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
ATTACHMENT M
SECTION 2
City’s Written Responses
to Verbal Public Comments Received
at Planning Commission Hearing
September 1, 2022
Memorandum
Date: October 10, 2022
To: File No. 2003-24, 712 Baker St., River Park Residential Development Project From: Scott Kinsey, Planner V
Subject: Response to Verbal Comments Received at Planning Commission 9/1/22 This memorandum provides responses to those verbal comments that were provided during the Planning Commission’s September 1, 2022 meeting. The City’s responses are organized based off of the general topics that were discussed in the hopes of providing the greatest amount of transparency and clarity to both the City Council and the public in general.
A separate memorandum responding to those written comments were provided to the Planning Commission will also be provided via separate cover. These two memoranda are intended to complement one another, and incorporate the discussions of each into the other.
1. Comments Concerning Construction Noise from the Development of the Project During the September 1, 2022 hearing, commenters claimed that the FEIR and DEIR failed to analyze the potential construction noise impacts from the development of the Project. This is not true.
The DEIR’s discussion of noise impacts is located in Section IV.K – Noise, of the DEIR. Therein, the City’s consultant has outlined the various thresholds and standards that were utilized to analyze the Project’s impacts. Notably, the City relied on two significance levels to analyze the Project’s impacts: (1) the Federal Transportation Agency’s construction noise threshold of 90 dBA (Leq-1hour) during the daytime and 80 dBA (Leq-1hour) during the nighttime hours, and (2) and a 10 dBA increase in ambient noise levels. (DEIR, pp. IV.K25-26.) Having established those significance levels, the DEIR determined that the impacts were within the FTA’s significance levels, but noted that the construction could increase ambient noise levels by more than 10dBA without mitigation. In particular, the DEIR calculated noise levels from the Project’s on-site construction activities and construction traffic noise, and determined that without mitigation, the Project could result in noise impacts from the on-site construction activities to the east of the Project Site:
As shown in Table IV.K-11, when considering the existing noise environment and the absolute noise levels during construction activities, noise levels would be below the FTA criteria threshold of 90 dBA (Leq-1hour) during the daytime period for residential uses. However, a 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately doubling in loudness and can cause adverse response. Construction noise levels during the daytime period would result in maximum 26.7 dBA above ambient at the residential uses to the east (Site 3). Construction noise levels would be required to be reduced by approximately 16.7 dBA. (DEIR, p. IV.K-42.) As such, the DEIR requires the implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, which provides as follows:
File No. 2003-24, 712 Baker St., River Park Residential Development Project Response to Verbal Comments Received at Planning Commission 9/1/22 October 10, 2022
MM N-1. Construction Noise
• Prior to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits, the project applicant shall incorporate the following practices into the construction contract agreement to be implemented by the construction contractor during the entirety of all construction phases:
• Install temporary noise barriers that reduce sound at receptors; • For any idling that is expected to take longer than five minutes, the engine shall be shut off;
• All equipment shall be equipped with optimal muffler systems; • Locate staging areas as far away from sensitive receptors as feasible; • Locate stationary noise sources as far away from sensitive receptors as feasible; • Enclose stationary noise sources, such as diesel-or gasoline-powered generators, with acoustical barriers where necessary and required; − If stationary equipment cannot be enclosed within a shed or barrier, such equipment must be muffled and located at least 100 feet from sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, childcare centers, hospitals, parks, or similar uses), whenever possible.
• Impact tools (i.e., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust and external jackets shall be used where feasible to lower noise levels. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible. Additionally, use of “quiet” pile driving technology (such as auger displacement installation), where feasible in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions shall be considered.
• Modifying equipment, such as dampening of metal surfaces or other redesign to minimize metal-to-metal impacts. (DEIR, p. IV.K-41.)
As explained by the DEIR, implementation of MM N-1 would ensure that “construction noise levels would be reduced by approximately 24dBA and will not increase ambient noise levels by more than 10dBA.” As such, File No. 2003-24, 712 Baker St., River Park Residential Development Project Response to Verbal Comments Received at Planning Commission 9/1/22 October 10, 2022
the DEIR appropriately determined that “construction noise impacts would be less [than] significant with mitigation.” (DEIR, p. IV.K-42.)1
2. Comments Concerning the Impacts of the Existing Traffic Noise Surrounding the Project Site
Some commenters claimed that the DEIR and FEIR failed to adequately analyze the noise from the neighboring freeways’ impacts on the future residents of the Project site. However, while CEQA does not require an analysis of the existing environment’s impact on a proposed Project, the City has conducted such an analysis in this case.
Section IV.K of the DEIR in particular measured the ambient noise at both the Project site, and the immediate surrounding environs. (See DEIR, IV.K-4-15.) These measurements confirm that the existing noise at, and around the Project site, either are within the State’s CNEL standards, or otherwise already exceed those standards. Further, the DEIR notes that the Project will be required to comply with 24 Cal. Code of Regs. Part 2, which will ensure that the newly developed houses will comply with an interior noise limit of 45 dBA CNEL. (DEIR, p. IV.K-19.)
Additionally, the City has also responded to similar commentary that was raised in written comments that were submitted to the City prior to the Planning Commission in the concurrently submitted memorandum provided by the City’s consultant.
3. Comments Regarding Creation of Potential Heat Sink
The Project at issue will not result in the creation of a heat sink at the Project Site. As explained in the DEIR and FEIR, Project’s GHG, Air Quality, and other similar impacts have already been addressed in those documents. As explained in greater detail therein, the Project will be developed in accordance with all applicable state and local laws and regulations, and will ensure that the Project complies with all climate regulations.
