1 EWM:ag A23-00626 (3/03/203) 01500949.docx
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LONG BEACH ADOPTING AND CERTIFYING MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND 01-23) FOR THE
CARGOMATIC TRUCKING PROJECT LOCATED AT 1711
HARBOR AVENUE AND 1515 W. 17th STREET
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND 01-23) which reflects the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental impacts of the Cargomatic trucking project located at 1711 Harbor Avenue and 1515 W. 17th Street (“Project”). The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review and comment from December 23, 2022 to January 23, 2023, for a 30-day comment period; and
WHEREAS, the City has incorporated public comments and revisions, if any, to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2023, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to present evidence and be heard. Thereafter, the Planning Commission adopted the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration as being compliant with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the project was timely appealed and is therefore now before the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2023, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to present evidence and be heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Long Beach does hereby find, determine and resolve that:
RES-23-0054
2 EWM:ag A23-00626 (3/03/203) 01500949.docx
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Section 1. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project, together with any comments received during the public review process, and the City Council finds that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Long Beach; and that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has disclosed that all potential environmental effects from the Project will be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, and that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment as so mitigated Section 2. The City Council hereby certifies and adopts the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MND 01-23 attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, including any and all findings contained therein, as presented to the City Council at the above described public hearing, having reviewed and considered the information including the findings contained in said Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to deciding whether to adopt and certify the Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by the City’s staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. The draft documents circulated for public review reflect the City’s own independent judgment, and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration as adopted and certified by this Resolution also reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
Section 3. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference, as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project.
The City Council finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and directs the Director of Development Services to oversee the implementation of the MMRP, and further directs that each relevant Mitigation Measure become a condition of Project approval.
3 EWM:ag A23-00626 (3/03/203) 01500949.docx
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Section 4. The City Council hereby directs the Director of Development Services to file a Notice of Determination within five (5) working days after the certification and adoption of the Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City Council.
Section 5. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2), the documents which constitute the record of proceedings for certifying and adopting the Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are located in the Long Beach Development Services, Planning Bureau, 411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802. The custodian of these records is Sergio Gutierrez, Planner IV.
Section 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution. ///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
.... >- >, g Wwz c: LL
0::: 0 :5 N 0 ~ O'l o I- - 00
~z,'Eo ·- ro O'l
~O_jic)
-I ::i () (I) 0 .
wo 00 -5 J:1-C:ro
1-zrow
LLO ~en
o~sg
Wz(/)o
o 5 w...J
u:: <( 5
LL O ..- 0 ..-
'Sj1 I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council 2 of the City of Long Beach at its meeting of April 11 2023 by the following 3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
vote:
Ayes: Council members:
Noes: Councilmembers:
Absent: Councilmembers:
Recusal(s) Councilmembers:
EWM:ag A23-00626 (3/03/203) 01500949.docx
4 Zendejas, Allen, Duggan, Supernaw,
Kerr, Saro, Uranga, Austin,
Ricks-Oddie.
None.
None.
None.
Cler
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT I DECEMBER 2022
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND
CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
EXHIBIT A
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Green Trucking and Container Storage
Project
LEAD AGENCY:
City of Long Beach
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Long Beach, California 90802
Contact: Mr. Sergio Gutierrez
562.570.5934
PREPARED BY:
Michael Baker International, Inc.
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
Contact: Ms. Jessica Ditto
949.330.4183
December 2022
JN 191321
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 i Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements ............................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Consultation ................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................................................ 1-2
2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4 Project Background ........................................................................................................................ 2-4
2.5 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.6 Construction ................................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.7 Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................... 2-7
3.0 Initial Study Checklist ................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-3
4.0 Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................ 4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.6 Energy ......................................................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.8 Greenhouse Gases ..................................................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................. 4.9-1
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 4.11-1
4.12 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.14 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................ 4.14-1
4.15 Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 4.15-1
4.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 4.16-1
4.17 Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 4.17-1
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 4.18-1
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 4.19-1
4.20 Wildfire ...................................................................................................................................... 4.20-1
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................... 4.21-1
4.22 References ................................................................................................................................ 4.22-1
4.23 Report Preparation Personnel ................................................................................................... 4.23-1
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 ii Table of Contents
5.0 Consultant Recommendation .................................................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 Lead Agency Determination ...................................................................................................................... 6-1
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Analysis
Appendix B Cultural/Paleontological Resources Report
Appendix C Phase I ESA
Appendix D Noise Analysis
Appendix E VMT Analysis
Appendix F AB 52 Consultation Documentation
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2-1 Regional Vicinity ............................................................................................................................. 2-2 Exhibit 2-2 Site Vicinity ..................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Exhibit 2-3 Proposed Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 2-5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1-1 Municipal Code Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis ............................................... 4.1-2 Table 4.1-2 General Plan Policies Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis ...................................... 4.1-5 Table 4.3-1 Project-Generated Construction Emissions ................................................................................. 4.3-5 Table 4.3-2 Project-Generated Operational Emissions .................................................................................. 4.3-7 Table 4.3-3 Localized Emissions Significance .............................................................................................. 4.3-10 Table 4.3-4 Project Maximum Individual Cancer Risk .................................................................................. 4.3-13 Table 4.6-1 Project and Countywide Energy Consumption ............................................................................ 4.6-4 Table 4.6-2 General Plan Energy Goal Consistency Analysis ........................................................................ 4.6-7 Table 4.8-1 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................... 4.8-6 Table 4.8-2 Project Consistency with 2020-2045 RTP/SCS ........................................................................... 4.8-8 Table 4.8-3 2017 Scoping Plan Update Consistency Analysis ..................................................................... 4.8-10 Table 4.11-1 General Plan Land Use Element Consistency Analysis ............................................................ 4.11-2 Table 4.11-2 IG Zone District Development Standards Consistency Analysis ............................................... 4.11-4 Table 4.13-1 City of Long Beach Noise Limits ................................................................................................ 4.13-2 Table 4.13-2 Short-Term Noise Measurements ............................................................................................. 4.13-4 Table 4.13-3 Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ............................................... 4.13-5
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 iii Table of Contents
Table 4.13-4 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................................ 4.13-8 Table 4.17-1 Weekday Average Project Trip Generation ............................................................................... 4.17-3 Table 4.19-1 Supplies and Demands Under Different Hydrologic Conditions ................................................ 4.19-3
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 iv Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
~
~ .- .·, ----------G-R-EE-N-TR_u_c_KI-NG_F_A_c,_ur_v_A_No_c_o .. NT_A_IN-ER_s_r_oRA __ G_E P_R_o_JE-CT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND TECHNICAL APPENDICES ON CD
December 2022 V Table of Contents
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 vi Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 1-1 Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Green Trucking Facility and Container Storage Project (herein referenced as the “project”) involves the demolition of various existing buildings and associated equipment to construct an outdoor storage yard facility for the temporary storage of shipping containers en route to and from the Port of Long Beach. An existing building located on the southeast corner of the project site is to remain and would be renovated to serve as an office building. Additional site improvements would include on-site parking for trucks, passenger vehicles, and bicycles, zero emission charge stations for on-site trucks, plugins for refrigerated container charging, new drought-resistant landscape buffers, and fencing and k-railing.
Following a preliminary review of the proposed project, the City of Long Beach (City) has determined that it is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the project, as proposed.
1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21177) and pursuant to Section 15063 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City of Long Beach, acting in the capacity of Lead Agency, is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project would have a significant environmental impact. If the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration (or Mitigated Negative Declaration) for that project. Such determination can be made only if “there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency” that such impacts may occur (Section 21080, Public Resources Code).
The environmental documentation, which is ultimately approved and/or certified by the City in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required.
1.2 PURPOSE
Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study.
Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include:
A description of the project, including the location of the project; Identification of the environmental setting;
Identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries; Discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any; Examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and
The name(s) of the person(s) who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study. •
•
•
•
•
•
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 1-2 Introduction
1.3 CONSULTATION
As soon as the Lead Agency (in this case, the City of Long Beach) has determined that an Initial Study would be required for the project, the Lead Agency is directed to consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies that are responsible for resources affected by the project, in order to obtain the recommendations of those agencies on the environmental documentation to be prepared for the project. Following receipt of any written comments from those agencies, the City will consider their recommendations when formulating the preliminary findings. Following completion of this Initial Study, the City will initiate formal consultation with these and other governmental agencies as required under CEQA and its implementing guidelines.
1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following documents were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study and are incorporated into this document by reference. The documents are available for review at the City of Long Beach Development Services Department, located at 411 West Ocean Boulevard, Third Floor, Long Beach, California 90802.
City of Long Beach General Plan (updated 2022). The purpose of the City of Long Beach General Plan (General Plan) is to provide a general, comprehensive, and long-range guide for community decision-making.
The General Plan consists of the following elements, adopted on various dates: Land Use (2019); Urban Design (2019); Housing (2022); Mobility (2013); Historic Preservation (2010); Open Space and Recreation (2002); Public Safety (2002); Air Quality (1996); Seismic Safety (1988); Local Coastal Program (1980); Noise (1975); and Conservation (1973). The individual elements identify goals and policies for existing and future conditions within the City.
Long Beach Municipal Code (codified through Ordinance No. ORD-22-0027, enacted September 13, 2022).
The Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) consists of regulatory, penal, and administrative ordinances of the City. It is the method the City uses to implement control of land uses, in accordance with the General Plan goals and policies. Title 20, Subdivisions, and Title 21, Zoning, of the LBMC identifies land uses permitted and prohibited according to the zoning designation of particular parcels. The purpose of the zoning regulations within the LBMC is to promote and preserve the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the people of Long Beach.
·--
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 2-1 Project Description
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
Regionally, the project site is located within the southwestern portion of the City of Long Beach (City), Los Angeles County, California; refer to Exhibit 2-1, . Locally, the project site is located approximately 0.15-mile west of Interstate 710 (I-710) and 0.02-mile south of East Pacific Coast Highway at 1711 Harbor Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 7432-015-011) and 1515 West 17th Street (APNs 7432-014-022, 7432-014-025, and 7432- 014-030); refer to Exhibit 2-2, .
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Green Trucking Facility and Container Storage Project (project) would occur on two properties; one located at 1711 Harbor Avenue and the other located at a remote site at 1515 West 17th Street. These two properties make up the project site. The project site is currently developed with buildings, storage areas, surface parking, and ancillary infrastructure, including a water tower, for commercial and industrial uses associated with the former operations of the Custom Fiberglass Manufacturing Company DBA Snug Top (Snug Top). The 196,350-square-foot portion of the site located at 1711 Harbor Avenue generally consists of a 6,070-square-foot main building, 122,060 square feet of factory/warehouse area, and 1,746 square feet of office space. The perimeter of the facility is fenced and has limited ornamental landscaping, including vines and shrubs, along the eastern and southern site boundary. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is currently provided via two driveways with sliding gates along Harbor Avenue to the east. Additionally, a driveway curb cut currently exists along East Pacific Coast Highway which provides access to a property to the north of the 1711 Harbor Avenue property.
The 14,590-square-foot portion of the site located at 1515 West 17th Street consists of an outdoor storage yard. The perimeter of the facility is fenced and has limited ornamental landscaping, including vines, shrubs, and mature trees along the eastern and southern site boundary. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is currently provided via three driveways with sliding gates; one driveway is provided along Caspian Avenue to the east, and two driveways are provided along West 17th Street to the south.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
According to the (General Plan) Land Use Element, the project site has a PlaceType designation of Industrial (I). The I PlaceType is reserved for manufacturing, processing, construction and heavy equipment yards, warehousing of products, research and development, creation of prototypes and a broad range of similar industrial practices and processes. The I PlaceType has a 65-foot maximum building height limit.
According to the , dated June 30, 2021, the project site is zoned General Industrial (IG). Based on (LBMC) Section 21.33.020(C), the IG district allows uses such as large construction yards with heavy equipment, chemical manufacturing plants, rail yards, and food processing plants.
Q>----
___ Regional Vicinity
___ Site Vicinity
City of Long Beach General Plan
City of Long Beach Zoning Districts Map
Long Beach Municipal Code
Project
Site
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
\
\
I
I
/ Rancho
Cucamonga
co
Murrieta
USMC
Camp Pendleton ..,
L.
(
)
/
/
/
/
// SAN D I
cou
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
NOTTO SCALE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION •MSlffii:fflffi ~ Regional Vicinity I NTERNATIONAL ---------------------------------'--------- JN 191321 I 09/22 Exhibit2•1 Source: Google Earth Pro, September 2022
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
NOTTO SCALE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I ~ = Project Site •Mtl!lffiMMti ~ Site Vicinity INTERNATIONAL ---------------------------------------------------------~ JN 191321 I 09/22 Exhibit 2-2
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 2-4 Project Description
SURROUNDING USES
Surrounding land uses adjacent to the project site have a PlaceType designation of Industrial (I) and are zoned General Industrial (IG). The surrounding land uses include the following:
A building and surface parking lot associated with Snug Top operations, an auto repair shop (i.e., Bob and Nick German Auto Service), an Arco Gas Station, and East Pacific Coast Highway are located north of the project site. Further north, across East Pacific Coast Highway are commercial uses (i.e., Equipments Parts and Service, Pacific Market, and Hiland Motel);
Harbor Avenue is located east of the project site. Further east, across Harbor Avenue, are industrial uses (i.e., Sealogix Trucking Company);
West 17th Street is located south of the project site. Further south, across West 17th Street, are industrial uses (i.e., C Trans Inc., Brenda Villa Registration Services, a vacant industrial building, and A.P.
Fischer, Inc.); and
Caspian Avenue is located west of 1711 Harbor Avenue. Further west, across Caspian Avenue, and west of 1515 West 17th Street are industrial uses (i.e., Hansen Freightlines and MyNewCarWash.com).
2.4 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Long Beach (City) is situated along the Pacific Ocean coastline in between Los Angeles and Orange counties and strategically operates local, regional, and global-serving facilities including the Port of Long Beach (POLB). POLB is the second largest container port in the country; combined with the Port of Los Angeles, the two facilities rank as the world’s sixth most trafficked port complexes. Increased commerce from these operations has resulted in greater diversity in employment and opportunity for entrepreneurial endeavors in the City, which is an advantage for the area workforce and local businesses due to the clustering and proximity of diverse businesses. The City is in pursuit of greening both the design and operation of all its regional-serving facilities, including POLB and its affiliated properties. Varied industrial districts have been established throughout Long Beach, particularly near the port.1 The project site is situated in one of the City’s industrial districts, located adjacent to the POLB. The project proposes to construct a green trucking facility, outfitted with zero emission charging stations, that will provide temporary storage for shipping containers and local freight trailers en route to and from the POLB. Implementation of the proposed project would provide additional support for the global and regional supply chain, propel the POLB and the City toward more environmentally sustainable design and practices, and provide additional employment opportunities in the City.
2.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
As noted above, the proposed project would occur on two properties located at 1711 Harbor Avenue and 1515 West 17th Street. The proposed project would include the demolition of various existing buildings and associated equipment to construct a storage yard facility for the temporary storage of shipping containers en route to and from the POLB; refer to Exhibit 2-3, . The project would provide zero emission charge stations for on-site trucks.
An existing building located on the southeast corner of the project site is to remain and would be renovated to serve as an office building. Additional site improvements would include new drought-resistant landscape buffers, fencing and railing, and on-site parking. Project implementation would include two Conditional Use Permits (one for each property) and a Lot Merger for consolidation of the three parcels that comprise 1515 West 17th Street. 1 City of Long Beach, , https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/lbds/medialibrary/documents/planning/advance/lueude/land-use-element-final-adopted-december-2019, accessed August 30, 2022.
Q>----
• North:
___ Conceptual Site Plan
City of Long Beach General Plan, Land Use Element
II IJL
_' I I I 11
Source: Cargomatic, May 27, 2022.
PACIFIC COAST HWY
N.A.P. N.A.P.
,.., ........... ' h
,.
CJ ,,
.. ======::==-----=
r---
'
I
l
"
.. ..
'
..._ •' ~J __ "',
,
, __
--..,w-r
~
"
" " I
rt
-
6 ~ " '
('.;.
L---,--,r------,--------"~--------'~-..1_
17TH ST
..
• •
u..i
> <
a::
0 al
a::
<
:i::
KEYNOTES
:::=;~'-'-curTV .. -"'"1>•™"JUU._....,~
-----• .. 1o-10 ... rw .. _Df'rl- ---•O•\TCODlillln ----.iiOIIIEll:-IEOl'E-1Vllll<ll:-.al.Of!IIG..all£010 _.... __
PARKING SUMMARY
LEGEND
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
NOTTO SCALE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mtl!lffiMMti I ~ Proposed Site Plan I NTERN ATIONAL -JN~1=,~13-21~1-12~12~,--------------------------------------------------------~Exh::-:~i~b=1t~2~-:3
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 2-6 Project Description
2.5.1 SHIPPING CONTAINER STORAGE AND OFFICE USE
As shown on Exhibit 2-3, the proposed shipping container storage and green trucking facility would be constructed on two properties located at 1711 Harbor Avenue and 1515 West 17th Street. Following demolition of the various existing structures and associated equipment at 1711 Harbor Avenue, the project site would primarily accommodate shipping container storage and office use. The facility would include approximately 174 double stacked container stalls and approximately 57 single stacked container stalls, for a total of 231 stalls to accommodate approximately 405 containers on-site, measuring 40 feet in length and eight feet in width. The shipping container stalls would be aligned in three rows running north-south at 1711 Harbor Avenue. At 1515 West 17th Street, the shipping container stalls would be aligned in two rows running east-west. All shipping container stalls would be topped with a minimum six-inch load bearing base per code requirements to accommodate stacked shipping containers, at a maximum of two containers high.
The project proposes to retain and modify an existing building located in the southeast corner of the project site for office use. The existing structure would receive a 654-square foot addition as well as an interior remodel to support project operations. The new office building would include six offices, two break rooms, a vault, a kitchen, and three restrooms, including two restrooms that are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, and one workroom. The exterior of the building would include an ADA-accessible ramp, covered bench, and signage.
