with a 512,000-square-foot industrial warehouse in 2017, intensifying truck traffic in the immediate area.
4 The surrounding area is subject to heavy truck volume and truckrelated collisions, notwithstanding its residential character.5 The site is in the South Coast Air
Basin, which is currently designated as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM2.5 by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency and as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

The neighborhoods around the Project already face high levels of pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 3.0, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and vulnerability, the Project’s census tract, which includes the residential area to the north, south and east of the site, ranks worse than 96 percent of the rest of the state for pollution burden.6 Directly across Normandie Avenue to the west is a residential neighborhood that ranks

2 EPA EJ Screen <https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/> (as of Jan. 10, 2020). 3 Van Deene Avenue Elementary’s 357 students are 96.6% people of color, 80.6% free/reduced lunch eligible and Halldale Elementary’s 502 students are 95.2% people of color, 83.4% free/reduced lunch eligible. (National Center for Education Statistics, <https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ schoolsearch/> [as of Dec. 9, 2019)].)
4 Claran McEvoy, South Bay Industrial Space Sells for $103 Million, Los Angeles Business Journal (April 20, 2018) <https://labusinessjournal.com/news/2018/apr/20/south-bay-industrialspace-sells-103-million/> (as of January 10, 2020). 5 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Countywide Strategic Truck Arterial Network (CSTAN), Appendix C STAN Maps of Supporting Data <http://media.metro.net /projects_studies/call_projects/images/15_Appendix_C_data_maps.pdf> (as of Jan. 10, 2020). 6 CalEnviroScreen is a tool created by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment that uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores and rank every census tract in the state. (CalEnviroScreen 3.0, Cal. Off. Environmental Health Hazard Assessment <https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30> [as of Jan. 10, 2020].) A census tract with a high score is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than a census tract with a low score. (Faust et al., Update to the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool, CalEnviroScreen 3.0 (Jan. 2017) Cal. Off. Environmental 125
January 27, 2020

in the 99th percentile for pollution burden and 84th percentile for population vulnerability.

These neighborhoods have high pollution burdens attributable to contaminated sites and solid waste and hazardous waste facilities in the area. The Project’s census tract is in the 99th percentile for cleanups, the 97th percentile for solid waste, the 91st percentile for toxic releases, the 88th percentile for hazardous waste, and the 82nd percentile for groundwater threats. Air pollution is also a problem for the community, which scores high on PM2.5 (82nd percentile), traffic density (84th percentile), and diesel particulate matter (73rd percentile). The tract west of Normandie Avenue scores above the 90th percentile in nearly every metric of pollution: cleanups (99th percentile), hazardous waste (98th percentile), traffic density (95th percentile), toxic releases (94th percentile), impaired water (94th percentile), groundwater threats (91st percentile), solid waste (90th percentile), and PM2.5 (82nd percentile). The western neighborhood also faces challenges from poverty, unemployment, and housing burden.

The Project threatens to generate further air and noise pollution, as well as traffic, in this community of color.

II. THE MND UTILIZES AN OUTDATED EMISSIONS MODEL.

The purpose of CEQA is to ensure that a lead agency fully evaluates, discloses, and, whenever feasible, mitigates a project’s significant environmental effects.7 To comply with CEQA, the lead agency must make “a reasoned and good faith effort to inform decision makers and the public” about a project’s potential impacts.8 Using scientifically outdated data or models does not comply with CEQA’s requirement that agencies make “a good faith effort at full disclosure.”9
As other commenters have noted, the MND used an outdated model to calculate emissions from mobile sources. The MND relies upon CARB’s 2014 Emission Factors model (EMFAC2014), rather than the current model (EMFAC2017). EMFAC2017 includes important differences from the EMFAC2014 in projections relevant to the Project.10 For instance, NOx emissions from heavy-duty trucks are significantly higher in the new model. Similarly, PM emissions are higher for heavy-duty trucks and the idling emissions rate is higher.

Given the cumulative impact of air pollution from existing stationary and mobile sources in this community, it is even more essential that the MND provide accurate estimates of how the

Health Hazard Assessment <https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report /ces3report.pdf> [as of Jan. 10, 2020].)
7 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000–21002.1.
8 Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1367, as modified on denial of reh’g (Sept. 26, 2001).
9 CEQA Guidelines, § 15151; see also Berkeley Keep, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1367. 10 Cal. Air Resources Bd., EMFAC2017: An Update to California On-road Mobile Source Emission Inventory (June 1, 2017) <https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017 _workshop_june_1_2017_final.pdf> (as of Ja. 10, 2020).
126
January 27, 2020

Project will contribute to air pollution. Without accurate projections, it is not possible for the Project to ensure full mitigation of potentially significant impacts. The County should use the EMFAC2017 model to project the Project’s mobile source emissions to comply with CEQA’s good faith disclosure requirements.

III. THE MND FAILS TO INCLUDE ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES.

CEQA requires a lead agency to adopt all feasible mitigation measures that minimize the significant environmental impacts of a project.11 An MND’s mitigation measures must be specific, binding, and enforceable.12 Here, the Project’s MND lists potential impacts to more than a dozen categories, but finds that mitigation measures will make those impacts less than significant. Review of the proposed mitigation measures, however, reveals that they will be insufficient to protect the community from significant environmental impacts and that additional mitigation is feasible.

A. Mitigation of Air Emissions from Construction
The MND predicts that the Project’s demolition phase will exceed the PM10 threshold without mitigation. Additionally, its grading phase is close to surpassing the PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds. Especially given the proximity of the nearest sensitive receptor, it is imperative that the Project mitigate the risk of additional particulate matter emissions on the nearby residents to the extent feasible.

The MND includes only one air quality mitigation measure during construction, Mitigation Measure 3-1, which requires the construction contractor to take various protective measures to help reduce construction dust. However, the Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) requires implementation of this measure only in the grading phase of construction, and not the demolition phase. Thus, the MND fails to mitigate any particulate matter emissions from the demolition phase of construction, the phase that the County estimates will produce emissions over the significance threshold. The County should apply this measure to all phases of construction.

Another mitigation measure meant to target the significant greenhouse gas emissions from construction, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Measure 8-4, is not binding and unenforceable. This measure suggests the construction contractor must use electric-powered construction equipment, but only if he or she feels it accomplishes the same work as gasoline- or diesel-powered equipment, at a similar level of efficiency, when available. Given these loopholes, it is unlikely any mitigation pursuant to this measure will occur.

To remedy this lack of enforceability, the Project should require that the Project utilize

11 Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1). 12 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15071, subd. (e); Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, subd. (b); Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2).
127
January 27, 2020