4. Comments Regarding Air Quality Impacts to Future Tenants of Project Site Certain comments claimed that the Project’s proximity to the freeways will expose the Project’s future residents to unsafe air quality, and claims that the mitigation measures will be ineffective because the DEIR fails to address the fact that the windows will not always be closed. However, the DEIR does address this reality, and analyzed four different scenarios, assuming the windows are closed 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the time, and determined that in each scenario, the risk exposure would be below the SCAQMD suggested significance criteria of 10 per one million. (DEIR, p. IV.B-57; see also DEIR Table IV.B-15.) Additionally, the City has also responded to similar commentary that was raised in written comments that were submitted to the City prior to the Planning Commission in the concurrently submitted memorandum provided by the City’s consultant.
1 Note that the nighttime hours standard is inapplicable due to the City’s prohibition on the operation of construction equipment during certain hours. (DEIR, p. IV.K-22 [citing and quoting Long Beach Municipal Code § 8.80.202].) However, with the implementation of MM N-1, even if the developer were required to conduct emergency work, the noise levels would be below the 80dBA threshold.
File No. 2003-24, 712 Baker St., River Park Residential Development Project Response to Verbal Comments Received at Planning Commission 9/1/22 October 10, 2022
5. Comments Regarding Potential Impacts to Bats
Other comments have claimed that the Project could result in significant impacts to certain species of bat that may be present at the Project Site, and referred to certain statements made by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife in response to the City’s Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Long Beach River Park Residential Project, SCH #2021020492, dated March 26, 2021.
The DEIR has discussed the City’s various inspections of the Project Site, and has explained that while local bats species may forage over the site, “[t]here is no opportunity for natal roosting on the property.” The Project Site is currently subject to regular tilling of the soils onsite as part of the active bioremediation program addressing the existing hydrocarbon contamination on the site. As such, no additional mitigation was and is needed in the City’s .
That said, due to the expressed concerns, in an abundance of caution, the City will include the following mitigation measure to ensure that the Project would not result in a significant impact to any bat populations that may be present at the Project Site:
BIO-7 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide the City with proof of retention of a qualified biologist to implement this mitigation measure. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of vegetation removal and ground disturbing activities if within the maternity season (March 1 to August 31). If no active roosts are present, then trees shall be removed within two weeks following the survey. If active bat roosts are found, then then the following shall be implemented, as appropriate:
(a) If active bat roosts are present, a qualified bat biologist shall determine the species of bats present and the type of roost (i.e., day roost, night roost, maternity roost). If the biologist determines that the roosting bats are not a special‐status species and the roost is not being used as a maternity roost and direct removal of active roosts is required, then the bats may be evicted from the roost by a qualified bat biologist experienced in developing and implementing bat mitigation and exclusion plans. If special-status bat species or a maternity roost of any bat species is present, but no direct removal of active roosts will occur, a qualified bat biologist shall determine appropriate avoidance measures, which may include implementation of a construction-free buffer around the active roost. (b) If special-status bat species or a maternity roost of any bat species is present and direct removal of habitat (roost location) will occur, then a qualified bat biologist experienced in developing bat mitigation and exclusion plans shall develop a mitigation plan to compensate for the lost roost site. Removal of the roost shall only occur when bats are not present in the roost. The mitigation plan shall detail the methods of excluding bats from the roost and the plans for a replacement roost in the vicinity of the project site. The plan shall include: (1) a description of the species targeted for mitigation; (2) a description of the existing roost or roost sites; (3) methods to be used to exclude the bats if necessary; (4) methods to be used to secure the existing roost site to prevent its reuse prior to File No. 2003-24, 712 Baker St., River Park Residential Development Project Response to Verbal Comments Received at Planning Commission 9/1/22 October 10, 2022
removal; (5) the location for a replacement roost structure; (6) design details for the construction of the replacement roost; (7) monitoring protocols for assessing replacement roost use; (8) a schedule for excluding bats, demolishing of the existing roost, and construction of the replacement roost; and (9) contingency measures to be implemented if the replacement roosts do not function as designed.
(c) All potential roost trees shall be removed in a manner approved by a qualified bat biologist, which may include presence of a biological monitor.
(d) All construction activity in the vicinity of an active maternity roost shall be limited to daylight hours.
(e) Results of the survey shall be submitted to the City prior to removal of the trees. If additional measures are required under (a) through (d), the submittal to the City will include those additional measures.
SK
ATTACHMENT M
SECTION 3
City’s Written Responses
to Written Public Comments Received
at and after Planning Commission Hearing
September 1, 2022
910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
Date: September 14, 2022
To: Amy Harbin, Long Beach Development Services, City of Long Beach From: Ned Baldwin, Project Manager, Meridian Consultants Subject: Responses to comment submitted to the Planning Commission on the EIR for the River Park Residential Project (SCH No. 2021020492)
This memorandum provides responses to those written comments submitted to the City at the time of the Planning Commission hearing on September 1, 2022. A separate memorandum responding to those verbal comments that were provided to the Planning Commission will also be provided via separate cover. These two memoranda are intended to complement one another, and incorporate the discussions of each into the other.
On the next page is a list of the emails and letters received, as well as their attachments, with a notation as to whether these contained comments on the contents of the EIR. As indicated, several of the emails received did not contain any comment pertaining to the information or analysis in the EIR. For that reason, responses have not been provided to those emails.
For the comments that do pertain to the contents of the EIR, the same set of topics and issues have been expressed by multiples commentors. In addition, some of the same topics were raised in comments given orally at the Planning Commission meeting. Therefore, to provide comprehensive, uniform responses to these issues, responses by topic have been prepared and are included in this memo to address the following topics:
1. Aesthetics
2. Air Quality
3. Biological Resources
4. Density
5. Energy
6. Equity
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
8. Hazards
9. Horse Overlay
10. Noise
11. Park Space
12. Plan Consistency
13. Traffic
14. Tribal Cultural Resources
15. Water
16. Zoning
910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
Copies of the letters with the comments bracketed are included as an attachment to this memo.
The brackets around each comment include a reference to the response by topic that addresses the content of the comment.