The shipping container storage and truck charging facility is anticipated to operate in cooperation with the POLB gate hours of 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
2.5.2 SITE ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING
Site ingress/egress is currently provided via two driveways along Harbor Avenue and one egress driveway along East Pacific Coast Highway for the 1711 Harbor Avenue property; two ingress driveways are provided along West 17th Street and one egress driveway is provided along Caspian Avenue for the 1515 West 17th Street property. The project proposes to utilize the existing driveways along Harbor Avenue, East Pacific Coast Highway, Caspian Avenue, and West 17th Street with the exception of the southeastern driveway at 1515 West 17th Street along West 17th Street; which would be removed, as would four curb cuts along Caspian Avenue, which would be infilled with a full curb and gutter; refer to Exhibit 2-3. The main driveway for truck ingress/egress for the proposed shipping container storage and green trucking facility would be the northern driveway along Harbor Avenue. The driveway would be approximately 24 feet wide and would be secured with a sliding gate. This entrance location would also provide pedestrian access to the site.
A 20-foot-wide vehicle and pedestrian entrance with a sliding gate would be provided at the southeast corner of the property along Harbor Avenue, adjacent to the office building and site parking. The egress-only driveway along East Pacific Coast Highway would be limited to overweight exception cargo (typically no more than one or two per week) and emergency access; the driveway would be approximately 18 feet wide and secured with a new truck access gate labeled as overweight/emergency access only. A new curb cut at this driveway would be required. At the 1515 West 17th Street property, the proposed 20-foot driveways located along West 17th Street (ingress) and Caspian Avenue (egress) would provide vehicular access to the remote parking lot; an existing curb cut/driveway along 1515 West 17th Street would be infilled with a full curb and gutter.
The existing sidewalk around the site perimeter would be maintained. Two pedestrian access gates would be provided at the southwest corner of 1711 Harbor Avenue; one along West 17th Street and one along Caspian Avenue. Existing unused curb cuts around the site perimeter would be infilled with a full curb and gutter.
Internal circulation at 1711 Harbor Avenue would be facilitated by drive aisles ranging from 24 feet to 72 feet, six inches in width to allow for truck turns. Eleven 20-foot-long parking stalls for trailers would be located along the northeast side of the project site. At 1515 West 17th Street, internal drive aisles measuring 64 to 67 feet, eight inches in width would accommodate truck turns. Refer to Exhibit 2-3.
The proposed project would include 231 parking stalls for trucks: 221 spaces at 1711 Harbor Avenue, and 10 spaces at the remote lot at 1515 West 17th Street. North of the proposed office building, five green truck charging stations
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 2-7 Project Description
would be installed. Additionally, five plugins for refrigerated container charging would be installed along the northeasterly side of the site. The project would include 13 parking stalls for personnel, located north of the proposed office building. Of the 13 parking spaces provided, one would be ADA-accessible. A bicycle rack is proposed outside of the office building, providing 10 bicycle parking stalls on-site.
2.5.3 SECURITY FENCING, GUARD STATION, AND LIGHTING
For safety and security, an eight-foot-tall black wrought iron fence would be constructed around the site perimeter, and a K (concrete) railing or block wall, constructed in 20-foot-long segments, would run adjacent to the perimeter fence; refer to Exhibit 2-3. High-efficiency perimeter lighting would be installed to provide security lighting on-site.
A security guard shack would be located within the northern portion of the 1711 Harbor Avenue property. As trucks enter the main driveway along Harbor Avenue, trucks would travel counterclockwise along the outer drive aisle and would check-in at the guard shack prior to drop off or pick up of containers.
2.5.4 LANDSCAPING
The proposed project would provide drought-tolerant landscaping improvements along the perimeter of the project site, including along Harbor Avenue, West 17th Street, and Caspian Avenue, as well as interior site boundaries. A variety of ground covers (Low-Growing Natal Plum, Japanese Honeysuckle, Huntington Carpet Rosemary), hedges (Toyon, Japanese Mock Orange, Majestic Beauty Indian Hawthorn), and screening trees (Canary Island Pine, Mondell Pine) would be planted primarily throughout the site perimeter, with accent shrubs (Fortnight Lily, New Gold Lantana, Indian Hawthorn) and accent trees primarily (Crape Myrtle, Brisbane Box, Fern Podocarpus) at each truck entrance/exit and site perimeter corners. Accent shrubs and groundcover would range in height from one to five feet, while hedges would range in height from 10 to 15 feet. A total of 131 screening trees and 28 accent trees would be planted in minimum 24- inch boxes. Water-efficient irrigation outfitted with low-flow fixtures would be utilized for all proposed landscaping.
Overall, proposed landscaping would total approximately 24,773 square feet, or 11.74 percent of the total site area.
2.5.5 LOT MERGER AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Project implementation would include the merging of Lots 20, 21, and 22, which comprise 1515 West 17th Street, into one parcel. The project would also include two Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), per Table 33-2, Division I of Section
21.33 of the LBMC, for the development of a green trucking facility which would store shipping containers on-site at both the 1711 Harbor Avenue and 1515 West 17th Street properties.
2.6 CONSTRUCTION
The project is expected to be constructed in one phase. Project demolition and construction would occur for a duration of approximately seven months, commencing in March 2023 and ending in October 2023.
2.7 PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The proposed project would require permits and approvals from the City of Long Beach and other agencies prior to construction. These permits and approvals are described below and may change as the project entitlement process proceeds.
City of Long Beach
California Environmental Quality Act Clearance;
Building Permit;
•
•
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 2-8 Project Description
Conditional Use Permits;
Lot Merger;
Long Beach Public Works Department
Street Improvement Permit;
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
NPDES Construction General Permit.
•
•
•
City of Long Beach General Plan
City of Long Beach Zoning Districts Map
Project Characteristics
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K1_N_G_FA_c_1L_1r_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.0 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
3.1 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title:
Green Trucking Facility and Container Storage Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Long Beach
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Sergio Gutierrez
Planner Ill
562.570.5934
4. Project Location:
Regionally, the project site is located within the southwestern portion of the City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. Locally, the project site is located approximately 0.15-mile west of Interstate 710 and 0.02- mile south of East Pacific Coast Highway at 1711 Harbor Avenue (Assessor's Parcel Numbers [APNs] 7432- 015-011) and 1515 West 17th Street (APNs 7432-014-022, 7432-014-025, and 7432-014-030).
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Cargomatic, Inc.
Steve Jackson, Applicant Representative
211 East Ocean Boulevard Suite #350
Long Beach, CA 90802
6. General Plan Designation:
According to the
Place Type designation of Industrial (I).
7. Zoning:
The
8. Description of the Project:
(General Plan) Land Use Element, the project site has a zones the project site as General Industrial (IG).
The proposed project would occur on two properties located at 1711 Harbor Avenue and 1515 West 17th Street. The proposed project would include the demolition of various existing buildings and associated equipment to construct a storage yard facility for the temporary storage of shipping containers en route to and from the Port of Long Beach. An existing building located on the southeast corner of the project site is to remain and would be renovated to serve as an office building. Additional site improvements would include on-site parking for trucks, vehicles, and bicycles, zero emission charge stations for on-site trucks, plugins for refrigerated container charging, new drought-resistant landscape buffers, and fencing and railing. Additional details regarding the project are provided in Section 2.5, ______ _ December 2022 3-1 Initial Study Checklist
North:
East:
South:
West
Permits and Approvals
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K1_N_G-FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Surrounding land uses adjacent to the project site have a Place Type designation of Industrial (I) and are zoned General Industrial (IG). The surrounding land uses include the following:
• __ A building and surface parking lot associated with Snug Top operations. an auto repair shop (i.e., Bob and Nick German Auto Service), an Arco Gas Station, and East Pacific Coast Highway are located north of the project site. Further north, across East Pacific Coast Highway are commercial uses (i.e., Equipments Parts and Service, Pacific Market. and Hiland Motel); • _ Harbor Avenue is located east of the project site. Further east. across Harbor Avenue, are industrial uses (i.e., Sealogix Trucking Company);
• __ West 17th Street is located south of the project site. Further south, across West 17th Street. are industrial uses (i.e., C Trans Inc., Brenda Villa Registration Services, a vacant industrial building, and A.P. Fischer, Inc.); and
• __ : Caspian Avenue is located west of 1711 Harbor Avenue. Further west. across Caspian Avenue, and west of 1515 West 17th Street are industrial uses (i.e., Hansen Freightlines and MyNewCarWash.com).
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement).
Refer to Section 2.7, _______ ,fora description of the permits and approvals anticipated to be required for the project. Additional approvals may be required as the project entitlement process moves forward.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated on the following pages. □ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and Forestry □ Air Quality
~ Biological Resources ~ Cultural Resources □ Energy
~ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ~ Hazards and Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology and Water Quality □ Land Use and Planning □ Mineral Resources ~ Noise □ Population and Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation ~ Transportation ~ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities and Service Systems □ Wildfire ~ Mandatory Findings of Significance December 2022 3-2 Initial Study Checklist
No Impact
Less Than Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K1_N_G_FA_c_1L_1r_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines and used by the City of Long Beach in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development's impacts and to identify mitigation.
For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses:
• ___ . The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. • _________ . The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant. • __________________ . The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development's physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.
• _________ . The development will have impacts which are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.
December 2022 3-3 Initial Study Checklist
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K1_N_G_FA_c_1L_1r_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank.
December 2022 3-4 Initial Study Checklist
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.1-1 Aesthetics
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist.
Explanations are provided for each item.
4.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. According to the (General Plan) Urban Design Element, “vistas from high points, open locations, long corridors, and other similar places within the City include high grounds in mid-City and near Signal Hill looking toward Downtown and the coast, small promontories such as Los Cerritos hill, views across the airport tarmac, into golf courses and parks, along rivers and channels, and natural areas among others. Wide, treelined streets through older neighborhoods can be scenic and pleasant to traverse, and adds to the visual character of a neighborhood. Other important vistas include the view along Alamitos, south to Villa Riviera; El Dorado Park; 3rd Street to the Port of Long Beach cranes; Ocean Boulevard; Bluff Park to the Pacific Ocean and Belmont Pier; Queensway Bay and Shoreline Park to the Queen Mary and cruise ships; the Downtown; the marinas; and Los Coyotes Diagonal to the distant San Gabriel Mountains. There are also dramatic views from the City of Signal Hill out and over Long Beach.”
The project site is generally flat and located within an industrial area in the City of Long Beach. The proposed project would include the demolition of various existing buildings and associated equipment to construct a storage yard facility for the temporary storage of shipping containers en route to and from the Port of Long Beach (POLB). An existing building located on the southeast corner of the project site is to remain and would be renovated to serve as an office building. The project site is not located near scenic vistas and would not impact scenic resources.
Based on the General Plan Mobility Element, scenic routes in Long Beach are primarily located near the shoreline along Ocean Boulevard and Livingston Drive. There are no designated scenic routes in the project vicinity. As such, project implementation would have no impact on scenic vistas within the City.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Q>----
✓
✓
✓
✓
City of Long Beach General Plan
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.1-2 Aesthetics
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. There are no officially-designated State scenic highways within proximity to the project site.1 The nearest
Officially Designated State Scenic Highway is a segment of State Route 91, located approximately 22.4 miles to the east. The nearest Eligible State Scenic Highway (not officially designated) is a segment of Pacific Coast Highway, located approximately 3.8 miles to the east of the project site. Given the distance, the proposed project would not affect scenic resources (i.e., trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings) along these scenic highways. As such, no impact would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of Long Beach. As such, the following analysis evaluates the project’s consistency with applicable regulations governing scenic quality.
MUNICIPAL CODE CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
(LBMC) Title 21, , includes site development standards that aid in governing scenic quality. Table 4.1-1, , provides a consistency analysis of the proposed project and relevant General Industrial (IG) zoning district development standards related to scenic quality. Refer to Section 4.11, , for a discussion concerning the project’s consistency with other applicable zoning requirements.
Table 4.1-1
Municipal Code Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis Relevant Municipal Code Sections Consistency Analysis
Section 21.33.120 – Maximum lot coverage:
No building or structure shall be constructed to exceed the lot coverage standards indicated in Table 33-3.
Consistent. The project site consists of 210,940-square feet of industrial uses (196,350 square feet on 1711
Harbor Avenue and 14,590 square feet of 1515 West
17th Street. The project proposes to retain an existing building located in the southeast corner of the project site for office use. The existing 1,746 square-foot
structure would be modified and receive a 654-foot
addition for a total of 2,400 square feet of office use. As such, the existing structure would encompass 1.13
percent of the project site. Thus, the project would be consistent with LBMC Section 21.33.120.
Section 21.33.130 – Maximum building and structure
height:
A. No building or other structure shall be
constructed to exceed the height limitations
indicated in Table 33-3, except for signs, which
Consistent. The proposed project would not construct
any new buildings. Rather, the project would demolish
various existing buildings for shipping container storage yard uses and renovate an existing building located on
the southeast corner of the project site as an office
1 California Department of Transportation, ,
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed September 19, 2022.
Q>----
Long Beach Municipal Code Zoning
____ Municipal Code Governing Scenic Oualitv ConsistencvAnalvsis ____ Land Use and Planning
Per Table 33-3, IG zone has a maximum lot coverage
of 80 percent.
California State Scenic Highway System Map
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.1-3 Aesthetics
Relevant Municipal Code Sections Consistency Analysis
are subject to the standards set forth in Chapter
21.44 (On-Premise Signs) and 21.54
(Billboards).
building. The additional square feet of office use would be similar in height to the existing building. Thus, the project would be consistent with LBMC Section
21.33.130.
Section 21.33.140 – Setbacks and yards:
A. Setbacks and Yards Required. Building
setbacks and yards shall be provided as
indicated in Table 33-4. Yard areas shall be clear
of all structures from the ground to the sky,
except for permitted projections, and shall be
landscaped in accordance with the landscaping
provisions (Chapter 21.42) of this Title.
B. Corner Cutoff Required. Corner cutoffs, as
defined in Section 21.15.660 of this Title, shall
be required in all industrial districts at the
intersections of streets, driveways, and alleys.
The corner cutoff shall be free of any structure or
vegetation which impedes or obstructs access or
visibility up to eight feet (8‘) in height.
C. Permitted Projections. No appurtenances,
projections, or other building features may
project into required yards, except:
1. Architectural elements not more than
two feet (2’) into the required yard area;
2. Awnings;
3. Bay windows projecting not more than
two feet (2’) into the required yard area;
4. Lamp posts;
5. A porte cochere;
6. Roof eaves projecting no closer than
two feet, six inches (2’,6”) from the
property line; and
7. Signs, as specified in Chapter 21.44
(On-Premises Signs) of this Title.
D. Permitted uses. The following uses and
accessory structures shall be the only uses and
structures permitted in required yard areas:
driveways, automobile surface parking lots,
landscaping, and on-premises signs. All other
uses shall be prohibited.
Consistent. Refer to response to Section 21.33.130.
The proposed project would not construct any new
buildings. Rather, the project would demolish various
existing buildings for shipping container storage yard
uses and retain an existing building located in the
southeast corner of the project site for office use. The existing 1,746 square-foot structure would be modified
and receive a 654-foot addition for a total of 2,400
square feet of office use. Thus, the project would be
consistent with LBMC Section 21.33.140.
Section 21.33.145 – Parking areas abutting streets:
Whenever a parking area abuts a property line adjacent
to a street, a five foot (5’) wide landscaped strip shall be provided between the parking area and the property line abutting the public right-of-way. See Chapter 21.42 for additional requirements.
Consistent. The site’s north, east, south, and west yard areas would contain at least five feet of assorted
ornamental landscaping between the parking areas and
the property line abutting the public right-of-way; refer to Exhibit 2-3, . As such, the
project would be consistent with LBMC Section
21.33.145.
Section 21.33.150 – Outdoor storage and activities:
A. IG District Regulations.
Consistent. The project would include approximately
174 double stacked container stalls and approximately
Q>----
Per Table 33-3, IG zone has a maximum building
heiqht of 65 feet.
Conceetual Site Plan
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.1-4 Aesthetics
Relevant Municipal Code Sections Consistency Analysis
2. Transport Containers. Transport containers
used for storing goods, materials, or equipment,
to be transported by truck, train, or marine vessel
may be stored anywhere on a lot, with the
exception of any required corner cutoff area. No
more than two (2) containers shall be stacked
atop one another.
57 single stacked container stalls, for a total of 231
stalls to accommodate approximately 405 containers
on-site. The shipping container stalls would be aligned in three rows running north-south at 1711 Harbor
Avenue. At 1515 West 17th Street, the shipping
container stalls would be aligned in two rows running
east-west. All shipping container stalls would be topped with a minimum six-inch load bearing base per code
requirements to accommodate stacked shipping
containers, at a maximum of two containers high.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with LBMC
Section 21.33.150.
Section 21.33.190 – Off-street parking and loading:
Off-street parking and loading shall be provided as
required by Chapter 21.41 (Off-Street Parking and
Loading Requirements) of this Title.
Consistent. The project would consist of approximately
2,400 square feet of office use. Therefore, the project would be required to provide 10 parking spaces per
office use requirements. The project would exceed
parking requirements on-site. Specifically, the project would include 13 parking stalls for personnel, located
north of the proposed office building. Of the 13 parking spaces provided, one would be American with
Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible. Overall, the project would exceed parking requirements on-site and be
consistent with LBMC Section 21.33.190.
Section 21.33.200 – Landscaping requirements:
Landscaping shall be provided as required by Chapter
21.42 (Landscaping Standards) for this Title.
Consistent. The proposed project would provide 10- to
15-foot wide landscaped strips along Harbor Avenue,
West 17th Street, and Caspian Avenue.
The project frontage along Harbor Avenue is 433 linear
feet. Thus, the project is required to provide 29 trees and 87 shrubs. The project would provide 29 trees and
575 shrubs along Harbor Avenue.
The project frontage along East Pacific Coast Highway
is 30 linear feet. Thus, the project is required to provide two trees and six shrubs. The project would provide two trees and 33 shrubs along East Pacific Coast Highway.