910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
List of Comments Received
# File Name Description EIR Topics
1 FW Very Poor Air
Quality 9/7/2022 9:29am email from Patria Caballero None 2 Ovalle 9-2-22 953A 9/2/2022 9:53am email from Juan Ovalle – confirming comments received None
3 Cantrell at 948a 9/1/2022 9:48am email from Ann Cantrell Park Space/Equity/Energy/ GHG/Density/Aesthetics
4 Cantrell at 1023a Same as “Cantrell at 948” See “Cantrell at 948” 5 Jovalle at 1126a 9/1/2022 11:25am email from Juan Ovalle None 6 Covalle at 1139 9/1/2022 11:39am email from Carlos Ovalle None 7 Holman #2 9/1/2022 12:31pm email from R.M. Holman None 8 Cantrell 9/1/2022 12:46pm email from Ann Cantrell None 9 Proffitt 9/1/2022 1:13pm email from Anne Proffit None 10 Guttman 9/1/2022 1:17pm email from Richard
Gutmann Hazards
11 Screen Shots 9/1/2022 – 1:36pm, 1:46pm, 11:53am None 12 Lawler email 9/1/2022 1:51pm email from Renee Lawler Zoning/Horse Overlay/ Tribal/Density/Traffic
13 1977 Equestrian
Zone Map
Copy of FEIR Proposed Horse Overlay Zone
1977 – Attached to “Lawler” None
14 Horse Overlay
District Municipal
Code
Copy of Fax Transmittal 4/27/1998 (LBMC Ch.
21.38 Horse Overlay District) - Attached to
“Lawler”
None
15 City Council
Meeting 1977
Copy of City Council Meeting 8/30/1977 –
Attached to “Lawler” None
16 Chris Koontz Horse
Overlay Zone
12/5/2019 4:17pm email from Renee Lawler
with response from Chris Koontz - Attached to
“Lawler”
None
17 Covalle Email 9/1/2022 1:53pm email from Carlos Ovalle None 18 C Ovalle 9/1/2022 2:55pm email from Carlos Ovalle None 19 Item 2 – 9/1/2022
Agenda 9/1/2022 3:08pm email from Juan Ovalle Park Space/Plan Consistency/Equity/AQ 20 Garretson 9/1/2022 4:16pm email from Leslie Garretson None 21 Holman 9/1/2022 4:26pm email from R.M. Holman None
22 Ovalle 9-1-22
Email
9/1/2022 7:06pm email from Juan Ovalle –
copy of “Item 2 9/1/2022 Agenda” email None
910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
# File Name Description EIR Topics
23 Chatten-Brown,
Carstens, &
Minteer
9/1/2022 Letter from Chatten-Brown,
Carstens, & Minteer
AQ/Park Space/Land Use/Plan
Consistency/Horse
Overlay/Water/Hazards/Tribal/
Noise/Bio/Traffic
24 Josephson 8/29/2022 1:15pm email from Adam
Josephson
Hazards/Park
Space/Density/Traffic
25 Cancino 8/25/2022 1:04pm email from Christina
Cancino
Park Space/Air Quality/Horse
Overlay/Plan Consistency
26 Laquatra 8/23/2022 8:51am email from Mike Laquatra
Air Quality/Hazards/Zoning/
Density/Traffic/Water
Quality/Park Space/Energy
27 Wrigley Email 8/22/2022 1:21pm email from Alex Tomko – President, Wrigley Association None
28 Wrigley Email
Attachment 8/22/2022 email from Wrigley Association
Plan
Consistency/Density/Aesthetics
/Traffic/Park
Space/Hazards/Noise/Air
Quality/GHG/Energy
29 Ferenczy 8/20/2022 11:12am email from Lynette
Ferenczy
Air Quality/Hazards/Noise/Land
Use/Density/Aesthetics/Traffic
/Park Space/GHG/Equity/Water
30 Garcia Letter of
Support
8/30/2022 Letter from Mayor Garcia in
support of Project None
31 Letter of Support
(1) Copy of “Garcia Letter of Support” None
32 Wrigley Heights
Grant Application
Wrigley Heights Acquisition – Grant App
2/28/2003 None
910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
Responses by Topic
1. Aesthetics
Comments questioned the impact of including 3-story residences within an area previously limited to 2- story residences. As explained in the DEIR:
The applicant proposes to use a development standards waiver or regulatory concession under California Government Code Section 65915 in exchange for providing affordable housing on-site. In order to qualify for the waiver or regulatory concession, the applicant will provide either (i) no less than five percent (5%) of the total housing units for very low income households as defined in Section 50105 of the California Health & Safety Code, or (ii) no less than ten percent (10%) of the total housing units for lower income households as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health & Safety Code. The development standards wavier or regulatory concession would allow the Project to include 3-story buildings in an area designated for 2-story buildings under the General Plan. The City is required to approve the waiver or concession if the provisions of state law are met, unless it finds the waiver or concession will not result in cost reductions, would have a specific, adverse impact, or would be contrary to state or federal law. (DEIR, p. II-7.)
Accordingly, while the General Plan does not currently allow buildings taller than 2 stories on the site, through application of this density bonus, the applicant would be entitled to exceed the 2-story height limitation under applicable state law. Furthermore, the analysis in the DEIR determined that the proposed 3-story buildings, which would only be built on the portion of the site along Wardlow Road, would not result in any significant impacts and would be visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods due to difference in elevation between the Project site and the surrounding area and through the use of similar architectural styles:
The completed Project would include a total of 226 homes, 53 of which would be three-stories in height and the remaining would be two- stories. While this would constitute a visual change from the existing conditions, the character would be consistent with the surrounding area and the three-story homes would be concentrated near the southern portion of the Project Site adjacent to Wardlow Road. This would create less influence on the existing views looking west from the existing Wrigley Heights neighborhood since the location of these three-story structures would be offset from the view on Golden Avenue and from the viewpoint of residential homes east of the Project Site.
As the ground level within the Project site is lower the neighborhood to the east, the proposed building heights would be consistent with the existing one- and two-story single-family homes in the surrounding area. In addition, access to views along the Los Angeles River from the Project Site as well 910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
as the park space located to the north of the Project, are within the design of the Project. An extension would be created from Baker Street leading to a pedestrian pathway that connects to the Los Angeles River, allowing for public access to the bike/pedestrian path that follows the river. Access to the LA River trails would also be provided through the park space pathway connections.
The Project would include similar low-density residential housing as seen by the existing neighborhood and would reference existing development to create compatible architectural design of the proposed homes. Refer to Section 2: Project Description, Figures 2.7 proposed Architectural Style Plan of the residential development. The 2.16 for the proposed Project include Spanish Colonial, Italianate, and Santa Barbara architectural styles which complement the character of the Project vicinity. Overall, with the proposed architectural design and building elements, the Project would be consistent with the existing character of the community. (DEIR pp. IV.a1618.)
2. Air Quality
Several comments identified potential air quality concerns due to the proximity of the freeway, as identified and addressed in the DEIR. (See DEIR, Section IV.B: Air Quality.) Some of these comments misstated the analysis. As stated in the DEIR, the Project would comply with all State or Federal standards, and, with appropriate mitigation, would not result in any significant impacts.
The DEIR identified potential air quality impacts to residences of the project from non-project mobile emissions, specifically from the nearby freeways. However, with implementation of the MMs, which includes MERV filters (MERV 14, 15 and/or 16), impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
These are standard measures for residential development located near freeways.
The DEIR addressed the likelihood of occupants opening doors and windows for certain periods of time.
Specifically, the DEIR contained a table derived from the technical analysis included as an appendix to the DEIR that shows that if doors and windows are closed only 25% of the time, exposure of residents to toxic air contaminants (TAC) generated by traffic on the freeway would be below the significance criteria.
Furthermore, the Project has been designed with the proposed park space between the proposed residences and the freeway, creating a buffer. Additionally, regional and local air quality has been improving over time. Locating housing that is connected to opens space/parks and multimodal transportation options, as is proposed with this Project, will support continued improvement in both local and regional air quality conditions over time due to the close proximity to these other uses and services. 910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
3. Biological Resources
As explained in the DEIR, the City and the Applicant have conducted numerous surveys on the Project Site and have not identified any endangered or sensitive plant or wildlife species on the Project Site. (See Section IV.C – Biological Resources]; see e.g., p. IV.C-17 [“None of the species observed on site are considered particularly sensitive and none are specifically protected by State or federal law.”].) The biological assessment conducted by Biological Assessment Services found no evidence of Southern tarplant within the boundaries of the Project site, as documented by their on-site field surveys. For instance, the City’s consultant conducted thorough surveys, at different times of the year, and did not locate any specimens of the species on the Project Site. (DEIR, p. IV.C-2; see also DEIR Appx. IV.C.3 [Biological Resources Supplemental Survey]; DEIR Appx. IV.C.2 [Appendix 1, p. 5].) . This is consistent with the historical and current condition of the Project site, which includes historic disturbance of the site and currently includesregular tilling of the soils onsite as part of the active bioremediation program addressing the existing hydrocarbon contamination on the site. It is the professional opinion of the biologist that conducted this survey that activities performed on the Project site both historically and ongoing have prevented the Southern tarplant from becoming established on site.
With regard to burrowing owls and other birds, several surveys were conducted by the City and by the Applicant during the preparation of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, none of which identified burrowing owls on the site. Nonetheless, the City has incorporated the guidance of the Department of Fish and Wildlife such that the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan require the applicant to conduct further site surveys closer to construction and require mitigation if protected bird species nest on the site prior to construction of the project.
4. Density
Comments have expressed concern that the Project is too dense. The density of the Project would be consistent with the density identified for the site in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan. As was in Section IV.J, Land Use of the DEIR, the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhood (FCN) general plan designation permits a density of 7- 18 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Project is within this range, with a density of 11.3 du/ac and the density of the Project is also comparable to surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, the City of Long Beach faces a need for additional housing of all types and market segments. This Project would meet some of this need. Denser development that also includes open space and strong multimodal connectivity, as proposed by the Project, is consistent with the City’s housing goals.
910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
5. Energy
As discussed in Section IV.E of the DEIR, at full development the proposed Project would result in the need for 1,521,158 kWh (1.5 GWh) per year of electricity. SCE estimates that electricity consumption within its planning area will be approximately 125,000 GWh annually by 2027, when the proposed project is projected to be fully developed and occupied. The proposed Project would account for less than onehundredth of a percent of the 2027 annual consumption in SCE’s planning area.
In addition to complying with Title 24 and CALGreen, the proposed Project would provide for indirect energy savings, such as permitting individual solar panels to be applied to the proposed residential uses, in compliance with Title 24 Section 110.10, which includes mandatory regulations for solar-ready buildings and would not preclude the use of alternate energy sources. Moreover, consistent with Section 21.45.400 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC), the proposed Project would be required to meet the LEED® program at the certified level and comply with the City’s green building program. Green buildings are designed to meet certain objectives such as protecting occupant health; improving employee productivity; using energy, water, and other resources more efficiently; and reducing the overall impact to the environment.
Please note the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) was approved on August 16, 2022 and is not applicable to this Project because environmental review of the proposed Project began on was submitted on February 25th, 2021 when the Notice of Preparation of the EIR was released for review and comment.
6. Equity
As explained throughout the DEIR, the Project Site is contaminated due to past uses of the site and is subject to ongoing remediation and, for these reasons the site is not undisturbed open space. The Project will include the remediation of the Project Site to a level that is protective of human health, and add 5- acres of park space available to the community that will be adjacent to and linked to an existing City park, which is an improvement over the existing condition of the site and the surrounding area in terms of providing publicly accessible open space.