The project frontage along West 17th Street is 566
linear feet in total (for both properties). Thus, the project is required to provide 38 trees and 114 shrubs. The
project would provide 36 trees and 653 shrubs along
West 17th Street across both properties. While the
project would provide two fewer trees than what is
required, the project would far exceed the shrub
requirement along this frontage, and would exceed the
tree requirements along other frontages. Upon approval
from the Director of Development Services for the
substitution of two trees for 10 five-gallon shrubs (per LBMC Section 21.42.040 (D)(4), the substitution for
“one (1) twenty-four inch (24 inch) box tree for five (5) Q>----
Per Chapter 27.47 Table 47-7C, professional or
unspecified office uses have a requirement of four
spaces per every 7,000 gross floor area (GFA) up to
20,000 GFA and 2 per 7,000 GFA for GFA more than
20,000.
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K,_N_G-FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Relevant Municipal Code Sections
Section 21.33.210- Fences and garden walls:
Fences and garden walls, other than those required by
this Title for parking lot and outdoor storage screening, are permitted accessory structures subject to the
development standards contained in Chapter 21.43
(Fences and Garden Walls) of this Title.
Fences and Garden Wall HeiQht Limits
Zone Districts Maximum
Commercial and Industrial
-Within required street frontaqe setback
-Abuttinq residential front yard
-Abuttinq residential side or rear yard
-Other yard
-All zones-corner cutoff area
Section 21.33.220 - On-premises signs:
Permitted
HeiQht(a)
3 feet
3 feet
8 feet
12 feet
3 feet
On-premises signs are permitted accessory structures
subject to the development standards contained in
Chapter 21.44 (On-Premises Signs) of this Title.
Consistency Analysis
nve l!:lJ ga11on snruos .. may oe maae suoJect to approval of the Director of Development Services); or exception
granted by the Site Plan Review Committee per LBMC
Section 21.42.040 (H), the project would be consistent
with the LBMC landscaping standards.
The project frontage along Caspian Avenue is 561
linear feet in total (for both properties). Thus, the project is required to provide 39 trees and 117 shrubs. The
project would provide 45 trees and 784 shrubs along
Caspian Avenue across both properties.
Water-efficient irrigation outfitted with low-flow fixtures would be utilizes for all proposed landscaping. Overall, proposed landscaping would total approximately
24,773 square feet, or 11.7 4 percent of the total site area. As such, the project would be consistent with
LBMC Section 21.33.200.
Consistent. As shown on Exhibit 2-3, Proposed Site
Plan, the project would provide an eight-foot-tall black wrought iron fence around the site perimeter, and a K
(concrete) railing or block wall, constructed in 20-footlong segments, would run adjacent to the perimeter fence, similar to existing conditions. As such, the project would be consistent with LBMC Section 21.33.210.
Consistent. The proposed project would provide
signage on the exterior of the existing building. The
proposed signage would be designed in accordance
with the development standards contained in Chapter
21.44. As such, the project would be consistent with
LBMC Section 21.33.220.
Source: Citv of Lonq Beach, Lona Beach Municioal Code, codified throuqh Ordinance No. ORD-22-0027, enacted September 13, 2022.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The General Plan Urban Design Element describes the goals of urban design in Long Beach and includes several strategies and policies governing scenic quality that are relevant to the proposed project. Table 4.1-2, General Plan Policies Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis, evaluates the project's consistency with such policies.
December 2022 4.1-5 Aesthetics
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.1-6 Aesthetics
Table 4.1-2
General Plan Policies Governing Scenic Quality Consistency Analysis Relevant General Plan
Urban Design Element Policies Consistency Analysis
Policy UD 14-1: Properly scale a building’s form (i.e., height and massing) to the primary street it fronts on (i.e., taller buildings on larger boulevards, smaller buildings on narrower streets).
Consistent. The project involves constructing a
shipping container storage yard facility; refer to Exhibit 2-3. An existing building located on the southeast
corner of the project site is to remain for office use. The existing 1,746 square-foot structure would be modified
and receive a 654-foot addition for a total of 2,400
square feet of office use. The proposed renovated
building would be similar in scale (height and massing) to other existing uses along East Pacific Coast
Highway, Harbor Avenue, 17th Street, and Caspian
Avenue, including industrial and commercial uses to the north, east, west, and south.
Policy UD 14-6: Ensure new development respects the
privacy concerns of adjoining properties and buildings.
Building, window, and balcony orientation should
maximize views while preserving the privacy of
surrounding neighbors by considering direct sight lines to windows and/or outdoor living spaces on neighboring lots.
Minimize obtrusive light by limiting outdoor lighting that is misdirected, excessive, or unnecessary
Consistent. The proposed renovations would provide
additional windows to the existing building; however,
the renovations would not impact the privacy of
surrounding neighbors, including industrial and
commercial uses to the north, east, south, and west of
the project site. The proposed perimeter landscaping
would provide screening and privacy to the surrounding
uses. The site would have building and security lighting.
As shown on Exhibit 2-3, ten high-efficiency perimeter
lights would be installed on-site, around the perimeter of the 1711 Harbor Avenue property. All proposed
lighting fixtures would be dark-sky compliant,
directional, and shielded to minimize light spillover on adjacent uses.
Policy UD 14-8: Avoid street walls where it will adversely affect the existing character (i.e., scale, dominant style, historic features) of a neighborhood or street face.
Consistent. The project proposes to replace the existing chain-link fencing with black rod iron fencing along the site’s perimeter (minus ingress/egress points). The
proposed fencing would not adversely affect the
existing character of the project area and would be
screen by trees and shrubs proposed along the street
frontages.
Policy UD 15-1: Encourage new projects to repair the
urban fabric where it has eroded (e.g., reestablishing a uniform street wall where it once existed, but where
buildings have been demolished over time).
Consistent. The project site is within an industrial/
commercial area. The site is currently developed with
buildings, storage areas, surface parking, and ancillary infrastructure, including a water tower, associated with the former operations of Snug Top. Limited ornamental
landscaping is present on-site. The proposed
development would demolish the various existing
buildings and associated equipment to construct a
shipping container storage yard facility. The existing
1,746 square-foot building located on the southeast
corner of the project site would be renovated with a 654- foot addition to serve as an office building. Droughtresistant landscape buffers, and rod iron fencing and
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.1-7 Aesthetics
Relevant General Plan
Urban Design Element Policies Consistency Analysis
railing would be installed around the perimeter of the site, which would improve the urban fabric and scenic quality of the site compared to existing conditions.
Policy UD 15-2: Promote infill projects that support the designated PlaceType and be appropriate in their use,
scale, compactness of development, and design
character with adjacent sites and nearby existing
development.
Consistent. The project site has a PlaceType
designation of Industrial (I). The I PlaceType is reserved for manufacturing, processing, construction and heavy
equipment yards, warehousing of products, research
and development, creation of prototypes and a broad
range of similar industrial practices and processes.
Various existing structures would be removed to
construct the proposed shipping container storage yard
facility. An existing 1,746 square-foot building located on the southeast corner of the project site is to remain and would be renovated with a 654-foot addition to
serve as an office building. The proposed renovations
would be similar in height and massing to the existing
building and adjacent off-site structures and thus, would be similar in scale as nearby existing development.
Overall, the proposed land use type supports the I
PlaceType and would be appropriate in its use, scale,
and design character with adjacent industrial and
commercial uses to the north, east, south, and west.
Policy UD 19-2: Ensure that project site design and
function minimizes the potential adverse impacts of
vehicle access, parking and loading facilities, signage, lighting, trash enclosures, and sound systems.
Consistent. Due to the proposed use of the site
(shipping container storage yard facility), no sound
systems are proposed as part of the project.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided via
existing driveways along Harbor Avenue, East Pacific
Coast Highway, Caspian Avenue and West 17th Street
with the exception of the southeastern driveway at 1515 West 17th Street along West 17th Street; which would be removed, as would four curb cuts along Caspian
Avenue, which would be infilled with a full curb and
gutter. The existing driveway along East Pacific Coast
Highway would function as egress-only and utilized for
overweight cargo and emergency access only. The
proposed access points would not result in adverse
vehicular access impacts given that the majority of
existing driveways providing access to the site would
remain.
Further, the proposed project would include 231
parking stalls for trucks: 221 spaces at 1711 Harbor
Avenue, and 10 spaces at the remote lot at 1515 West
17th Street. North of the proposed office building, five green truck charging stations would be installed.
Additionally, five plugins for refrigerated container
charging would be installed along the northeasterly side of the site. The project would include 13 parking stalls Mitigation Measures
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K,_N_G-FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Relevant General Plan Consistency Analysis Urban Design Element Policies tor personnel, located nortn or tne proposed omce
building. Of the 13 parking spaces provided, one would
be ADA-accessible.
As a condition of approval, a trash enclosure would be
installed on-site, at a minimum on the parcel located at 1711 Harbor Avenue. Additionally, the project proposes
building and security lighting; ten high-efficiency
perimeter lights would be installed on-site, around the perimeter of the 1711 Harbor Avenue property. All
proposed lighting fixtures would be dark-sky compliant, directional, and shielded to minimize light spillover on adjacent uses.
Policy UD 19-5: Provide shade trees to match the existing Consistent. The project proposes to plant a variety of species to reinforce neighborhood identity, to add trees and shrubs along the street frontages and thus, greenscape for texture, shade and overall visual would add greenscape and enhance the visual character, and to create a uniform streetscape. Maintain character of East Pacific Coast Highway, Harbor consistent wall and fence treatment along the street edge. Avenue, West 17th Street, and Caspian Avenue. Black rod iron fencing is also proposed along all the site's
perimeter (minus ingress/egress points), which would
be screened by the proposed landscapinq.
Policy UD 39-1: Accommodate large canopy street trees Consistent. Refer to response to Policy UD 19-5. that contribute to the City's urban forest, enhance street character and neighborhood identity, and provide shade
for pedestrians and parked cars and bikes.
Source: Citv of Lonq Beach, Citv of Lona Beach General Plan Urban Desian Element. December 2019.
As analyzed, the project would be consistent with LBMC standards and General Plan policies governing scenic quality.
Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
_______ : No mitigation is required.
_________ . There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building interiors that pass through windows and light from exterior sources (i.e., street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting). Depending upon the location of the light source and its proximity to adjacent light sensitive uses, light introduction can be a nuisance, affecting adjacent areas and diminishing the view of the clear night sky.
The proposed project is located within an urban and developed area of Long Beach. Existing light sources in the project vicinity include interior and exterior lighting associated with adjacent industrial uses. Light and glare caused by vehicular headlights and street lighting along East Pacific Coast Highway, Harbor Avenue, West 17th Street, and Caspian Avenue further influence lighting in the project area.
December 2022 4.1-8 Aesthetics
Mitigation Measures
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K,_N_G-FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_T_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
CONSTRUCTION
Based on LBMC Section 8.80.202, Construction Activity- Noise Regulation, construction activities are limited to occur only between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and federal holidays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction activities are prohibited on Sundays. Project construction activities would be required to comply with the City's construction ordinance. While some construction activities could result in moments of light or glare impacts (e.g., sun reflecting on equipment), sources of light and glare are present in the urbanized project area during day and nighttime hours, particularly from existing uses and vehicular traffic along East Pacific Coast Highway, Harbor Avenue, West 17th Street, and Caspian Avenue. Thus, construction-related light and glare sources would not substantially affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.
OPERATIONS
Project operations would result in new sources of light and glare. As shown on Exhibit 2-3, high-efficiency perimeter lighting would be installed to provide security lighting on-site. All proposed lighting fixtures would be dark-sky compliant, directional, and shielded to minimize light spillover on adjacent uses. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with LBMC Section 21.41.259, Parking areas - Lighting, which requires parking lot lighting be directed and shielded to prevent light and glare from intruding onto adjacent sites. Vehicle headlights entering and exiting the project site would result in similar lighting to existing conditions within the project vicinity, including lighting along East Pacific Coast Highway, Harbor Avenue, West 17th Street, and Caspian Avenue. Nevertheless, ornamental landscaping consisting of screening shrubs and trees would further screen project related vehicular headlights from the public roadway.
Ornamental landscaping utilized for screening purposes may include but is not limited to Toyon, Canary Island Pine, Mondell Pine, and Brisbane Box and would be a minimum height of 10 feet. As such, vehicular headlights are not anticipated to result in a significant increase in light and glare in the immediate project vicinity.
Overall, light and glare impacts associated with construction and operation of the project would be less than significant. _______ : No mitigation is required.
December 2022 4.1-9 Aesthetics
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.1-10 Aesthetics
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.2-1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
. According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.1 The project site is located in an urbanized area and currently developed with buildings, storage areas, surface parking, and ancillary infrastructure for commercial and industrial uses. The project site does not contain any farmland and no farmland exists within the site vicinity. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
: No mitigation is required.
1 California Department of Conservation, , https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed August 29, 2022.
Q>----
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1991) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Prqject and the Forest Legacy Assessment prqject; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the oroiect:
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact
Mitigation Measures
California Important Farmland Finder
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.2-2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
. The project site is currently zoned General Industrial (IG). No zoning for agricultural use currently applies to the project site or surrounding areas. Additionally, the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract.2 Therefore, project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur in this regard.
: No mitigation is required.
. Refer to Response 4.2(b). No forest land exists on-site or in the project area. The site is zoned General Industrial (IG), and no zoning for forest land or timberland exists within the project site, and no impacts would occur in this regard.
: No mitigation is required.
. Refer to Response 4.2(c). No impacts would occur in this regard. : No mitigation is required.
. As stated above in Responses 4.2(a) through 4.2(c), the project site is located within an urbanized area and is void of any agricultural or forest resources. Thus, there is no potential for the conversion of these resources and no impacts would occur in this regard.
: No mitigation is required.
2 California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection, , May 2022.
Q>
b) Conflict
----
with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact
Mitigation Measures
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220/g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104/g))? No Impact
Mitigation Measures
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact
Mitigation Measures
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact
Mitigation Measures
The Williamson Act Status Report 2020-27
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-1 Air Quality
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Consistency with the SCAQMD (2016 AQMP) means that a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions set forth in the 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP utilized information and data from the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) and its (2016-2040
RTP/SCS). While SCAG has adopted the
(2020-2045 RTP/SCS), SCAQMD has not released an updated AQMP that utilizes information from the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. SCAQMD is planning to release the updated AQMP in 2022. As such, this consistency analysis is based on the 2016 AQMP and the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. According to the SCAQMD CEQA , in order to determine consistency with 2016 AQMP, two main criteria must be addressed:
CRITERION 1:
With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment.
Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertains to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of the project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As discussed in Response 4.3(c), localized concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOX), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) would be less than significant during project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations.
As discussed in Response 4.3(b), the proposed project would result in emissions that are below the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards.
Q>----
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
✓
✓
✓
✓
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact.
2076 Air Quality
Management Plan
2076-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Air Quality Handbook
a) Would project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations? b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations?
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-2 Air Quality
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to regional and localized concentrations during project construction and operation; refer to Reponses 4.3(b) and 4.3(c). As such, the project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2016 AQMP emissions reductions.
CRITERION 2:
With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the Basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the proposed project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2016 AQMP. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2016 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each these criteria.
Growth projections included in the 2016 AQMP form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions and are based on general plan land use designations and SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS demographics forecasts. The population, housing, and employment forecasts within the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS are based on local general plans as well as input from local governments, such as the City of Long Beach. The SCAQMD has incorporated these same demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories (e.g., population, housing, employment) into the 2016 AQMP.
Based on the (General Plan) Land Use Element, the project site has a PlaceType designation of Industrial (I). The I PlaceType is reserved for manufacturing, processing, construction and heavy equipment yards, warehousing of products, research and development, creation of prototypes and a broad range of similar industrial practices and processes. According to the , dated June 30, 2021, the project site is zoned General Industrial (IG). Based on (LBMC) Section 21.33.020(C), the IG district allows uses such as large construction yards with heavy equipment, chemical manufacturing plants, rail yards, and food processing plants. The project requires two Conditional Use Permits to allow the development of a green trucking facility which would store shipping containers on-site in the IG zone. With the approval of the Conditional Use Permits, the project would be consistent with the site’s General Plan designation and zoning.
As discussed in Section 4.14, , the project would not result in an indirect increase in permanent residents within the City as project operations would require approximately 8 to 12 employees (4 to 6 employees are anticipated to be on-site per shift), which is likely to be served by the existing local population, and project operations are not intended to accept out-of-state deliveries or transfers. Therefore, the project would not cause SCAG’s population growth forecasts to be exceeded. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2016 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with the projections included in the 2016 AQMP. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
The proposed project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Compliance with all feasible emission reduction rules and measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified in Responses 4.3(b) and 4.3(c). As such, the proposed project meets this 2016 AQMP consistency criterion.
Q>
c) Would
----
the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified intheAQMP?
a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
City of Long Beach General Plan
Beach Zoning Districts Map
Long Beach Municipal Code
____ Population and Housing
b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? City of Long
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-3 Air Quality
Land use planning strategies set forth in the 2016 AQMP are primarily based on the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
As discussed above, the project would be consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning. As such, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion.
In conclusion, the determination of 2016 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with long-term influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in long-term impacts on the region’s ability to meet State and federal air quality standards. Further, the proposed project’s long-term influence on air quality in the Basin would also be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies and is considered consistent with the 2016 AQMP.
No mitigation is required.
.
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. CO replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of carbon monoxide.
Ozone (O3). O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the Earth’s surface is the troposphere.
The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratosphere (the “good” ozone layer) extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. “Bad” O3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NOx, and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOx are O3 precursors. To reduce O3 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3 precursors. Significant O3 formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and a period of several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High O3 concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.
While O3 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level O3 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other tissues. O3 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with pre-existing lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible to the health effects of O3. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at elevated levels can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NOx are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level ozone and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOx) is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at elevated levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as Q>
c) Would
----
the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? Mitigation Measure:
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-4 Air Quality
influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than 10 microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted amendments to the Statewide 24-hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (Senate Bill 25).
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to PM2.5, both State and federal PM2.5 standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards. On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register that designates the basin as a nonattainment area for federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for Statewide annual ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised and established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State standards during some parts of the year, and the Statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). SO2 is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. SO2 is often used interchangeably with SOx. Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O3 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include: CO, CO2, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The SCAQMD uses the terms VOC and ROG interchangeably (see below).