The Project includes the implementation of a remedial action plan (RAP) that require vapor recovery systems within the foundation of the proposed residential units, while the proposed open space will have an engineered cap designed to contain and prevent any migration of contaminants. These improvements will ensure that any risks associated with any potential vapor releases from the existing contamination below the Project Site will not negatively impact future residents and users of the Project Site. 910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
Furthermore, the potential impacts air quality impacts of the Project, along with the related mitigation measures, are already identified and addressed in the DEIR. (See DEIR, Section IV.B: Air Quality.) Specifically, the DEIR states that the Project could result in some potentially significant impacts (e.g., localized impacts of PM2.5 emissions & NOX emissions), but also identified feasible mitigation measures to ensure these impacts would be less than significant. Likewise, the DEIR includes mitigation measures to ensure that the Project’s future residents would not be impacted by air quality emissions coming from the neighboring freeways.
7. Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
The analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions consists of a quantitative analysis of the GHG emissions generated by the proposed Project and a qualitative analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with adopted GHG-related legislation, plans, and policies. This approach is in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), which affirms the discretion of a lead agency to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to use quantitative and/or qualitative methodologies to determine the significance of a project’s impacts.
The DEIR estimated the Project would generate a total of 2,622 MTCO2e of GHG emissions per year. As such, the proposed Project would not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) proposed threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for commercial/residential projects. Moreover, the proposed Project would incorporate energy and water efficiency design features to enhance efficiency in all aspects of the buildings’ life cycle based on the latest CALGreen and Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency standards, as amended by the City, for new residential construction. The proposed Project falls under Section 21.45.400.C.1.a of the LBMC which requires new residential or mixed use buildings of fifty (50) dwelling units and fifty thousand (50,000) gross square feet or more to meet the intent of LEED at the certified level; thereby further reducing the Project’s GHG emissions as CalEEMod does not account for such reductions. For these reasons, impacts related to direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant.
8. Hazards
Various comments expressed concerns regarding the existing contamination on the Project site. The Project site would include the implementation of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP), that must be approved by the Los Angeles Regional Water Control Board (LARWQCB) prior to development of the proposed residential units. This would prevent exposure of future residents to the existing contamination on the site and would improve the environmental condition of the neighborhood. The RAP would ensure that the Project Site would be cleaned up and mitigated according to LAWQCB requirements and the Project’s construction and operation would not adversely impact nearby residents or future residents of the 910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
proposed homes on the site. On-site bioremediation would occur prior to construction of the Project.
Additionally, the placement of an engineered cap over the portion of the Project Site north of Baker Street where the open space area is proposed would eliminate the potential for public exposure to contaminants of concern (COCs) that would remain below this cap on this portion of the site.
As explained in the DEIR, and in the Revised RAP (which was included with the Final EIR), the Project will be required to either remediate any contaminated soil below the Project Site to a level that is safe for human habitation, excavate and transport any soil that cannot be remediated to the concentrations mandated by the LARWQCB, or to otherwise include certain other engineering solutions (i.e. engineered cap) or restrictive covenants (i.e. no groundwater use) to protect future residents from the effects of any remaining contamination on the Project Site once the remediation efforts have been completed. These efforts will ensure that the Project Site is remediated to a level that is safe for the future residents on the Project site, as well as the neighboring property owners.
Moreover, excavation of the Project Site would not occur at depths where groundwater is expected to be encountered. In the event that contaminated soil and/or groundwater is encountered during the construction of the Project, the contaminated soil and/or groundwater would be removed and/or treated in accordance with risk-based cleanup standards established in the RAP and in accordance with State, Federal, and local regulations.
The presence of the existing contamination at the Project Site is an existing environmental condition and not an effect of the Project. Instead, as explained throughout the DEIR and FEIR, the Project imposes a mitigation measure requiring the approval and implementation of the final approved RAP As a result of the Project, the Project Site will be cleaned up in accordance with standards that the Project Site is safe for human habitation.
9. Horse Overlay
Several comments have expressed concern regarding the relationship of the Project to the Horse Overlay District, and/or other equestrian uses within the area. However, as explained in the DEIR and FEIR, the Project would not alter the existing Horse Overlay Zone. Further, as it stands, there are no equestrian uses on or over the Project Site. As such, development of the Project would not result in any impacts to any such equestrian uses. The Project does not remove or alter the existing overlay. The Project does not include the river trail or have any effect on the uses that are allowed on the river trail. The Project Site currently does not accommodate any horse facilities. As such, development of the Project would not result in the removal of any equestrian uses on areas that were within the H Overlay District. The Project would not contain any horse facilities. The Horse Overlay District creates the opportunity for property owners to 910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
incorporate horse facilities but does not require property owners to do so. As such, the Project would not conflict with the Overlay District.
Further, the Project is not inconsistent with the Horse Overlay District. The Horse Overlay District specifically contemplates that other residential uses can be approved within the district’s boundaries, even if those uses are not within an R-1 zoning district. (See, e.g., Table 38-1 of the Zoning Regulations (Title 21, LBMC) [recognizing that the Horse Overlay District could apply to numerous zoning districts].) Lastly, other comments claim that there is an existing “equestrian trail easement” over the Project Site, but there is no evidence that such an easement exists. Accordingly, the DEIR and FEIR properly determined that the Project would not result in any significant impacts to equestrian uses over and around the Project Site.
10. Noise
Comments referenced the Caltrans comment letter on the DEIR which made reference to the potential effect of highway noise on adjacent residences. While the Project Site is located near to the 405 and 710 freeways, the proposed residential units are not located adjacent to either freeway. The proposed park would create a buffer between the proposed residences and the 405; the river runs between the project and the 710.
Ambient noise measurements reported in the Draft EIR indicate that existing noise levels do not exceed established noise standards. The highest noise measurement recorded at the Project Site was 71.7 dBA at the southeast of the Project Site along Golden Avenue. As shown by the table below, this noise level is accpetable. Moreover, per Title 24 standards, new residences must be insulated so that indoor noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA. (See https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CRC2019P1/appendix-k-soundtransmission, https://pdf4pro.com/cdn/california-noise-insulation-standards-5b1acb.pdf).
Furthermore, while the relevant noise standards will not be exceeded on the Project site, it is important to note that CEQA does not require an analysis of the existing environment’s impact on the project. (See California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377 [“In light of CEQA's text, statutory structure, and purpose, we conclude that agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents.”].) Therefore, while Caltrans comment about a sound wall is a standard, non-project specific response to projects located near freeways, a sound wall is not needed as noise levels from the freeway will not impact the proposed residential uses.
910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
COMMON SOUNDS ON THE A-WEIGHTED DECIBEL SCALE
Sound Sound Level (dBA) Subjective Evaluations
Near Jet Engine 140
Threshold of Pain 130 Deafening
Rock music, with amplifier 120
Thunder, snowmobile (operator) 110
Boiler shop, power mower 100 Very Loud
Orchestral crescendo at 25 feet, noisy kitchen 90
Busy Street 80
Loud
Interior of department store 70
Ordinary conversation, 3 feet away 60
Moderate
Quiet automobiles at low speed 50
Average office 40
Faint
City residence 30
Quiet country residence 20
Rustle of leaves 10 Very Faint
Threshold of hearing 0
Note = 5 dBA reduction of a soundwall with a break in line of sight. Additional 1.5 dBA reduction for every 3 feet.
910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
10. Park Space
Many comments discussed the availability of park space to residents of this part of the City. While the Project site has been identified as a potential park site in past planning studies, it is not currently a park and is not currently publicly accessible open space. Furthermore, the existing condition of the property would make using it for park space costly due to the remediation requirements.
However, the Project would remediate the site and create a new 5-acre park adjacent to the existing City park as well as other greenspace around the residential units, which does not currently exist at the Project Site. The Project would, therefore, result in a net increase in green space for the community, not a “destruction of green space” as alleged by commentors.
Additionally, while the Project site has been discussed in the past as a potential publicly accessible open space area, the City is not required to consider the purchase and development of the Project Site into a public park as an alternative under CEQA. Under the requirements of CEQA, the Alternatives evaluated in an EIR are intended to (1) achieve the objectives of the project while (2) reducing or avoiding the significant impacts of the project. Here, the objective of the Project is the development of new residences while also cleaning up the property and providing some additional park space on the land that is privately owned. A primary goal of the project is to provide more housing. For the City to purchase the site from the owner and use it for a different purpose is not a feasible alternative that meets the objectives of the Project. For this reason, the City was not required to analyze an alternative wherein the Project is not developed to accommodate housing.
11. Plan Consistency
Various comments pointed to the inclusion of the Project site in previous park space planning documents.
The DEIR identified that in February 2007, the Parks and Recreation Commission approved RiverLink in concept, and recommended that the plan be forwarded to the Planning and Building Department for inclusion in the General Plan update. The Riverlink plan was not, however, incorporated into the City’s General Plan and is, therefore, not part of the City’s General Plan. As stated in the DEIR, Destination 7, as identified in the Long Beach RiverLink Plan, identifies the Project Site as “Wrigley Heights – South” as a potential location for open space/parks along the river corridor. Regarding the area including the Project Site, the RiverLink Plan identifies this location as suitable as open space destination including public amenities such as pedestrian and bicycle paths, and a neighborhood park with a playground, and picnic areas.
The proposed Project includes an approximately 5-acre park to the north of the proposed residential development, which includes connected pathways to the surrounding parks. The Project would also 910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
include connections to the existing bicycle, pedestrian, and horse path that runs along the LA River. This open space is consistent with the RiverLink Plan. As 25% of the Project site is dedicated as a public park in perpetuity and also incorporates some of the RiverLink Plan suggested recreational components, the Project serves to implement the open space destination as envisioned in the RiverLink Plan. (See also DEIR, pp. IV.J-21-26.)
The Lower Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan also identifies opportunities for improving the environment and residents’ quality of life along the river. The proposed Project would not conflict with the goals and policies identified in the LLARRP. The Project Site is included in the Wrigley Heights River Park Opportunity Area as the “Wrigley Heights River Park South” site. The LLARRP identifies several configurations for the Wrigley Heights River Park Opportunity Area that include active and passive recreation features on the north and south sites. Cost estimates for these different configurations, including property acquisition and improvement costs range from $55 to $191 million. As described above, the Project includes approximately 5-acres of public open space which would be connected to the surrounding City parks as well as the LA River pedestrian, bicycle, and horse paths.
The 2020 LA River Master Plan builds on the adopted 1996 Master Plan and other regional planning studies since then. Each site has specific conditions that will need to be evaluated on a project by project basis as sites are developed. While the Los Angeles River Master Plan provides guidance and recommendation for open space planning it does not require identified sites to be developed with park space. The proposed Project would not conflict with any of the goals identified in the LA River Master Plan. The approximately 5-acres of public open space and connected pathways included in the proposed Project would further the goal mentioned in the LA River Master Plan to make the LA River resources more accessible to the public. Additionally, the Project would not conflict with or impede the open space trail along the river and would integrate the public ROW to the west in order to connect the Project’s park space with the LA River pedestrian, bicycle, and horse paths. With the potential development of the northern parcel located north of I-405 and east of the Los Angeles River by the City as well as the proposed Project recreational features, the Project would not conflict with the intentions of the LA River Master Plan.
The Park Acquisition Feasibility Report, completed in April 2021, identified properties that may be opportunity sites that could be further considered for possible acquisition, along with information on possible acquisition methods and funding sources that may be available for park acquisition. The goal of this study was to identify areas within the western Long Beach that were most feasible to develop park space in order to improve park equity and increased quality of life for all residents. As the Park Acquisition Feasibility Report built upon the concepts of the RiverLink Plan, the Project site, as well as sites to the north and south along the east side of the river, were identified in the report. In 2017, the City engaged 910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
the Trust for Public Lands (TPL) to contact the property owner to discuss the potential for acquisition of the property. TPL concluded that the property owners were not willing sellers and the City was not able to begin any discussions with the property owners that would result in acquisition.