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOC, ROG are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and NOx react in the presence of sunlight.
ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant.
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The project involves construction activities associated with demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating applications. The project would be constructed over approximately seven months and would not involve soil import or export. Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod) program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-site. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared utilizing CalEEMod. Refer to Appendix A, , for the CalEEMod outputs and Q>----
___ Air Oualitv/Greenhouse Gas/Energ_vAnalysis
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-5 Air Quality
results. Table 4.3-1, , presents the anticipated daily short-term construction emissions.
Table 4.3-1
Project-Generated Construction Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions
Pollutant (pounds/day)1,2
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions2 4.90 42.83 47.87 0.09 6.31 3.56 Notes:
1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Winter emissions represent the worst-case scenario.
2. The reduction/credits for construction emissions are based on “mitigation” included in CalEEMod and are required by the SCAQMD Rules.
The adjustments applied in CalEEMod includes the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. The emissions results in this table represent the “mitigated” emissions shown in Appendix A.
Source: Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.
Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emission that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways (including demolition as well as construction activities). Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from grading, excavation and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease upon project completion. Most of this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health.
Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particulate health concerns is the amount of PM10 generated as part of fugitive dust emissions. PM10 poses a serious health hazard alone or in combination with other pollutants. PM2.5 is mostly produced by mechanical processes. These include automobile tire wear, industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re-suspension of particles from the ground or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as construction or agriculture. PM2.5 is mostly derived from combustion sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and other vehicle exhaust, as well as from stationary sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NOX and SOX combining with ammonia. PM2.5 components from material in the Earth’s crust, such as dust, are also present, with the amount varying in different locations.
The project would implement required SCAQMD dust control techniques (i.e., daily watering), limitations on construction hours, and adhere to SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (which require watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. As depicted in Table 4.3-1, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Thus, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions impacts associated with project construction would be less than significant.
Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, construction worker commutes to the project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to/from the site. As presented in Table 4.3-1, construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions (i.e., ROG, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5) would not Q>____ ----
Proiect-Generated Construction Emissions
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-6 Air Quality
exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
ROG Emissions
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. In accordance with the methodology prescribed by the SCAQMD, ROG emissions associated with paving and architectural coating have been quantified with the CalEEMod model. As required by SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, all architectural coatings would comply with specifications on painting practices as well as regulation on the ROG content of paint.1 ROG emissions associated with the proposed
project would be less than significant; refer to Table 4.3-1.
Total Daily Construction Emissions
As indicated in Table 4.3-1, criteria pollutant emissions during construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, total construction related air emissions would be less than significant.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by CARB in 1986.
Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the project area.2 Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.
LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Long-term operational air quality impacts consist of mobile source emissions generated from project-related traffic and emissions from area and energy sources. The project would retain an existing 1,746 square-foot building located in the southeast corner of the project site and construct a 654-foot addition for office use. However, as a conservative analysis, emissions generated by the existing building were not modeled or deducted from project-generated emissions.
Emissions associated with each source area detailed in Table 4.3-2, , are discussed below.
1 South Coast Air Quality Management District, , http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/regxi/r1113.pdf, accessed October 10, 2022. 2 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, , August 2000.
Q>----
Proiect-Generated Operational Emissions
Rule 1713 Architectural Coatings
A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-7 Air Quality
Table 4.3-2
Project-Generated Operational Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (pounds/day)1
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Project Summer Emissions
Area 0.15 <0.01 0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01
Energy <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Mobile 0.50 16.09 6.83 0.07 2.39 0.72
2 Project Winter Emissions
Area 0.15 <0.01 0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01
Energy <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Mobile 0.47 16.85 6.89 0.07 2.39 0.72
2 Notes:
1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.
2. The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding.
Source: Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.
Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for natural gas, consumer products, area architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment associated with the development of the proposed project. The project would use all-electric landscaping equipment throughout the project site, which have been accounted for in Table 4.3-2. As shown in Table 4.3-2, area source emissions during both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Energy Source Emissions
Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas (non-hearth) usage associated with the proposed project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy source emissions during both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds; refer to Table 4.3-2. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Mobile Source
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
The mobile source emissions were calculated using the trip generation data provided in the (VMT Screening Memo) developed by Michael
Q>----
Total Summer Emissions 0.65 16.09 6.84 0.07 2.39 0.72
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 750 750 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Total Winter Emissions 0.62 16.86 6.91 0.07 2.39 0.72
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 750 750 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
1771 Harbor A venue and
1515 West 17th Street City of Long Beach, VMT Screening Analysis
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-8 Air Quality
Baker International, Inc. (dated November 22, 2022). According to VMT Screening Memo the proposed project would generate approximately 254 average daily trips, including 54 passenger car trips and 200 drayage truck trips. It should be noted that for drayage truck trips, the CalEEMod default trip length of 8.4 miles per trip for commercial/industrial development located within SCAQMD jurisdiction was increased to 11 miles per trip to reflect the round-trip distance between Port of Long Beach (POLB) and the project site, as the drayage trucks would mostly travel between the POLB and the project site. In addition, the CalEEMod default fleet mix was changed to 100 percent heavy-duty trucks for drayage truck trips. As shown in Table 4.3-2, emissions generated by vehicle traffic associated with the project would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts from mobile source emissions would be less than significant.
Total Operational Emissions
As shown in Table 4.3-2, the total operational emissions for both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
AIR QUALITY HEALTH IMPACTS
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age, gender]). In particular, O3 precursors, VOCs and NOX, affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to O3 are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health.
As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD (dated April 6, 2015) for the , the SCAQMD acknowledged it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling limitations as well as where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form. Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) (dated April 13, 2015) for the , SJVAPCD acknowledged that currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air emissions and specific human health impacts.
The SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from O3, as an example, is correlated with the increases in ambient level of O3 in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. The SCAQMD’s Brief of Amicus Curiae states that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient O3 levels over the entire region. The SCAQMD states that based on their own modeling in the SCAQMD’s , a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOX and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOCs would reduce O3 levels at highest monitored sites by only nine parts per billion. As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. Thus, as the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational air emissions, the project would have a less than significant impact for air quality health effects. : No mitigation is required.
Q>----
Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno
Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno
2012 Air Quality
Management Plan
Mitigation Measure
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-9 Air Quality
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as those most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.
The nearest sensitive receptor (Hiland Motel) to the project site is approximately 120 feet north of the proposed project site. However, visitors and occupants of the motel would only stay for a short period of time. As the health impacts of air pollutants are accumulated over long periods of time, the impacts to motel visitors and occupants would be minimal, and thus the motel is not analyzed for localized air quality impacts or health impacts. The nearest residences are located approximately 220 feet north of the proposed project site. In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds for construction and operational impacts (stationary source only); this analysis is provided below.
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one-, two-, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, and/or PM10. The project is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 4, South Los Angeles County Coastal.
Construction LST
The SCAQMD’s guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs specifies the number of acres a particular piece of equipment would likely disturb per day. Based on default information provided by CalEEMod, the project is anticipated to disturb up to 55 acres during the grading phase.3 The grading phase would take approximately 55 days in total to complete.
As such, the project would actively disturb an average of approximately one acre per day (55 acres divided by 55 days) and the LST thresholds for one-acre were utilized for the construction LST analysis. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residences located approximately 220 feet to the north of the project site. These sensitive land uses may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As the nearest sensitive receptor is located approximately 220 feet (67 meters) from the planned construction area, the LST values for 50 meters were conservatively used.
Table 4.3-3, , shows the localized construction-related emissions for NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PM10 compared to LSTs for SRA 4. It is noted that the localized emissions presented in Table 4.3-3 are less than those in Table 4.3-1 because localized emissions include only on-site emissions (e.g., from construction equipment and fugitive dust) and do not include off-site emissions (e.g., from hauling activities). As shown in Table 4.3-3, the project’s localized construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 4. Therefore, the localized significance impacts from project-related construction activities would be less than significant. 3 The acreage of 55 acres does not equate to the project site acreage. The construction process may require grading to occur multiple times within the same areas of the site.
Q>
c) Expose
----
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact.
Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology
____ Localized Emissions Significance
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-10 Air Quality
Table 4.3-3
Localized Emissions Significance
Source2
Pollutant (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions1 26.90 34.06 3.54 2.05
Localized Significance Threshold3 58 789 13 5
Notes:
1. The demolition phase emissions would present the worst-case scenario for NOX and CO, and the grading phase emissions would present the worst-case scenario for PM10 and PM2.5.
2. The reduction/credits for construction emissions are based on “mitigation” included in CalEEMod and are required by the SCAQMD Rules. The emissions results in this table represent the “mitigated” emissions shown in Appendix A.
3. The Localized Significance Threshold (LST) was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD’s guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The LST was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (one acre) and distance to sensitive receptor (50 meters) for SRA 4, South Los Angeles County Coastal.
Source: Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.
Operations LST
According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to operational activities if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project is a shipping container storage yard facility and drayage trucks would not queue or idle on-site for extended periods of time. Thus, due to the lack of such emissions, no long-term LST analysis is needed. Operational LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
CARBON MONOXIDE HOTSPOTS
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (e.g., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, and the elderly).
The Basin is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the federal CO standards and an attainment area under State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased; estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation’s total anthropogenic CO emissions.4 Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per-vehicle CO emissions, including exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.
According to the SCAQMD , a potential CO hotspot may occur at any location where the background CO concentration already exceeds 9.0 parts per million (ppm), which is the 8-hour California ambient air quality standard, the closet monitoring station to the project site that monitors CO concentration is the Long Beach – Signal Hill Station (1710 East 20th Street), located approximately 2.3 miles northeast of the project site. The maximum CO concentration at the Long Beach – Signal Hill Station was measured at 2.272 ppm in 2021.5 Given that the background CO concentration does not currently exceed 9.0 ppm, a CO hotspot would not occur at the project site.
Therefore, CO hotspot impacts would be less than significant in this regard. 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, , https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed September 15, 2022.
5 California Air Resources Board, , https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php?tab=specialrpt, accessed September 15, 2022.
Q>----
Methodology
Thresholds Exceeded? No
CEQA Air Quality Handbook
Carbon Monoxide Emissions
Air Quality Data
No No No
Final Localized Significant Threshold
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-11 Air Quality
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Health Risk Assessment Thresholds
In order to determine whether or not a proposed project would cause a significant health risk effect on the environment, the impact of the project must be determined by examining the types and levels of air toxics generated and the associated impacts on factors that affect air quality. While the final determination of significance thresholds is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by lead agencies in determining whether a project results in potentially significant impacts.
If the lead agency finds that the proposed project has the potential to exceed the following air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered significant.
: Emit carcinogenic or toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million.
: Emit toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum hazard quotient of 1.0.
Cancer risk is expressed in terms of expected incremental incidence per million population. The SCAQMD has established an incidence rate of 10 persons per one million as the maximum acceptable incremental cancer risk due to diesel particulate matter (DPM) exposure. This threshold serves to determine whether or not a given project has a potentially significant development-specific and cumulative impact.
The SCAQMD has also established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in Health Risk Assessments (HRAs).
Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a “hazard index,” expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at or below, which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index of less than one (1.0) means that adverse health effects are not expected. Within this analysis, non-carcinogenic exposures of less than 1.0 are considered less than significant.
Sensitive Receptors
Due to the location and spacing of the sensitive receptors and the location of all truck hauling roads, receptors were modeled with a 100-meter (82 feet) by 100-meter (82 feet) grid spacing over an approximately 2.0 kilometer (km) by
2.0 km area (BACKGRND); refer to Appendix A. In addition, smaller sensitive receptor grids of 10 meters (32 feet) by 10 meters (32 feet) were modeled over the following sensitive receptor location:
Residential neighborhood to the north of the project site, north of East Pacific Coast Highway In total, 1,527 individual sensitive receptor locations were modeled over the 2.0 km by 2.0 km site domain in order to capture the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) due to the operation of the project; refer to Appendix A for the modeling results at these sensitive receptor locations. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) one arc-second (about 30 meters) National Elevation Dataset (NED) terrain data was processed with AERMAP6 and imported into AERMOD for the project area. The modeling and analysis were prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD Guidelines.
Health Risk Assessment Methodology
The air dispersion modeling for the HRA was performed using the EPA AERMOD dispersion model, version 11.0.0.
AERMOD is a steady-state, multiple-source, Gaussian dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources (not a factor in this case). AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, stability class, 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ,
https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/related/aermap/aermap_userguide_v18081.pdf, accessed August 5, 2022.
Q>----
• Cancer Risk
• Non-Cancer Risk
•
User's Guide for the AERMOD Terrain Preprocessor (AERMAP)
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-12 Air Quality
and mixing height. Surface and upper air meteorological data provided by the SCAQMD for the Long Beach Airport (LGB) Monitoring Station was selected as being the most representative meteorology based on proximity.7 Based on Exhibit 2-3, , on-site emission sources in the model include one line volume source (comprised of 31 volume sources) to model the on-site truck movement and maneuvering. The off-site emission sources in the model include four separate line volume sources along: East Pacific Coast Highway, Santa Fe Avenue, and Harbor Avenue. These off-site emissions sources are comprised of a total of 157 volume sources and represent the off-site truck movement along adjacent roadways, as modeled in the Transportation Analysis. An emission rate for PM10, or in this case DPM was calculated using a 2017 EMission FACtor model (EMFAC2017)8 model run for Los Angeles County. Plume height and plume width of the emissions from heavy trucks were calculated using Haul Road Volume Source Calculator built in AERMOD using roadway width of each roadway segment and vehicle height of 4.6 meters (15 feet) in compliance with the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 35250. Based on the VMT Screening Memo, the project would generate approximately 200 truck trips per day. Refer to Appendix A, for all emission calculations, EMFAC2017 model runs, and AERMOD results.
The model was run to obtain the peak one-hour and period (annual) average concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter [ g/m3
] at nearby sensitive receptors. According to the SCAQMD’s Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588), air dispersion modeling is required to estimate (a) annual average concentrations to calculate the Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR), the maximum chronic hazard index (HI), the zones of impact, and excess cancer burden; and (b) peak hourly concentrations to calculate the health impact from substances with acute non-cancer health effects.
The Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP2) Air Dispersion and Risk Tool (ADMRT) was employed to calculate the health risks of the project on the sensitive receptors near the project site. HARP2 was created for the purpose of assisting and supporting the local California Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts with implementing the requirements of AB 2588. Although designed to meet the programmatic requirements of the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program, HARP2 modules have also been used for preparing risk assessments for other air related programs (e.g., air toxic control measure development, facility permitting applications, roads, ambient monitoring evaluations, CEQA reviews). A health risk computation was performed to determine the potential risk using the maximum annual average and the risk of developing an excess cancer was calculated on a 30-year exposure scenario for nearby sensitive receptors. The chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are based on the office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)
(Guidance Manual). Only the risk associated with operations of the proposed project was assessed, as construction emissions would be negligible and short-term.
Note that the concentration estimate developed using this methodology is considered conservative and is not a specific prediction of the actual concentrations that would occur as a result of the project at any one point in time. Actual onehour and annual average concentrations are dependent on many variables, particularly the number and type of trucks moving and idling at specific distances during time periods of adverse meteorology.
Carcinogenic Risk
Based on the AERMOD outputs, the highest expected annual average DPM emission concentrations resulting from operation of the project (200 daily truck trips) at a sensitive receptor would be 0.00204 µg/m3. This level of concentration would be experienced at the residential uses located directly north of the project site, where DPM emissions were modeled to include emissions from on-site and off-site heavy duty trucks movement; refer to Appendix A. It is acknowledged that the calculations conservatively assume no cleaner technology with lower emissions would occur in 7 South Coast Air Quality Management District, , http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-datastudies/meteorological-data/data-for-aermod, accessed October 7, 2022. 8 California Air Resources Board, https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/, accessed October 7, 2022.
Q>----
Emission Modeling
Proposed Site Plan
Health Risk Calculation
µ
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for
Preparation of Health Risk Assessments
SCAQMD Meteorological Data for AERMOD
EMFAC 207 7 Web Database,
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-13 Air Quality
future years. Cancer risk calculations are based on 30-year MICR exposure periods. As shown in Table 4.3-4, , the highest calculated carcinogenic risk from project implementation is 1.77 per million for 30-year exposure. It should be noted that sensitive receptors do not currently exist at this location. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk at a sensitive receptor location is 1.32 per million for 30-year exposure. As shown, impacts related to cancer risk and DPM concentrations from heavy trucks would be less than significant at the MICR.
Table 4.3-4
Project Maximum Individual Cancer Risk
Exposure Scenario
Maximum Individual
Cancer Risk
(Risk per Million)1
Significance Threshold
(Risk per Million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold?
30-Year Exposure Maximum2 1.77 10 No
30-Year Exposure Maximum at the
Sensitive Receptor3
1.32 10 No
Notes:
1. Refer to Appendix A, .
2. The maximum cancer risk would be experienced at UTM NAD83 Zone 11S coordinate location 387931.65, 3739329.12. The MICR risk is provided for informational purposes as sensitive receptors do not currently exist at this location.
3. The maximum cancer risk would be experienced at UTM NAD83 Zone 11S coordinate location 387853.14, 3739528.06. The MICR risk at the sensitive receptor occur at this location.
Non-Carcinogenic Hazards
The significance thresholds for TAC exposure also require an evaluation of non-cancer risk stated in terms of a hazard index. Non-cancer chronic impacts are calculated by dividing the annual average concentration by the REL for that substance. The REL is defined as the concentration at which no adverse non-cancer health effects are anticipated.
The potential for acute non-cancer hazards is evaluated by comparing the maximum short-term exposure level to an acute REL. RELs are designed to protect sensitive individuals within the population. The calculation of acute noncancer impacts is similar to the procedure for chronic non-cancer impacts. Currently, OEHHA has not set an acute REL for DPM. To be conservative, the acute REL for Acrolein is used instead given that Acrolein is a major component of diesel exhaust and is considered the worst-case acute REL for diesel exhaust emissions.
An acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The hazard index is calculated by dividing the acute or chronic exposure by the REL. The highest maximum chronic and acute hazard index associated with the emissions from the project at sensitive receptors would be 0.000408 and 0.00233 respectively; refer to Appendix A.
Therefore, non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits and a less than significant impact would occur.
As described, non-carcinogenic hazards resulting from the proposed project are calculated to be within acceptable limits. Additionally, impacts related to cancer risk and PM10 concentrations from project operations would be less than significant at the MICR. Therefore, impacts related to health risk from project operations would be less than significant. : No mitigation is required.
. According to the SCAQMD , land uses associated with
odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors.
Q>----____ Proiect
Maximum Individual Cancer Risk
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/EnertJ.'1..Anal'l..sis
Mitigation Measures
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact CEQA Air Quality Handbook
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.3-14 Air Quality
Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coating. However, construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by requiring equipment to be shut off when not in use or limiting idling time to no more than five minutes. Compliance with these existing regulations would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The project would also be required to comply with the SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any odor impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and negligible. As such, the project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. : No mitigation is required.
Q>----
Mitigation Measures
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.4-1 Biological Resources
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? . The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is currently developed with several buildings, storage areas, surface parking, and ancillary infrastructure. The project site does not contain habitat supportive of special status plant or wildlife species. Project implementation would not result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any sensitive species. Thus, no impacts in this regard would occur. : No mitigation measures are required.
. The project site is completely developed and surrounded by developed uses. No known riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities are present on-site or in the surrounding area. Thus, project development would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. No impact would occur in this regard. : No mitigation measures are required.
Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Nolmpact
Mitigation Measures
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact
Mitigation Measures
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.4-2 Biological Resources
. No State or federally protected wetlands are present on the project site or in the surrounding area. As such, project implementation would not adversely impact protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No impacts would occur in this regard. : No mitigation measures are required.
. The project site exists entirely within a developed and predominantly paved, urbanized area. The proposed shipping container storage yard facility would be constructed on previously graded and developed areas that contain no biological resources other than sparsely spaced ornamental landscaped features. Therefore, the site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. Project implementation would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. However, the proposed project may result in the removal of ornamental vegetation on-site. Thus, the project could result in potential impacts to nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA prohibits activities that result in the direct take (defined as killing or possession) of a migratory bird. The proposed project has the potential to impact nesting birds if construction activities occur during the nesting season. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been provided to reduce impacts in this regard to less than significant levels. :
BIO-1 If ground-disturbing activities or removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat are scheduled within the avian nesting season (generally from January 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist retained by the Applicant shall conduct a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds within three days prior to any ground disturbing activities.
The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document the negative results if no active bird nests are observed on the project site during the clearance survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active bird nests would occur before construction can proceed. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For raptor species, this buffer shall be 500 feet. The biologist shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the City of Long Beach Development Services Department, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and other appropriate agency(ies). . Vegetation removal associated with the proposed project would be limited to removal of existing ornamental trees and landscaping. The project would include a variety of ground covers, accent shrubs, and trees along the perimeter of the site. Water-efficient irrigation outfitted with low-flow fixtures would be utilized for all proposed landscaping. This landscaping and irrigation would be privately maintained. (LBMC) Chapter 14.28, , contains regulations on tree and shrub planting, removal, and maintenance, Q>
c) Have
----
a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool coastal etc.) through direct removal filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact
Mitigation Measures
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact
Long Beach Municipal Code
Trees and Shrubs
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.4-3 Biological Resources
including the protection of all trees located along streets, alleys, courts, or other public places during construction activities. Thus, with adherence to Chapter 14.28 of the LBMC, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. : No mitigation is required.
. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service’s the project site is neither located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan nor a Habitat Conservation Plan.1 As such, project development would have no impact in this regard. : No mitigation is required.
1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, , April 2019.
Q>----
Mitigation Measures
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact
Conservation Plans Map,
Mitigation Measures
California Natural Community
California Natural Community Conservation Plans
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.4-4 Biological Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.5-1 Cultural Resources
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
This section is primarily based upon the
(Cultural/Paleontological Resources Report), prepared by Michael Baker International, dated November 1, 2022; refer to Appendix B, .
. As part of the Cultural/Paleontological Resources Report, a South Central Information Center (SCCIC) records search, literature review, historical map and aerial photo review, local historical group consultation, archaeological sensitivity analysis, pedestrian survey, and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) evaluation were conducted to determine whether the project could result in a significant adverse change to cultural resources in accordance with CEQA. The SCCIC records search, conducted on September 26, 2022, included review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility for Los Angeles County, and Built Environment Resources Directory. The archaeological field survey was conducted on September 9, 2022 to document existing conditions of the site and project area.
No cultural resources were identified within the project site; however, the records search identified eight cultural resources (P-19-187181, P-19-187686, P-19-188864, P-19-188865, P-19-188866, P-19-188867, P-19-190588, and P19-192743) within 0.5-mile of the project site. The resources include residential, commercial, utility, recreational, and industrial buildings. The resources were found to be ineligible for the NRHP, CRHR, or local designation through survey evaluation. No archaeological resources were identified.
The record search also revealed no previous cultural resources studies have been recorded on-site, but that 11 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within the 0.5-mile search radius. Previous studies did not identify any cultural resources in the study area. Additionally, the field survey did not identify any new cultural resources.
The historical map and aerial imagery review conducted as part of the Cultural/Paleontological Resources Report depicted a large industrial structure, identified as Golden State Woolen Mills Factory, on-site beginning around 1923.
The structure was evaluated for potential listing in the CRHR; it was concluded that the former factory lacks sufficient significance to warrant further analysis of its physical and historic integrity. As such, the factory does not meet any of the criteria for listing in the CRHR and the evaluation determined that the property is not a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA as defined under § 15064.5.
As such, project implementation would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
✓
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Identification Report for the Green Trucking Facility and Container Storage Project City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California ____ Cultural/Paleontological Resources Report
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to§ 15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.5-2 Cultural Resources
: No mitigation is required.
Based on the Cultural/Paleontological Resources
Report, the soils of the project area have been heavily impacted by historic and modern development upon the surface and in the near-surface sediments. Though the soil sits upon Holocene-age sediment, the soils all are mapped as Urban Land-Metz complex. Urban Land is heavily modified through the creation of fills, soil import, and construction. It typically is of low sensitivity for significant prehistoric resources though it can contain significant historic period resources. The SCCIC records search and pedestrian survey identified no prehistoric or historical resources within or in the vicinity of the project area. Previously recorded resources within a half-mile radius of the project area are all historic built environment structures; refer to Response 4.5(a).
The buried site sensitivity of the project area has also likely been negatively impacted by close proximity to the Los Angeles River. The river flooded numerous times in the twentieth century, sometimes with great impact upon the inhabitants living along its banks. Events such as the late March to early February 1938 flood dramatically overran the natural and man-made channelized banks of the river to cover 108,000 acres, destroyed substantial concrete structures, caused millions of dollars in property damage, moved the river’s natural channel up to a mile, and removed and redeposited massive amounts of soil and alluvium. The 1938 flood was only considered a 50-year flood. Larger one-hundred year and one-thousand-year flood regimes could have had even greater impacts upon archaeology sites along the channel. Though the river may have provided many natural resources during prehistoric times and would have been a corridor for human movement, it could be an ever-changing area in prehistory with annually changing banks, and deposition and removal of soil and alluvium. An 1862 flood was cited in which the Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River, and Santa Ana River combined to create an 18-mile-wide river flowing into the Pacific Ocean between Signal Hill and Huntington Beach. The project area has low sensitivity for significant or potentially significant cultural deposits, such as prehistoric or historic period archaeology sites, as a result of historic and modern development and the negative impacts to the integrity of archaeological sites from the Los Angeles River flooding.
Further, as discussed above, the previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project area did not identify any cultural resources in each respective study area, and the field survey did not identify any new cultural resources on-site; refer to Response 4.5(a). Nonetheless, there is a potential for disturbing previously unknown archaeological resources during excavation into native soil. As such, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-1. In the event that any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during earth-moving activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require all project construction efforts to halt within 50 feet of the find until an archaeologist evaluates the findings and makes recommendations. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. :
CUL-1 Archaeological Resources Inadvertent Discovery. In the event that any subsurface cultural resources are encountered during earth-moving activities, all work within 50 feet shall halt and the project Applicant shall retain an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology to evaluate the findings and make appropriate recommendations. The archaeologist may evaluate the find in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines, including those set forth in the California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, to assess the significance of the find and identify avoidance or other measures as appropriate. If the discovery proves to be significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts. In the event that an identified cultural resource is prehistoric or otherwise Native American in origin or potential significance, then consulting Native American tribes shall be contacted to obtain their input as to the significance and treatment of the find.
Q>
Mitigation Measures
----
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.5-3 Cultural Resources
Based on the recommendations of the qualified archaeologist and the results of consultation with Native American governments, the City of Long Beach shall make a determination, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, whether the find is significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and therefore constitutes a tribal cultural resource. If the City determines the resource is significant, then a plan of treatment shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist as informed by the City’s consultation with interested Native American tribal governments.
. Due to the level of disturbance on the project site and in the site vicinity, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or ground-disturbing activities. Nonetheless, if human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 through 7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the most likely descendant. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop near the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County Coroner has been called out, the remains have been investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with the aforementioned regulations, impacts related to the disturbance of human remains are less than significant. : No mitigation is required.
Q>----
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.5-4 Cultural Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.6-1 Energy
4.6 ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) The 2019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), commonly referred to as “Title 24,” became effective on January 1, 2020. In general, Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
Under 2019 Title 24 standards, residential buildings use about 53 percent less energy (mainly due to solar photovoltaic panels and lighting upgrades) when compared to those constructed under 2016 Title 24 standards, and nonresidential buildings are 30 percent more energy efficient than 2016 Title 24 standards.1 The 2019 Title 24 standards require installation of energy efficient windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses. Additionally, new buildings constructed after January 1, 2023, need to comply with 2022 Title 24 standards.
California Green Building Standards (CAL Green)
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) is a Statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development; Title 24 Parts 6 and 11 together comprise the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with 6 Efficiency Strategic Plan
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) prepared an (Strategic Plan) in September 2008 with the goal of promoting energy efficiency and a reduction in greenhouse gases. In January 2011, a lighting chapter was adopted and added to the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is California’s single roadmap to achieving maximum energy savings in the State between 2009 and 2020, and beyond 2020. The Strategic Plan contains the practical strategies and actions to attain significant statewide energy savings, as a result of a year-long collaboration by energy experts, utilities, businesses, consumer groups, and governmental organizations in California, throughout the West, nationally and internationally. The plan includes four strategies:
1 California Energy Commission, , March 2018.
Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan
2079 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.6-2 Energy
1. All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020;
2. All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030;
3. Heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) will be transformed to ensure that its energy performance is optimal for California’s climate; and
4. All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the low-income energy efficiency program by 2020.
California Energy Commission Integrated Energy Policy Report In 2002, the California State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 1389, which requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every two years. SB 1389 requires the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices, and use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the State's economy, and protect public health and safety.
The CEC adopted the 2021 integrated energy policy report (2021 IEPR) volume I, volume II, and volume IV on February 1, 2022 and volume iii on February 24, 2022.2 the 2021 IEPR provides information and policy recommendations on advancing a clean, reliable, and affordable energy system for all Californian.3 volume I of the 2021 IEPR addresses actions needed to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions related to the buildings in which California live and work, with an emphasis on energy efficiency; volume ii examines actions needed to increase the reliability and resiliency of California’s energy system; volume iii looks at the evolving role of gas in California’ energy system; and volume iv reports on California’s energy demand outlook, including a forecast to 2035 and long-term energy demand scenarios of 2050. The 2021 IEPR builds on the goals and work in response to ab 758 (Energy: energy audit), SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act), AB 3232 (Zero-emissions buildings and sources of heat energy), and the 2019 IEPR to further a comprehensive approach toward decarbonizing buildings in a cost-effective and equitable manner.
For the 2021 IEPR, the CEC extends the forecast timeframe to 15 years to coincide with several State goals that are planned for 2035 and improves methodologies to better quantify and predict the likelihood, severity, and duration of future extreme heat events.
Executive Order N-79-20
Executive Order N-79-20, issued September 23, 2020, directs the State to require all new cars and passenger trucks sold in the State to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. Executive Order N-79-20 further states that all medium- and heavy-duty vehicles sold in the State will be zero-emission by 2045.
Local
City of Long Beach General Plan
Applicable goals and policies related to energy from the (General Plan) Land Use Element are listed below.
Goal No.4: Support Neighborhood Preservation and Enhancement Strategy No.11: Create healthy and sustainable neighborhoods LU Policy 11-2: Provide for a wide variety of creative, affordable, sustainable land use solution to help resolve air, soil and water pollution, energy consumption and resource depletion issues. 2 California Energy Commissions, , https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energypolicy-report/2021-integrated-energy-policy-report, accessed September 23, 2022. 3 California Energy Commissions, , February 2022.
Q>----
City of Long Beach General Plan
2027 Integrated Energy Policy Report
Final 2027 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume I Building Decarbonization
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.6-3 Energy
THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, project impacts are evaluated to determine whether significant adverse environmental impacts would occur. This analysis will focus on the project’s potential impacts and provide mitigation measure, if required, to reduce or avoid any potentially significant impacts that are identified. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact related to energy, if it would:
Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation (refer to Response 4.6(a)); and/or Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (Refer to Response
4.6(b)).
CEQA Guidelines Appendix F is an advisory document that assists in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The analysis on Response 4.6(a) relies on Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which includes the following criteria to determine whether this threshold of significance is met:
Criterion 1: The project energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials maybe discussed.
Criterion 2: The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.
Criterion 3: The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
Criterion 4: The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.
Criterion 5: The effects of the project on energy resources.
Criterion 6: The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.
Quantification of the project’s energy usage is presented and addresses Criterion 1. The discussion on constructionrelated energy use focuses on Criteria 2, 4, and 5. The discussion on operational energy use is divided into transportation energy demand and building energy demand. The transportation energy demand analysis discusses Criteria 2, 4, and 6, and the building energy demand analysis discusses Criteria 2, 3, 4, and 5.
PROJECT-RELATED SOURCES OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION
This analysis focuses on three sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips and off-road equipment associated with project construction and operations. The analysis of the operational electricity/natural gas usage is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod) modeling results for the project. The project’s estimated electricity/natural gas consumption is based on primarily on CalEEMod’s default settings for the County, and consumption factors provided by the Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), the electricity and natural gas providers for the City and project site. The results of the CalEEMod modeling are included in Appendix A, Q>----
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.6-4 Energy
. The amount of operational fuel consumption was estimated using the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMission FACtor 2017 (EMFAC2017) computer program which provides projections for typical daily fuel usage in the County, and the project’s annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) outputs from CalEEMod. The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the project’s construction equipment list, timing/phasing, and house of duration for construction equipment, as well as vendor, hauling, and construction worker trips.
The project’s estimated energy consumption is summarized in Table 4.6-1, . As shown in Table 4.6-1, the project’s energy usage would constitute an approximate 0.0002 percent increase over Los Angeles County’s typical annual electricity consumption and an approximate 0.00001 percent increase over Los Angeles County’s typical annual natural gas consumption. The project’s construction and operational vehicle fuel consumption would increase the County’s consumption by 0.1012 percent and 0.0029 percent, respectively (Criterion 1).
Table 4.6-1
Project and Countywide Energy Consumption
Energy Type Project Annual
Energy Consumption1
Los Angeles County
Annual Energy
Consumption2
Percentage
Increase Countywide2
Electricity Consumption 106 MWh 65,649,878 MWh 0.0002%
Natural Gas Consumption 261 therms 2,936,687,098 therms 0.00001% Fuel Consumption
Construction Fuel Consumption3 379,417 gallons 374,830,981 gallons 0.1012% Operational Automotive Fuel Consumption3 115,817 gallons 3,929,799,320 gallons 0.0029% Notes:
1. As modeled in CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.
2. The project increases in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared to the total consumption in Los Angeles County in 2020.
The project increases in construction fuel consumption and operational automotive fuel consumption are compared with the projected Countywide fuel consumption in 2023.
Los Angeles County electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission, , http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed September 23, 2022.
Los Angeles County natural gas consumption data source: California Energy Commission, , http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed September 23, 2022.
3. Project fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results. Countywide fuel consumption is from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2017 model.
Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION
During construction, the project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.
Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coatings. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. In addition, some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that heavy-diesel equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with latest U.S. Environmental Protect Agency (EPA) and CARB engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction (Criterion 4).
Q>
Quality/Greenhouse
----
Gas/Energy Analysis
Proiect and Countvwide Energy
Consumption
•
•
Electricity Consumption by County
Gas Consumption by County
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.6-5 Energy
Substantial reduction in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting green building materials composed of recycled materials that require less energy to produce than non-recycled materials.4 The integration of green building materials can help reduce environmental impacts associated with the extraction, transport, processing, fabrication, installation, reuse, recycling, and disposal of these building industry source material.5 The project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas) would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. As indicated in Table 4.6-1, the project’s fuel consumption from construction would be approximately 379,417 gallons, which would increase fuel use in the County by approximately 0.1012 percent. As such, construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies (Criterion 2). It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State (Criterion 5). Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
OPERATIONAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Transportation Energy Demand
Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards.
Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. Table 4.6-1 provides an estimate of the daily fuel consumed by vehicle traveling to and from the project site. Based on the
(VMT Screening Memo) developed by Michael Baker International, Inc. (dated November 22, 2022), the proposed project would generate approximately 254 average daily trips, including 54 passenger car trips and 200 drayage truck trips. As indicated in Table 4.6-1, project operational daily trips are estimated to consume approximately 115,817 gallons of fuel per year, which would increase the County’s automotive fuel consumption by
0.0029 percent. The project does not propose any unusual features that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption (Criterion 2).
The key drivers of transportation-related fuel consumption are job locations/commuting distance and many personal choices on when and where to drive for various purposes. Those factors are outside of the scope of the design of the proposed project. Additionally, the project site would be located within 0.5 mile of a transit station and the project proposes to provide 10 spaces for bicycle parking, which would promote alternative mode of transportation (Criterion 4 and Criterion 6).
Therefore, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Building Energy Demand
The CEC developed 2020 to 2035 forecasts for energy consumption and peak demand in support of the 2021 IEPR for each of the major electricity and natural gas planning areas and the State based on the economic and demographic growth projections.6 CEC forecasts that the Statewide annual average growth rates of energy demand between 2021 and 2030 would be 1.3 percent to 2.3 percent for electricity and less than 0.1 percent to 0.8 percent increase for natural 4 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, , https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/materials#Material, accessed October 4, 2022. 5 Ibid.
6 California Energy Commission, , February 2022.
Annual average growth rates of electricity demand and natural gas per capita demand are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 14, respectively.
Q>----
7777 Harbor Avenue and 7575 West 17th Street CityoflongBeach, VMT Screening Analysis
Green Building Materials
Final 2027 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume IV California Energy Demand Forecast
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.6-6 Energy
gas.7 As shown in Table 4.6-1, operational energy consumption of the project would represent approximately 0.0002 percent increase in electricity consumption and 0.00001 percent increase in natural gas consumption over the current Countywide usage, which would be significantly below CEC’s forecasts and the current Countywide usage. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the CEC’s energy consumption forecasts. As such, the project would not require additional energy capacity or supplies (Criterion 2). Additionally, the proposed project would be a green trucking facility which would store shipping containers on-site. The project is anticipated to operate concurrently with the Port of Long Beach (POLB) gate hours, which is Monday-Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. and Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The energy consumption would be nominal and distributed evenly throughout the day. As a result, the project would not result in unique or more intensive peak or base period electricity demand (Criterion 3).
The project proposes to retain and modify the existing building located in the southeast corner of the project site for office use. The alteration to existing building would be required to comply with 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provides minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of the 2022 Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage. The Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated every three years and become more stringent between each update, as such complying with the latest 2022 Title 24 standards would make the proposed project more energy efficient than existing buildings built under the earlier versions of the Title 24 standards (Criterion 4).
Furthermore, the electricity provider, Southern California Edison (SCE), is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures that new development projects will not result in the waste of the finite energy resources (Criterion 5).
Therefore, the project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of building energy during project operation, or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
No mitigation is required.
The project would comply with all applicable energy goals and measures identified in the General Plan, as detailed in Table 4.6-2, . The General Plan contains energy efficient goals and measures that would help implement energy efficient measures and subsequently reduce GHG emissions within the City. In addition, the proposed building would be required to comply with Title 24 and CALGreen standards, which would ensure the project incorporates energy efficient windows, insulation, lighting, and ventilation systems. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts associated with General Plan Energy Goal. 7 Ibid.
Q>----
Mitigation Measures:
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less Than Significant Impact.
General Plan Energy Goal Consistency Analysis
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.6-7 Energy
Table 4.6-2
General Plan Energy Goal Consistency Analysis
General Plan Goal/Strategy/Policy Project Compliance
No.4: Support Neighborhood Preservation and
Enhancement
Strategy No.11: Create healthy and sustainable
neighborhoods.
LU Policy 11-2: Provide for a wide variety of creative, affordable, sustainable land use solution to help resolve air, soil and water pollution, energy consumption and resource depletion issues.
Consistent. The project would comply with all applicable 2022 Title 24 and CALGreen building codes at the time of
construction. The project would install high efficiency lighting, install solar-ready roofs, use energy efficient equipment, and use all electric landscape equipment, which would reduce energy consumption. Furthermore, the project proposes to construct a green trucking facility, outfitted with zero emission charging stations, promoting environmentally sustainable design and practices. Additionally, the project would install lowflow fixtures, water-efficiency irrigation, and draught tolerant landscape, which would reduce water usage. As such, the proposed project would be in compliance with General Plan Land Use Element Strategy No. 11 and LU Policy 11-2.
Source: City of Long Beach, , December 2019.
No mitigation is required.
Q>----
City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element
Mitigation Measures:
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.6-8 Energy
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.7-1 Geology and Soils
4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
This section is partially based upon the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Identification Report for the Green Trucking Facility and Container Storage Project, City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California (Cultural/Paleontological Resources Report), prepared by Michael Baker International, dated November 1, 2022; the refer to Appendix B, .
. Southern California, including the project area, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
____ Cultural!Pa/eontologica/ Resources Report
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
No Impact
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.7-2 Geology and Soils
According to the California Geological Survey’s and Plate 2 , of the General Plan Seismic Safety Element, no active faults or Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones traverse the project site.1
An Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone traverses Long Beach in a northwestsoutheast direction; however, its closest mapped location to the project site is approximately 2.07 miles to the northeast.
The probability of damage due to surface ground rupture within the project site is low due to the distance to the known Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard. : No mitigation is required.
. Southern California has numerous active seismic faults subjecting residents to potential earthquake and seismic-related hazards. Seismic activity poses two types of potential hazards for residents and structures, categorized either as primary or secondary hazards. Primary hazards include ground rupture, ground shaking, ground displacement, subsidence, and uplift from earth movement. Primary hazards can also induce secondary hazards such as ground failure (lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and slope failure), liquefaction, water waves (seiches), movement on nearby faults (sympathetic fault movement), dam failure, and fires.
Both primary and secondary hazards pose a threat to the community as a result of the project’s proximity to active regional faults.
The region surrounding the Long Beach area is characterized by relatively high seismic activity. The greatest damage from earthquakes results from ground shaking. Ground shaking is generally most severe near quake epicenters and generally become weaker further out from the epicenter. Based on the California Geological Survey’s , and Plate 6 , of the General Plan Seismic Safety Element, no active faults or Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones traverse the project site, and the project site is characterized by deep soils conditions with deep alluvium in gap areas.2 The closest major faults to the project site are the Newport-Inglewood Fault, Avalon-Compton Fault, and Los Alamitos Fault, located approximately 2.1 miles to the northeast, 3.7 miles to the southwest, and 5.4 miles to the northeast, respectively.3 As such, the project site may be subject to strong seismic shaking during an earthquake event, as is the case with the vast majority of areas throughout southern California.
Implementation of the proposed project would include the demolition of various existing buildings and removal of associated equipment to construct a shipping container storage yard facility. Due to the location of the project site within a seismically-active region, there is potential for strong seismic ground shaking. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, would require the Applicant to prepare a geotechnical report that evaluates seismic hazards related to the proposed development. The geotechnical report would identify any required seismic design parameters consistent with the General Plan, (LBMC), and California Building Code (CBC) to reduce potential geotechnical hazards and maximize structural stability. Thus, upon implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. :
GEO-1 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the project Applicant shall retain a qualified geotechnical engineer to prepare a site-specific geotechnical/soils report. The geotechnical report shall identify existing geotechnical conditions (e.g., liquefaction, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse, expansive soils) and evaluate such conditions on the proposed development. The report shall identify required seismic design parameters consistent with the ,
, and California Building Code to reduce potential geotechnical hazards and maximize structural 1 California Geological Survey, , https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/App/, access September 27, 2022. 2 California Geological Survey, , Map Viewer,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/App/, access September 27, 2022. 3 California Geological Survey, , https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/App/, access September 27, 2022.
Q>----
Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation , Fault Map
with Special Study Zones
Mitigation Measures
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Fault Activity
Map of California , Ground Shaking Areas
Long Beach Municipal Code
Mitigation Measures
City of Long Beach General Plan Long Beach Municipal
Code
Fault Activity Map of California
Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation
Fault Activity Map of California
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.7-3 Geology and Soils
stability. The City of Long Beach Building and Safety Bureau shall ensure that all required seismic design parameters detailed in the geotechnical report are included in the project design plans. . Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by
strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Liquefaction is characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers, thereby causing the soils to behave as a viscous liquid. Susceptibility to liquefaction is based on geologic and geotechnical data. River channels and floodplains are considered most susceptible to liquefaction, while alluvial fans have a lower susceptibility. Depth to groundwater is another important element in the susceptibility to liquefaction.
Groundwater shallower than 30 feet results in high to very high susceptibility to liquefaction, while deeper water results in low and very low susceptibility.
Based on the California Geological Survey’s , the project site is mapped as being susceptible to liquefaction.4 The project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure GEO-1. As stated above, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require the Applicant to prepare a geotechnical report which addresses geological conditions on-site and implement required seismic design features in conformance with the General Plan, LBMC, and CBC. The design measures are intended to maximize structural stability in the event of liquefaction hazards.
Adherence to existing State and local building standards and Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would minimize risks related to liquefaction to a less than significant level.
: Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
. Landslides are a geologic hazard, with some moving slowly and causing damage gradually, and others moving rapidly and causing unexpected damage. Gravity is the force driving landslide movement. Factors that commonly allow the force of gravity to overcome the resistance of earth material to landslide movement include saturation by water, steepening of slopes by erosion or construction, alternate freezing or thawing, and seismic shaking.
Based on the California Geological Survey’s and Plate 12 , of the General Plan Seismic Safety Element, the project site is not susceptible to seismically-induced landslides.5 Consequently, there is a low potential for landslides to occur on or near the project site as the area is predominantly flat where slope instability is minimal. The project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides, and no impacts would occur in this regard. : No mitigation is required.
. The primary concern in regard to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be during the construction phase of the project. Grading and earthwork activities associated with construction of the shipping container storage yard facility would temporarily expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water.
However, the project site is currently paved and developed with buildings and other structures. Additionally, all demolition and construction activities would be subject to compliance with the CBC and the requirements set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit for construction activities; refer to Response 4.9(a). The NPDES Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would identify specific erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented in order to protect stormwater runoff during construction activities. Compliance with the 4 California Geological Survey, , Map Viewer,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/App/, access September 27, 2022. 5 Ibid.
Q>----
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation
Mitigation Measures
4) Landslides?
No Impact
Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation , Seismic
Response Areas
Mitigation Measures
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact
Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.7-4 Geology and Soils
CBC and NPDES requirements would minimize effects from soil erosion. Following compliance with the CBC and NPDES requirements, project implementation would result in a less than significant impact regarding soil erosion. : No mitigation is required.
. Based on the analysis provided in Response 4.7(a)(4), the project would not result in significant impacts related to landslides. However, the project site is located within a seismically-active area. The project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure GEO-1, including the implementation of seismic design features to ensure stability with respect to potential lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapsible soils hazards. The proposed development is also required to comply with CBC standards to mitigate potential geological hazard impacts in this regard. Upon implementation of existing regulations and Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts would be less than significant. : Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
. Expansive soils are defined as soils possessing clay
particles that react to moisture changes by shrinking (when dry) or swelling (when wet). According to Plate 3 , of the General Plan Seismic Safety Element, the project site is predominantly man-made fill consisting of dredged and hydraulic fills, assorted man-made fills, and soils of questionable origin, generally composed of fine sand and silt. The deep-firm soil is unlikely to be subject to settlement and/or instability. Additionally, as stated above, the project Applicant would be required to prepare a geotechnical report that evaluates existing geotechnical conditions, including the potential for expansive soils, and identify building design features to reduce any potential geotechnical hazards. Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with the CBC to minimize potential for expansive soil hazards. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. : Refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be constructed as part of the project, and no impacts would occur in this regard.
: No mitigation is required.
. According to the Cultural/Paleontological Resources
Report, geologic units underlying the project area are mapped as young alluvium dating from the late Pleistocene to Holocene (129,000 years ago to present), and are composed of poorly consolidated, poorly sorted, floodplain deposits of clays, silts, and sands. Deposits from the Holocene Epoch (less than 11,700 years ago) can contain remains of animals and plants; however, only those from the early to middle Holocene (older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years) are considered scientifically important or significant. Holocene-age deposits may overlie older alluvium of Pleistocene age at unknown but potentially shallow depths. Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits are also potentially present in the Q>----
Mitigation Measures
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Mitigation Measures
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated , Soil
Profiles
Mitigation Measures
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact
Mitigation Measures
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.7-5 Geology and Soils
project area and have yielded scientifically important fossils elsewhere in the region, including mammoths, camels, and fish at various depths below current ground surface.
As part of the Cultural/Paleontological Resources Report, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC) completed a paleontology collection records search for locality and specimen data in the project area on August 28, 2022. The records search did not find any previously known fossil localities within the project area. However, NHMLAC staff identified six localities bearing invertebrate and vertebrate fossils within five miles of the project area from similar sedimentary deposits as those found on the project site. The Cultural/Paleontological Resources Report also included supplemental searches within a five-mile radius of the project site using the following online sources:
University of California Museum of Paleontology Locality Search, San Diego Natural History Museum Collection Database, The Paleobiology Database, and the Quaternary Faunal Mapping (FAUNMAP) database. While these databases showed no previously identified fossil-bearing localities within the project area, several localities have been reported within five miles of the project site containing several groups of vertebrate and invertebrate fossils.
The project is moderately sensitive for paleontological resources with sensitivity increasing with depth because relatively shallow Pleistocene-age alluvial sediments may underlie the project area. Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits have yielded scientifically important fossils elsewhere in the region, including mammoths, camels, and fish at various depths below current ground surface. Excavations that extend below the recent disturbances to the project site have the potential to disturb paleontological resources below the depth of five feet. To reduce potential impacts to previously unknown paleontological resources, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would require a Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) qualified paleontological monitor to spot-check (part-time) ground disturbing activities such as but not limited to grading, excavation, and boring activities below five feet in depth. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, all construction activities in the area of the find shall be temporarily halted and a qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find to determine the appropriate treatment in accordance with SVP guidelines for identification, evaluation, disclosure, avoidance, recovery, and/or curation, as appropriate. Any fossils recovered during mitigation shall be deposited to an accredited and permanent scientific institution. With adherence to Mitigation Measure GEO-2, impacts regarding paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels.
:
GEO-2 Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the Applicant shall retain a Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) qualified paleontological monitor to spot-check (part-time) ground disturbing activities such as but not limited to grading, excavation, and boring activities below five feet in depth.
In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during earth-disturbing activities, all construction activities in the area of the find shall be temporarily halted and a qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find to determine the appropriate treatment in accordance with SVP guidelines for identification, evaluation, disclosure, avoidance, recovery, and/or curation, as appropriate. Any fossils recovered during mitigation shall be deposited to an accredited and permanent scientific institution. A qualified professional paleontologist is a professional with a graduate degree in paleontology, geology, or related field, with demonstrated experience in the vertebrate, invertebrate, or botanical paleontology of California, as well as at least one year of full-time professional experience, or equivalent specialized training in paleontological research (i.e., the identification of fossil deposits, application of paleontological field and laboratory procedures and techniques, and curation of fossil specimens), and at least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American paleontology.
Q>----
Mitigation Measures
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.7-6 Geology and Soils
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.8-1 Greenhouse Gases
4.8 GREENHOUSE GASES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 418 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year.1 Climate studies indicate that California is likely to see an increase of three to four degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Methane (CH4) is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission.
The impact of human activities on global climate change is apparent in the observational record. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O) from before the start of industrialization (approximately 1750), to over 650,000 years ago.
For that period, it was found that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm). For the period from approximately 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period concentration of 280 to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the pre-industrial period range. As of September 2022, the highest monthly average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was recorded at 420 ppm.2
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. It concluded that a stabilization of GHGs at 400 to 450 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)3 concentration is required to keep global mean warming below two degrees Celsius (ºC), which in turn is assumed to be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Clean Air Act and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to 1 California Environmental Protection Agency, ,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf, accessed September 22, 2022. 2 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, ,
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/, accessed September 22, 2022. 3 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) – A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential.
Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
Massachusetts v. EPA
California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2079
Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.8-2 Greenhouse Gases
endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court’s ruling, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence, it found that six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs], perfluorocarbons [PFCs], and sulfur hexafluoride [SF6]) constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing Clean Air Act and the EPA’s assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for the EPA’s regulatory actions.
State
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500-38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 (Pavley Bill) should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then the California Air Resources Board (CARB) should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.
Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocations. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities’ strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. CARB, in consultation with MPOs, is required to provide each affected region with GHG reduction targets emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets are to be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets.
CARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG reduction targets, transportation projects may not be eligible for funding.
Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which Statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows:
By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
The Executive Order directed the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Secretary to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The Secretary is required to submit biannual reports to the Governor and California Legislature describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate change on California’s resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with Executive Order S-3-05, the CalEPA Secretary created the California Climate Action Team, made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. The Climate Action Team released its first report in March 2006, which proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of California businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory programs.
Title 24, Part 6
The California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and commonly referred to as “Title 24,” were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Part 6 of Title 24 requires the design of building shells •
•
•
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.8-3 Greenhouse Gases
and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2019 Title 24 standards took effect on January 1, 2020. Under 2019 Title 24 standards, residential buildings use about 53 percent less energy (mainly due to solar photovoltaic panels and lighting upgrades) when compared to those constructed under 2016 Title 24 standards, and nonresidential buildings are 30 percent more energy efficient than 2016 Title 24 standards.4 The 2022 Title 24 standards was adopted in August 2021. It should be acknowledged that buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, would be required to comply with the 2022 Title 24.
Title 24, Part 11
The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as CALGreen, is a Statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in five green building topical areas. The current version of the CALGreen Code went into effect on January 1, 2020. It should be acknowledged that buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, would be required to comply with the 2022 CALGreen Code.
Senate Bill 32
Signed into law on September 2016, SB 32 codifies the 2030 GHG reduction target in Executive Order B-30-15 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030). SB 32 authorizes CARB to adopt an interim GHG emissions level target to be achieved by 2030. CARB also must adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective GHG reductions.
CARB Scoping Plan
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its (Scoping Plan), which functions as a roadmap to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32 through subsequently enacted regulations. The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will implement to reduce CO2e emissions by 174 million metric tons (MT), or approximately 30 percent, from the State’s projected 2020 emissions levels of 596 million MTCO2e under a business as usual (BAU)5 scenario. This is a reduction of 42 million MTCO2e, or almost ten percent, from 2002 to 2004 average emissions, and requires the reductions in the face of population and economic growth through 2020.