For these reasons, the proposed Project Site was identified as a “site considered but not recommended” in the Acquisition Feasibility Report. The report notes that an entitlement application was filed in June 2019 for the Proposed Project that included a Development Agreement which would obligate the developer to meet certain terms for the approximate 5 acres of public open space included in the Project including:
1. Design and development of the new park acreage with a nature theme and connecting it to the adjacent Baker Street Park so the area operates as a larger park space;
2. New amenities including a universally accessible/inclusive playground, half basketball court, grass playing field, walking loop with outdoor inclusive fitness equipment;
3. Drought-tolerant landscape and carbon sequestering trees and site furnishings like seating, lighting, and trash receptacles;
4. Interpretive and educational signage about the history of Long Beach’s Indigenous People and their connection with the LA River; and
5. Designation of the public park and funding park maintenance in perpetuity.
Consistent with the RiverLink Plan, the Park Acquisition Feasibility Report identifies the Development Agreement associated with the Project as a mechanism to provide as much open space on the site as possible. The Project would not conflict with the goals of the Park Acquisition Feasibility Report or the terms of the Development Agreement.
Other commenters raised concerns with the Project being potentially inconsistent with the City’s Parks & Recreation Department’s 2003 Strategic Plan, or the West Long Beach Livability Implementation Plan, or the West Long Beach I-710 Community Livability Plan. These arguments are to no avail.
As an initial point, it bears noting that the 2003 Strategic Plan has been superseded by the 2022 Strategic Plan, which is available at the following link:
https://www.longbeach.gov/park/business-operations/about/prm-strategicplan/#:~:text=On%20January%2018%2C%202022%2C%20the,services%20as%20the%20community’s%2 0needs.
While the 2003 Strategic Plan is no longer applicable, it bears noting that the Project is consistent with the stated desire of creating new parks in the Wrigley Heights area, by including the development of a 5- 910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
acre park that will be open to the public. Nothing in the 2003 Strategic Plan requires that the entire Project Site be converted to a park.
The Project is also consistent with the West Long Beach Livability Implementation Plan and the West Long Beach I-710 Community Livability Plan. Both of these plans discuss the potential development of the Wrigley Heights Park Expansion and River Connector as described in the Riverlink Plan. As explained in the RTC, and in the DEIR, the Project is consistent with the Riverlink Plan. Further, nothing in the Riverlink Plan requires privately-owned property (i.e. the Project Site) to be developed into a park. Rather, the park is to be developed into those portions that are owned by the City, with the Riverlink Plan specifically acknowledging that the private property could be developed separately. In short, the Project is consistent with each of these plans.
Some commenters claimed that the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan because the Project is inconsistent with the “park goals and other key land use plans.” However, as explained above, and in greater detail in the DEIR, the Project is consistent with the relevant plans. Further, the Project requires the development of five acres of public park space.
Therefore, based on the fact that the Project would provide 5-acres of park space where none exists now, and is configured to enhance connectivity to the river by maintaining an access easement over Baker street right of way, the Project would not conflict with the goals identified in these various planning studies.
12. Traffic
The Project includes a new access point on Wardlow Road and the DEIR recognizes that “the line-of-sight 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[,].” As a result, the DEIR included a requirement to install a traffic signal to mitigate this impact to a less than significant level.
One commenter claimed that the proposed installation of the traffic signal, and related improvements, at the Wardlow entrance to the Project is improper because of a purported memorandum that supposedly states that the City has previously determined that such a north/south street through to Wardlow was not possible. As an administrative matter, the commenter has provided what appears to be a stand-alone page of some City record, without any further context. As such, it is impossible to assess what the statement was actually addressing. For instance, it could be talking about another piece of property, or a different Wardlow street. Indeed, the cited page describes Wardlow as a “service road” with a 28-foot roadbed. However, the Wardlow Street that will provide access to the Project Site is roughly 85 to 100 910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
feet. As such, it appears that this determination would not apply to the intersection contemplated by the Project.
The context of the purported memorandum appears to be consideration of connecting Golden Avenue or Maine Avenue to Wardlow Road at the points where those roads only connect to the Wardlow Road service road. This would create an intersection comparable to where Magnolia Avenue meets Wardlow Road at which Magnolia Avenue crosses the Wardlow service roads and the east and west bound main segments of Wardlow Road. However, at Golden Avenue and Maine Avenue there is a grade changes between the main Wardlow Road and the service Wardlow Road which would make such an intersection problematic, as noted in the City memorandum. However, that is not the intersection that will be servicing the Project Site.
That being said, the City’s consultant has conducted an analysis of the proposed intersection, and has determined that the proposed intersection and traffic signal would mitigate any significant safety impacts.
The proposed intersection would include an eastbound left turn pocket into the site would be adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by the Project, and would feature vehicle detection, pedestrian controls, and flashing beacons on both Wardlow Road approaches that would reduce potential roadway hazards to a less than significant level. The peak hourly volume for that movement would be approximately 47 vehicles. While the traffic signal would be visible for several hundred feet ahead of the eastbound approach, during the final engineering design of this new signal, horizontal and vertical site distance would be further evaluated, and advanced signage and pavement markings can be added to the final design if needed to further bring awareness to the signal.
Additionally, the proposed Project is projected to result in a less than 1 percent increase in trips based on the freeway mainline capacity in both the AM and PM peak hours on the I-710 northbound onramp. In addition, impacts to the I-405 northbound off-ramp to Long Beach Boulevard will result in a less then significant hazard and safety impact given that it is projected to result in a less than 1 percent increase in trips based on the capacity of the freeway off-ramp (based on an assumed ramp capacity of 850 vehicles per hour per lane).
Further, while impacts to LOS are no longer considered transportation impacts as defined by CEQA, it is important to note that the DEIR has analyzed the potential impacts of the Project on the operating conditions of seven nearby intersections and concluded that the Project would not result in any substantial effects on these intersections.
13. Tribal Cultural Resources
Comments received assert that tribal cultural resources (TCR) have not been considered. In accordance with the California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, the City conducted consultation with 910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
officially recognized tribes that are culturally affiliated with the area. As an initial matter, the City reached out to several tribes in the region. The City consulted with the only tribe to respond, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation, and determined upon mitigation that addressed the potential impacts identified through this process. (See DEIR, p. IV.N-1.) The potential impact identified in the DEIR was to as yet unknown subsurface resources that could be encountered during construction. With implementation of MMs TCR-1 to MM TCR-7, potentially significant impacts to TCRs and human remains would be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
These measures would work to prevent the destruction and loss of sensitive TCRs and ensure the proper disposition of human remains. There are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed Project related to TCRs. (See DEIR, Section IV.N – Tribal Cultural Resources; DEIR, Appendix IV.N.) Furthermore, access to the Project Site will be enhanced through the provision of park space. As it stands, the Project Site is private property that is surrounded by fences and undergoing remediation. Upon completion, the proposed park would be open to the public and therefore access to the site would be greater than under current conditions.
14. Water
Comment questioned the need for infrastructure improvements to meet the needs of the Project. The Project will be required to upgrade utility connections in order to provide appropriate water supply to future residents. The DEIR explains how the Project would not result in any potentially significant impacts to the utilities in the area and water supply for the Project would not create significant environmental impacts. (See DEIR, Section IV.O – Utilities).
Subsequent to the publication of the DEIR, the Revised RAP was submitted to the LARWQCB responding to some of that Board’s previous comments on the original RAP. The Revised RAP proposes steps to further evaluate the origin and extent of the existing contamination within impacted groundwater, primarily related diesel and arsenic. Contingencies for remedial treatment of groundwater utilizing in -situ (i.e., in place) methodologies as described in the Revised RAP as a component of the Groundwater Monitoring Plan.
In particular, the Revised RAP requires the additional groundwater monitoring with specific emphasis on evaluating the presence of arsenic and TPH-d in the groundwater. To that end, the Revised RAP requires that a “Groundwater Monitoring Plan (GMP) to be submitted to the Board that contains the final monitor well network, groundwater testing requirements. The GMP will include a contingency plan for treatment of residual arsenic in groundwater that remains above background concentrations following cessation of the Tesoro TPH-gas remediation program.” The Revised RAP also requires that a contingency be provided 910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
to “treat arsenic impacted groundwater in the event arsenic concentrations persist above regional background levels following completion of the TPH-gas remediation.” The Revised RAP (as well as the prior version of the RAP), and the DEIR explain that the Project will be required to include certain protections to be installed either in the foundation of the residential structures or as an engineering cap on the open space. These measures will further mitigate any potential risks to the future inhabitants/users of the Project from any potential vapor exposure.
The proposed Remedial Action Plan is attached to the FEIR as Appendix IV.H.4, and has been previously circulated for public comment on May 13, 2022 in conjunction with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region’s review and consideration of the Revised RAP. Further, the elements of the RAP are discussed throughout the DEIR and FEIR, including the treatment and removal of contaminated soil from both the northern and southern parcel, along with the installation of the engineered cap under the northern parcel. (See, e.g., DEIR IV.B-43 [acknowledging need for hauling of soil during bioremediation phase].)
Some commenters also claim that the DEIR fails to address the Project’s potential impacts to groundwater beneath the Project site. However, as explained in Section IV.I of the DEIR (Hydrology and Water Quality), the Project calls for the development of an engineered cap that would eliminate potential exposure pathways to the ground surface for the COCs that remain on the Project site. Further, the engineered cap will be developed after a treatability study had been conducted to ensure that the cap would protect human health and groundwater in the long term. (See DEIR, pp. IV.I-18—19.) Likewise, the Project’s potential impacts to surface water has been assessed in Section VI.I, with the DEIR recognizing that the Project would be required to develop and comply with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”), the NPDES permit, and Chapter 18.74 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, amongst other regulations. (See also DEIR Appx. IV.I.2 [Conceptual LID BMP Calculations].) As a result, the DEIR properly determined that the Project would not result in a significant impact to local surface water and groundwater quality.1
15. Zoning
Comments expressed concern over the proposed zone change The existing zoning on is Commercial Storage (CS) and Single-Family Residential Standard Lot (R-1-N) with a Horse (H) Overlay District over a portion of the Project Site.
1 The DEIR also noted that Project implementation would not interfere with groundwater recharge as the Project Site is not suitable for infiltration and groundwater recharge due to the existing contamination within the soil. (See DEIR, pp. IV.I-25—26.)
910 Hampshire Road, Suite V
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720 Fax. 805.367.5733
A zone change to Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) is proposed. A PUD is required to have a minimum site are of 5 acres, be internally integrated and connected and provide a minimum of 15% of the site as usable open space. In addition, minimum building setbacks, maximum height, minimum open space, street and sidewalk width, and other dimensional standards are established in Table 31-8 of Chapter 21.31. The proposed zone change for the Project would not remove the Horse Overlay District nor would have an effect outside of the Project site such as on the public trail along the river. (See analysis above regarding Project’s interaction with existing Horse Overlay District.) Attachment N
River Park Residential Development Project
Environmental Impact Report
EIR-07-20, State Clearinghouse No. 2021020492
All environmental report documents, appendices, and attachments are available on the Department of Development Services Environmental Reports webpage at this link:
https://www.longbeach.gov/lbds/planning/environmental/reports/ The documents are located in the “Pending” section of the page, under the heading 712 Baker Street (River Park Residential Project)