The Scoping Plan calculates 2020 BAU emissions as the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction measures. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate was derived by projecting emissions from a past baseline year using growth factors specific to each of the different economic sectors (e.g., transportation, electrical power, industrial, commercial, and residential). CARB used three-year average emissions, by sector, from 2002 to 2004 to forecast emissions to 2020. The measures described in the Scoping Plan are intended to reduce projected 2020 BAU emissions to 1990 levels, as required by AB 32.
AB 32 requires CARB to update the Scoping Plan at least once every five years. CARB adopted the first major update to the Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. The 2014 Scoping Plan summarizes recent science related to climate change, including anticipated impacts to California and the levels of GHG reduction necessary to likely avoid risking irreparable damage. It identifies the actions California has already taken to reduce GHG emissions and focuses on areas where further reductions could be achieved to help meet the 2020 target established by AB 32. The 2014 Scoping Plan also looks beyond 2020 toward the 2050 goal, established in Executive Order S-3-05, and observes that “a mid-term statewide emission limit will ensure that the State stays on course to meet our long-term goal.” The 2014 Scoping Plan 4 California Energy Commission, , March 2018.
5 “Business as Usual” refers to emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of GHG reductions; refer to http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm. Note that there is significant controversy as to what BAU means. In determining the GHG 2020 limit, CARB used the above as the “definition.” It is broad enough to allow for design features to be counted as reductions.
Q>----
Climate Change Scoping Plan
2079 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.8-4 Greenhouse Gases
did not establish or propose any specific post-2020 goals, but identified such goals adopted by other governments or recommended by various scientific and policy organizations.
In December 2017, CARB approved the
(2017 Scoping Plan). This update focused on implementation of a 40-percent reduction in GHGs by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. To achieve this, the 2017 Scoping Plan draws on a decade of successful programs that addresses the major sources of climate changing gases in every sector of the economy:
The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes far-reaching programs to incentivize the sale of zero-emission vehicles, drive the deployment of zero-emission trucks, and shift to a cleaner system of handling freight Statewide.
California’s electric utilities are ahead of schedule meeting the requirement that 33 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2020. The 2017 Scoping Plan guides utility providers to 50 percent renewables, as required under SB 350.
The 2017 Scoping Plan calls for a significant cut in super-pollutants, such as CH4 and HFC refrigerants, which are responsible for as much as 40 percent of global warming.
California’s renewed cap-and-trade program extends the declining cap on emissions from utilities and industries and the carbon allowance auctions. The auctions will continue to fund investments in clean energy and efficiency, particularly in disadvantaged communities.
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard will drive further development of cleaner, renewable transportation fuels to replace fossil fuels.
Local communities will continue developing plans which will further link transportation and housing policies to create sustainable communities.
The 2017 Scoping Plan also outlines innovative programs to account for and reduce emissions from agriculture, as well as forests and other natural lands.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
On September 3, 2020, the Regional Council of SCAG formally adopted (2020–2045 RTP/SCS). The SCS portion of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS highlights strategies for the region to reach the regional target of reducing GHGs from autos and light-duty trucks by 8 percent per capita by 2020, and 19 percent by 2035 (compared to 2005 levels). Specially, these strategies are:
Focus growth near destinations and mobility options;
Promote diverse housing choices;
Leverage technology innovations;
Support implementation of sustainability policies; and
Promote a green region.
Furthermore, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS discusses a variety of land use tools to help achieve the state-mandated reductions in GHG emissions through reduced per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Some of these tools include Q>----
California '.5 207 7 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California'.5 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target
• More Clean Cars and Trucks:
• Increased Renewable Energy:
• Slashing Super-Pollutants:
• Cleaner Industry and Electricitv:
• Cleaner Fuels:
• Smart Community Planning:
• Improved Agriculture and Forests:
The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments - Connect SoCal •
•
•
•
•
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.8-5 Greenhouse Gases
center focused placemaking, focusing on priority growth areas, job centers, transit priority areas, as well as high quality transit areas and green regions.
Local
Long Beach Climate Action Plan
The City has adopted its first-ever climate action plan. The Long Beach Climate Action Plan (CAP), also known as the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, was approved by the City Council on August 16, 2022. The following mitigation actions from the CAP are applicable to the project:
T-4: Implement the Port of Long Beach Clean Trucks Program T-6: Increase employment and residential development along primary transit corridors
THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE
Amendments to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 were adopted to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHG emissions and gives lead agencies the discretion to determine whether to assess those emissions quantitatively or qualitatively. This section recommends certain factors to be considered in the determination of significance (i.e., the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions compared to the existing environment; whether the project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHGs). The amendments do not establish a threshold of significance; rather, lead agencies are granted discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, including looking to thresholds developed by other public agencies or suggested by other experts, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), so long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c)). The California Natural Resources Agency has also clarified that the CEQA Guidelines amendments focus on the effects of GHG emissions as cumulative impacts, and therefore GHG emissions should be analyzed in the content of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analyses (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)).6,7 A project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements to avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project.8 The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions nor has the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), CARB, or any other State or regional agency adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the proposed project. Since there is no applicable adopted or accepted numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions, the methodology for evaluating the project’s impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with Statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions. This evaluation of consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the significance of the project’s GHG-related impacts on the environment.
Notwithstanding, for informational purposes, the analysis also calculates the amount of GHG emissions that would be attributable to the project using recommended air quality models, as described below. The primary purpose of quantifying the project’s GHG emissions is to satisfy CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), which calls for a good-faith effort to describe and calculate emissions. The estimated emissions inventory is also used to determine if there would be a reduction in the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions as a result of compliance with regulations 6 California Natural Resources Agency, , pp. 11-13, 14, 16, December 2009, https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf, accessed September 22, 2022. 7 State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, , April 13, 2009,
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C01.pdf, accessed September 22, 2022. 8 California Code of Regulations Section 15064(h)(3).
Q>----
•
•
Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action
Transmittal of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research '.5 Proposed 5897 CEQA Guidelines Amendments to the Natural Resources Agency
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.8-6 Greenhouse Gases
and requirements adopted to implement plans for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. However, the significance of the project’s GHG emissions impacts are not based on the amount of GHG emissions resulting from the project.
PROJECT-RELATED SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GASES
Project-related GHG emissions include emissions from direct and indirect sources. Project implementation would result in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4, and would not result in other GHGs that would facilitate a meaningful analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. Direct project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0, was used to calculate direct and indirect project-related GHG emissions. The project would retain and modify an existing building located in the southeast corner of the project site for office use. However, as a conservative analysis, emissions generated by the existing building were not modeled or deducted from project-generated emissions. Table 4.8-1, , presents the estimated CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions associated with the proposed project; refer to Appendix A, for CalEEMod outputs.
Table 4.8-1
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
CO2 CH4 N2O Total
Metric
Tons of
CO2e
2,3
Metric
tons/year1
Metric
tons/year1
Metric tons
of CO2e
1,3
Metric
tons/year1
Metric tons
of CO2e
1,3
Direct Emissions
Construction (amortized over 30 years)4 18.23 <0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.12 18.46 Area Source5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0.00 <0.01
Mobile Source 1,080.95 0.06 1.48 0.17 49.44 1,131.86
1,099.18 0.06 1.59 0.17 49.56 1,150.33
Indirect Emissions
Energy Consumption 20.12 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.07 20.22
Solid Waste 0.24 0.01 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.59
Water Demand 1.45 0.01 0.30 <0.01 0.09 1.84
Notes:
Carbon dioxide equivalent = CO2e; metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year = MTCO2e per year
1. Project emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, as recommended by the SCAQMD.
2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
3. Carbon dioxide equivalent values calculated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website, , http://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed August 23, 2022.
4. Total project construction GHG emissions equate to 553.95 MTCO2e. Value shown is amortized over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30 years).
5. As a project design feature, the project would use all electric landscaping equipment.
Refer to Appendix A, , for detailed model input/output data.
Q>----
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Quality/Greenhouse Gas /Energy Analysis
Total Direct Emissions
Total Indirect Emissions 27.87 0.03 0.69 0.00 0. 75 22.65 Total Proiect-Related Emissions3 1,172.98 MTCOze/year
Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator
Air Qualit'{/Greenhouse Gas/EnerlJ.'{,Anal~/s
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.8-7 Greenhouse Gases
Direct Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions.9 As shown in Table 4.8-1, the proposed project would result in 18.46 MTCO2e per year when amortized over 30 years (or a total of 553.95 MTCO2e in 30 years).
. Area source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod. The project-related area source emissions include landscaping activities. The project would use all electric landscaping equipment, which was accounted for in CalEEMod and shown in Table 4.8-1. The project would directly result in less than 0.01 MTCO2e per year from area source emissions; refer to Table 4.8-1.
. According to the
(VMT Screening Memo) developed by Michael Baker International, Inc. (dated November 22, 2022) the proposed project would generate approximately 254 average daily trips, including 54 passenger car trips and 200 drayage truck trips. It should be noted that for drayage truck trips, the CalEEMod default trip length of 8.4 miles per trip for commercial development located within SCAQMD jurisdiction was increased to 11 miles per trip to reflect the roundtrip distance between Port of Long Beach (POLB) and the project site, as the drayage trucks would mostly travel between the POLB and the project site. In addition, the CalEEMod default fleet mix was changed to 100 percent heavyduty trucks for drayage truck trips. The project would result in approximately 1,131.86 MTCO2e per year of mobile source generated GHG emissions; refer to Table 4.8-1.
Indirect Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
. Energy consumption emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and project-specific land use data. Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the project site. The project would indirectly result in 20.22 MTCO2e per year due to energy consumption; refer to Table 4.8-1.
Water Demand. Water consumption from the proposed office use on-site were calculated using CalEEMod default values. Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water supply would result in 1.84 MTCO2e/year; refer to Table
4.8-1.
Solid Waste. Solid waste associated with operations of the proposed project would result in 0.59 MTCO2e/year; refer to Table 4.8-1.
Total Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
As shown in Table 4.8-1, the total amount of project-related GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources combined would total 1,172.98 MTCO2e per year.
CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE GHG PLANS, POLICIES, OR REGULATIONS The GHG plan consistency analysis for the project is based on the project’s consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, and the City’s CAP.
9 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, , October 2008).
Q>----
Construction Emissions.
Area Source
Mobile Source
Analysis
Energy Consumption
1711 Harbor Avenue and 1515 West 17th Street City of Long Beach, VMT Screening Drah Guidance Document - Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.8-8 Greenhouse Gases
Consistency with 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Table 4.8-2¸ shows the project’s consistency with the five key SCS strategies found within the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS that help the region meet its regional VMT and GHG reduction goals, as required by the State. As shown therein, the proposed project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.
Table 4.8-2
Project Consistency with 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Reduction Strategy Applicable Land
Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis
Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
Emphasize land use patterns that facilitate multimodal access to work, educational and other destinations
Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce commute times and distances and expand job opportunities near transit and along center-focused main streets
Plan for growth near transit investments and support
implementation of first/last mile strategies
Promote the redevelopment of underperforming retail developments and other outmoded nonresidential uses
Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized land to accommodate new growth, increase amenities and connectivity in existing neighborhoods
Encourage design and transportation options that reduce the reliance on and number of solo car trips (this could include mixed uses or locating and orienting close to existing destinations) Identify ways to “right size” parking requirements and promote alternative parking strategies (e.g., shared parking or smart parking)
Center Focused
Placemaking,
Priority Growth
Areas (PGA), Job
Centers, High
Quality Transit
Areas (HQTAs),
Transit Priority
Areas (TPA),
Neighborhood
Mobility Areas
(NMAs), Livable
Corridors, Spheres
of Influence (SOIs),
Green Region,
Urban Greening.
Consistent. Transit Priority Areas (TPAs)
are defined as areas within 0.5-mile of an
existing or planned major transit stop or an
existing stop along a High-Quality Transit
Corridor (HQTC). A HQTC is defined as a
corridor with fixed route bus service
frequency of 15 minutes (or less) during
peak commute hours. The project is located
in a TPA and a HQTC. In addition, the
project is an infill development located near
multiple existing transit stations and bus
stops serviced by Long Beach Transit and
LA Metro. The project would also provide
bicycle parking spaces, green truck charging
stations, and plugins for refrigerated
container charging. Therefore, the project
would focus growth near destinations and
mobility options.
Promote Diverse Housing Choices
Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing and prevent displacement
Identify funding opportunities for new workforce and affordable housing development
Create incentives and reduce regulatory barriers for building context sensitive accessory dwelling units to increase housing supply Provide support to local jurisdictions to streamline and lessen barriers to housing development that supports reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
PGA, Job Centers,
HQTAs, NMA,
TPAs, Livable
Corridors, Green
Region, Urban
Greening.
Not Applicable. The proposed project
would not involve residential development;
as such, this emissions reduction strategy is
not applicable to the project.
Leverage Technology Innovations
Promote low emission technologies such as neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by providing supportive and safe infrastructure such as dedicated lanes, charging and parking/drop-off space
Improve access to services through technology—such as telework and telemedicine as well as other incentives such as a “mobility wallet,” an app-based system for storing transit and other multimodal payments Identify ways to incorporate “micro-power grids” in communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel cell power storage and power generation
HQTA, TPAs, NMA,
Livable Corridors.
Consistent. As a green trucking facility, the
project would install bicycle parking spaces,
green truck charging stations, and plugins
for refrigerated container charging. As such,
the project would be consistent with this
reduction strategy.
Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
Pursue funding opportunities to support local sustainable development implementation projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Center Focused
Placemaking,
Priority Growth
Consistent. As previously discussed, the
project site is located in a TPA and a HQTC,
and near multiple transit stations and bus
Q>----
___ Proiect Consistency with 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.8-9 Greenhouse Gases
Reduction Strategy Applicable Land
Use Tools Project Consistency Analysis
Support statewide legislation that reduces barriers to new construction and that incentivizes development near transit corridors and stations
Support local jurisdictions in the establishment of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs), or other tax increment or value capture tools to finance sustainable infrastructure and development projects, including parks and open space
Work with local jurisdictions/communities to identify opportunities and assess barriers to implement sustainability strategies Enhance partnerships with other planning organizations to promote resources and best practices in the SCAG region
Continue to support long range planning efforts by local jurisdictions Provide educational opportunities to local decisions makers and staff on new tools, best practices and policies related to implementing the Sustainable Communities Strategy
Areas (PGA), Job
Centers, High
Quality Transit
Areas (HQTAs),
Transit Priority
Areas (TPA),
Neighborhood
Mobility Areas
(NMAs), Livable
Corridors, Spheres
of Influence (SOIs),
Green Region,
Urban Greening.
stops serviced by Long Beach Transit and
LA Metro. Further, the project would comply
with sustainable practices included in the
2022 Title 24 standards and CALGreen
Code, such as installation of green truck
charging stations, plugins for refrigerated
container charging bicycle parking spaces,
water-efficiency irrigation, and droughttolerant landscaping. Thus, the project would be consistent with this reduction
strategy.
Promote a Green Region
Support development of local climate adaptation and hazard mitigation plans, as well as project implementation that improves community resiliency to climate change and natural hazards Support local policies for renewable energy production, reduction of urban heat islands and carbon sequestration
Integrate local food production into the regional landscape Promote more resource efficient development focused on
conservation, recycling and reclamation
Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife connectivity Reduce consumption of resource areas, including agricultural land Identify ways to improve access to public park space
Green Region,
Urban Greening,
Greenbelts and
Community
Separators.
Consistent. The proposed project is an infill
development in an urbanized area and
would therefore not interfere with regional
wildlife connectivity or agricultural land. The
project would be required to comply with
sustainable practices included in 2022 Title
24 standards and CALGreen Code, which
would help reduce energy consumption and
reduce GHG emissions. Thus, the project
would support efficient development that
reduces energy consumption and GHG
emissions. The project would be consistent
with this reduction strategy.
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, , September 3, 2020.
Consistency with 2017 CARB Scoping Plan Update
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target. These measures build upon those identified in the (dated 2013). Although a number of these measures are currently established as policies and measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these measures or similar actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve Statewide GHG emissions target. Table 4.8-3, , evaluates the project’s consistency with applicable reduction actions and strategies by emission source category to determine how the project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions and strategies outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update.
Q>----
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Connect SoCal.· 2020-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy First Update to the Scoping Plan
2017 Scoping Plan Update Consistency Analysis
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.8-10 Greenhouse Gases
Table 4.8-3
2017 Scoping Plan Update Consistency Analysis
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
Senate Bill (SB) 350
Achieve a 50 percent Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2030, with a doubling of energy efficiency savings by 2030.
Consistent. The proposed project would not be an electrical provider or delay the goals of Senate Bill (SB) 350. Furthermore, the project would utilize electricity from SCE which would be required to comply with SB 350. As such, the project would be in compliance with SB 350.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
Increase stringency of carbon fuel standards; reduce the carbon intensity of fuels by 18 percent by 2030, which is up from 10 percent in 2020.
Not Applicable. The LCFS applies to manufacturers of automotive fuels, not to individual land uses. Motor vehicles driven within the project area would be required to use LCFS complaint fuels, thus the project would be in compliance with this goal.
Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario) Maintain existing GHG standards of light and heavy-duty vehicles while adding an addition 4.2 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road. Increase the number of ZEV buses, delivery trucks, or other trucks.
Consistent. The proposed project would include drayage truck trips from the project site to the POLB. Truck uses associated with the project would be required to comply with all CARB regulations, including the LCFS and newer engine standards. The proposed project would not conflict with the CARB’s goal of adding 4.2 million zero-emission (ZEVs) on the road. Furthermore, as a green trucking facility, the project would install green truck charging stations and plugins for refrigerated container charging. As such, the project would not conflict with the goals of the Mobile Source Strategy.
Sustainable Freight Action Plan
Improve the freight system efficiency and maximize the use of near zero emission vehicles and equipment powered by
renewable energy. Deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030.
Consistent. As described above, the project is a green trucking facility and would install green truck charging stations and plugins for refrigerated container charging, which would support CARB’s goal to deploy over 100,000 zero-emission trucks and equipment by 2030. As such, the project would be in compliance with this goal.
Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy Reduce the GHG emissions of methane and
hydrofluorocarbons by 40 percent below the 2013 levels by 2030. Furthermore, reduce the emissions of black carbon by 50 percent below the 2013 levels by the year 2030.
Consistent. The project does not involve sources that would emit large amounts of methane (refer to Table 4.8-1). Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with all CARB and SCAQMD hydrofluorocarbon regulations. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the SLCP reduction strategy.
SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies
Increase the stringency of the 2035 GHG emission per capita reduction target for metropolitan planning organizations (MPO).
Consistent. As shown in Table 4.8-3, the project would be consistent with the SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and would not conflict with the goals of SB 375.
Post-2020 Cap and Trade Programs
The Cap-and-Trade Program will reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from major sources (covered entities) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions while
employing market mechanisms to cost-effectively achieve the emission-reduction goals.
Not Applicable. As detailed in Table 4.8-1, the project would not generate GHG emissions over the 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year cap and trade emission threshold. Therefore, the project would not conflict with this goal.
Source: California Air Resources Board, , November 2017.
Consistency with City of Long Beach Climate Action Plan The only applicable mitigation actions from the City’s CAP are T-4: Implement the Port of Long Beach Clean Trucks Program, and T-6: Increase employment and residential development along primary transit corridors. As discussed above, the project is a green trucking facility and would install green truck charging stations and plugins for refrigerated container charging, which would support the POLB Clean Trucks Program. In addition, the project is an infill development located in a TPA and a HQTC near multiple transit stations and bus stops, providing alternative transportation methods for future employees. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Mitigation Actions T-4 and T-6 of the City’s CAP.
Q>----
2077 Scooina Plan
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.8-11 Greenhouse Gases
Conclusion
Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, including AB 32, SB 32, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, and the City’s CAP. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
No mitigation is required.
Q>----
Mitigation Measures:
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.8-12 Greenhouse Gases
This page intentionally left blank.
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K1_N_G_FA_c_1L_1r_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ✓ materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident ✓ conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- ✓ quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ✓ Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in ✓ a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ✓ plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a ✓ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? This section is primarily based upon the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 1711 Harbor Avenue and 1515 West 1 "Jlh Street, Long Beach, CA 92337 (Phase I ESA) prepared by Omega Environmental Services, Inc., dated December 16, 2021; refer to Appendix C, Phase I ESA.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. Operation of the proposed shipping container storage yard facility could result in hazards related to the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials used for routine maintenance purposes (e.g., oil, diesel fuel, and transmission fluid). However, the proposed project would be required to comply with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), State, County of Los Angeles, and the City of Long Beach related to the transport, use, and disposal of such materials.
Project operations would not include the storage, transport, use, or disposal of large quantities of hazardous materials and the project would be conditioned as such. Impacts regarding the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during project operations would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
December 2022 4.9-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K,_N_G-FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. One of the means through which human exposure to hazardous substances could occur is through accidental release. Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substance into the environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, the hazardous substances can migrate into the soil or enter a local stream or channel causing contamination of soil and water. Human exposure of contaminated soil, soil vapor, or water can have potential health effects on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure.
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Construction Equipment
During project construction, there is a possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleumbased fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and federal law. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Construction Activities
Proposed demolition and grading activities could also result in accidental conditions involving existing on-site contamination. The following analysis considers current and past uses of the project site and its vicinity, which may have resulted in existing on-site hazardous conditions, of which could cause accidental conditions during site disturbance activities.
Environmental Concerns Associated with Former On-Site Operations Based on the Phase I ESA, the subject property is developed with buildings constructed between 1913 and 1959 for operation of a range of industrial and manufacturing uses including the previous tenant Custom Fiberglass Manufacturing Company OBA Snug Top (Snug Top), which no longer operates on-site. Snug Top has occupied the site since approximately 194 7. At the time of operation, hazardous materials/wastes were stored, used, generated, and disposed of on-site as part of paint spray booths and other manufacturing and cleaning/washing operations (i.e., paints, thinners, glues, resins, etc.). During the site reconnaissance conducted as part of the Phase I ESA, several paint spray booths, hazardous materials/hazardous wastes storage rooms, a clarifier, drying ovens, boiler room, and water tower were observed at the site. It should be noted that spray booths, boilers, and drying ovens were area-permitted through the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Phase I ESA determined that such operations present an existing environmental concern to soil, soil gas, and/or groundwater at the project site.
The proposed project would result in demolition and grading activities on-site, which could result in the exposure of hazardous materials/waste. As a condition of approval, the Applicant would be required to retain a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist to sample for such hazardous materials/waste. If contaminants are found to be above regulatory thresholds and above background levels and the soils are not proposed to be removed and properly disposed of off-site, as part of the condition of approval the Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist would conduct a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for hazardous materials/waste on-site in suspect areas (as identified by the Phase I ESA) during and after demolition activities, but prior to construction activities. If results from the Limited Phase II ESA indicate soil contamination above regulatory screening levels and above background levels and the soils December 2022 4.9-2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K,_N_G-FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will not be excavated and disposed off-site as part of the proposed project, the project Applicant shall obtain regulatory oversight from the Long Beach Department of Environmental Health (DEH), the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Proof of regulatory oversight, if applicable, shall be provided to the City of Long Beach City Engineer in accordance with the condition of approval. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Underground Storage Tanks
According to the Phase I ESA, an underground fuel oil storage tank (UST) was noted in fire insurance maps for 1950 and 1963, mapped at the eastern side of the project site at 1711 Harbor Avenue, directly south of the entrance gate.
However, no records of installation and/or removal of the tank(s) were found and records from the City of Long Beach Fire Department (Fire Department) were not available during the preparation of the Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA also documented that the area of the suspected UST was repaved in January 1995. During these paving activities, the old pavement was dug up and removed and the area was graded. No evidence of USTs was noted at that time. The property owner has owned the facility since approximately 1947 and has no records or recollection of this UST at the site. Due to the absence of the Fire Department records for review, the Phase I ESA determined that the potential presence of a UST presents an environmental concern at the project site.
The proposed project would result in grading activities in the area of suspect USTs. As a condition of approval, the Applicant would be required to provide the City with an updated Phase I ESA preformed in accordance with ASTM standard practice E 1527 that includes review of available Fire Department records to confirm whether or not the USTs were removed from the site. If the updated Phase I ESA identifies a potential environmental concern regarding the USTs after review of available Fire Department records, then as part of the condition of approval, the Applicant would be required to perform an UST survey (magnetometry geophysical survey) be conducted prior to approval of grading permits. If an underground fuel storage tank is detected on-site based on the UST survey, the tank would be required to be either properly abandoned or removed and properly disposed of in accordance with required federal, State, and local laws and regulations governing USTs. As such, the Long Beach Fire Department and Long Beach Health Department (as the Long Beach Certified Unified Program Agency [CUPA]) would be required to be contacted pursuant to the Underground Storage Tank (UST) CUPA Program. With adherence to the mandated conditions of approval for the project and existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations governing USTs, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Building Demolition Activities
Due to the age of existing on-site buildings (constructed prior to 1978), there is the potential for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP), as well as other potential hazardous materials to be present in association with the on-site building materials. Demolition of these structures could expose construction personnel and the public to ACMs and/or LBPs.
The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants mandates that building owners conduct an asbestos survey to determine the presence of ACMs prior to the commencement of any remedial work, including demolition (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1). If ACMs are found, abatement of asbestos would be required prior to any demolition activities. If paint is separated from building materials (chemically or physically) during demolition of the structures, the paint waste would be required to be evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified Environmental Professional (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1). If lead-based paint is found, abatement would be required to be completed by a qualified Lead Specialist prior to any activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, as well as compliance existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations, impacts associated with the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment through December 2022 4.9-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K1_N_G_FA_c_1L_1r_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions during demolition and/or grading activities would ensure less than significant impacts would result.
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
Refer to Response 4.9(a) for a description of impacts related to project operations. Upon adherence to existing regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials, impacts pertaining to the potential for accidental conditions during project operations would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
HAZ-1 Prior to demolition of existing structures, the project Applicant shall retain qualified specialists or contractor to conduct surveys of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paints (LBP), and universal waste. Surveys shall be submitted to the City of Long Beach City Engineer for approval. If ACMs are located, abatement of asbestos shall be completed prior to any activities that would disturb ACMs or create an airborne asbestos hazard. Asbestos removal shall be performed by a State certified asbestos containment contractor in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403. If LBPs are found, abatement shall be completed by a qualified Lead Specialist prior to any activities that would create lead dust or fume hazard. LBP removal and disposal shall be performed in accordance with California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1532.1, which specifies exposure limits, exposure monitoring and respiratory protection, and mandates good worker practices by workers exposed to lead. Specialists or contractors performing ACM, LBP, and/or universal waste removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City of Long Beach City Engineer, if applicable. The project Applicant shall inform the City Engineer, via the monthly compliance report. of the date when all ACMs, LBPs, and universal waste are removed from the site, if applicable. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest school to the project site is Cabrillo High School, located at 2001 Santa Fe Avenue approximately 0.3-miles from the project site. Therefore, the project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. As such, no impacts are anticipated in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to compile and update a regulatory sites listing (per the criteria of the Section). The California Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Section 116395 of the Health and Safety Code. Government Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste.
The project site is not listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 1 Thus, no impact would result in this regard.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese Listing, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed August 26, 2022.
December 2022 4.9-4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K,_N_G-FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport to the project site is the Long Beach Airport, located approximately 3.9 miles to the northeast of the project site at 4100 Donald Douglas Drive. Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Construction activities would be confined to the boundaries of the project site. As discussed in Section 2.5.2, Site Access, Circulation, and Parking, the project proposes to utilize the existing driveways along Harbor Avenue, East Pacific Coast Highway, Caspian Avenue, and West 17th Street, with the exception of the southeastern driveway at 1515 West 17th Street along West 17th Street, which would be removed, and that the egress-only driveway along East Pacific Coast Highway would be limited to overweight cargo and emergency vehicle access. While temporary partial lane closures may be required during construction, these roadways would remain open to traffic at all times and would not interfere with emergency access in the site vicinity. To further reduce potential impacts, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) be prepared and implemented to ensure traffic flow and emergency access are maintained during the construction process. The TMP would include potential measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours, temporary striping plans, and the need for a construction flagperson to direct traffic during heavy equipment use, among others. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, which requires the project applicant to notify the Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD), Long Beach Police Department (LBPD), and City of Long Beach Public Works Department of construction activities that would impede movement (such as temporary partial lane closures) along Harbor Avenue, West 17th Street, East Pacific Coast Highway, and Caspian Avenue. Compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would allow for uninterrupted emergency access to evacuation routes. Thus, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure TRA-1.
HAZ-2 At least three business days prior to any lane closure, the construction contractor shall notify the Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) and Long Beach Police Department (LBPD), along with the City of Long Beach City Engineer, of construction activities that would impede movement (such as lane closures) along East Pacific Coast Highway, Harbor Avenue, Caspian Avenue, and West 17th Street in order to ensure uninterrupted emergency access and maintenance of evacuation routes. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild/and fires?
No Impact. The project site and surrounding land are built-out with urbanized uses; no wildland vegetation that could fuel wildfires is present. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.20, Wildfire, the City is not located in an area identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Thus, there would be no impact in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
December 2022 4.9-5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K,_N_G-FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration This page intentionally left blank.
December 2022 4.9-6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.10-1 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? 2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onor offsite? 3) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
. As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, which include construction activities. The SWRCB works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City of Long Beach is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB.
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges from Construction Activities Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ (Construction General Permit). Construction activities subject to the Construction General Permit include clearing, Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.10-2 Hydrology and Water Quality
grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility.
The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP is required to identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) the discharger would use to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP would contain a visual monitoring program; chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Section A of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be contained in a SWPPP.
The proposed shipping container storage yard facility and associated ancillary improvements involve clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground that disturbs at least one acre. Thus, the project is required to obtain a Construction General Permit. Moreover, as part of the project’s compliance with NPDES requirements, the project Applicant would be required to prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) for submittal to the Los Angeles RWQCB providing notification of intent to comply with the Construction General Permit. The Applicant would also prepare and implement a project-specific SWPPP, which is required to outline the erosion, sediment, and non-stormwater BMPs, in order to minimize the discharge of pollutants at the construction site. These BMPs could include measures to contain runoff from the construction site, prevent sediment from disturbed areas from entering the storm drain system using structural controls (i.e., sand bags at inlets), and cover and contain stockpiled materials to prevent sediment and pollutant transport.
Implementation of the BMPs detailed in the project-specific SWPPP would ensure runoff and discharges during the project’s construction phase do not violate any water quality standards. Compliance with NPDES requirements would reduce short-term construction-related water quality impacts to a less than significant level.
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
The project would be regulated under the NPDES Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permits issued by the Los Angeles RWQCB for Long Beach. Since 1990, operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems are required to develop a stormwater management program designed to prevent harmful pollutants from impacting water resources via stormwater runoff. The City owns and/or operates a large municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) that conveys and ultimately discharges into surface waters under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. These discharges originate as surface runoff from the various land uses within the City’s boundary. Untreated, these discharges contain pollutants with the potential to impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses in surface waters. Since 1999, the City’s monitoring data and analyses in support of Total Maximum Daily Load development have identified pollutants of concern in discharges from the MS4. These pollutants of concern vary by receiving water. They generally include, but are not limited to, copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pyrethroid pesticides, organophosphate pesticides fecal indicator bacteria, and trash.
On September 8, 2016, the Los Angeles RWQCB made effective Order No. R4-2014-0024, which renews the municipal NPDES permit for the City of Long Beach. As prescribed in Order No. R4-2014-0024-A01, , the City
shall develop and implement procedures to ensure that a discharger fulfills the following for non-stormwater discharges to MS4s.1
Notifies the City of the planned discharge in advance, consistent with requirements in Table 7 of Order No.
R4-2014-0024-A01 or recommendations pursuant to the applicable BMP manual; 1 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board,
,
September 8, 2016.
Q>----
Waste Discharge
Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges from the City of Long Beach •
Order No. R4-2074-0024-A07 Amending Order No. R4-2074-0024, NPDES Permit No.
CAS004003, Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4} Discharges from the City of Long Beach
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.10-3 Hydrology and Water Quality
Obtains any local permits required by the City;
Provides documentation to the City that it has obtained any other necessary permits of water quality certifications for the discharge;
Conducts monitoring of the discharge, if required by the City; Implements BMPs and/or control measures as specified in Table 7 or in the applicable BMP manual(s) as a condition of the approval to discharge into the MS4; and Maintains records of its discharge to the MS4, consistent with requirements in Table 7 or recommendations pursuant to the applicable BMP manual.
In 2001, the City revised its Long Beach Stormwater Management Program (LBSWMP). The LBSWMP is a comprehensive program containing several elements, practices, and activities aimed at reducing or eliminating pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent possible. Furthermore, the City’s NPDES and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) regulations contained in (LBMC) Chapter 18.61, , state that:
A. The Building Official shall prepare, maintain, and update, as deemed necessary and appropriate, the and shall include technical information and implementation parameters, alternative compliance for technical infeasibility, as well as other rules, requirements and procedures as the City deems necessary, for implementing the provisions of this chapter.
B. The Building Official shall develop, as deemed necessary and appropriate, in cooperation with other City departments and stakeholders, informational bulletins, training manuals and educational materials to assist in the implementation of this chapter.
Given that the existing site is currently developed and paved with limited ornamental landscaping along the eastern and southern site boundary, the proposed development (shipping container storage yard) would not increase the impervious surface area on-site. Stormwater drainage in the project area would be similar to existing conditions; stormwater would continue to be direct to storm drains in the surrounding streets. The project would also implement stormwater BMPs to minimize impacts related to stormwater and urban runoff. BMPs could include installing storm drain stencils and/or maintaining landscape with minimal pesticide use; infiltration trenches, infiltration basins, bioretention, biofiltration swales and/or biofiltration strips; and maintenance programs to remove trash, debris, and waste. With project compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including NPDES, LBMC Chapter 18.61, and the LBSWMP, impacts related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements during long-term operations would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required.
The project site exists within a completely developed, urbanized area. The project would be constructed on an industrial/manufacturing site and is not currently used for groundwater recharge. According to the California Department of Water Resources’ database, groundwater at the nearest monitoring well to the project site, located approximately 3.2 miles west of the project site at the intersection of West Opp Street and Lagoon Avenue in Wilmington, California, has been recorded at approximately 33.14 feet below ground Q>
•
----
•
•
•
•
Long Beach Municipal Code
NPDES and SUSMP Regulations
NPDES
and SUSMP Regulations Manual
Mitigation Measures:
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact.
California Groundwater Live
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.10-4 Hydrology and Water Quality
surface (bgs).2 During construction, maximum excavation depths associated with footings required for the office building addition is anticipated to be approximately 18 feet bgs. As groundwater is anticipated at 33.14 feet bgs, excavation activities are not anticipated to require dewatering. The proposed project would not include any land uses or facilities that would require groundwater extraction or have the capacity to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or recharge. The proposed project would not result in an increase of impervious surfaces from existing site conditions. Thus, project implementation would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required.
. Soil disturbance would temporarily occur during project construction due to earthmoving activities such as excavation, grading, and utility connections. Disturbed soils would be susceptible to erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the project site.
The project would be subject to compliance with the requirements set forth in the NPDES Stormwater Construction General Permit for construction activities; refer to Response 4.10(a). Compliance with the NPDES requirements, including preparation of a SWPPP, would reduce the volume of sediment-laden runoff discharging from the site during construction. Implementation of BMPs, such as storm drain inlet protection and fiber rolls, would reduce the potential for sediment and stormwater runoff containing pollutants from entering receiving waters. Therefore, project implementation would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site during the construction process such that substantial erosion or siltation would occur.
The long-term operation of the proposed project would not have the potential to result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. At project completion, the site would be developed with the shipping container storage yard facility and would be mostly paved with landscaping along the perimeter. Further, project implementation is anticipated to have similar drainage patterns to existing on-site conditions and the project would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including NPDES requirements. Thus, impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant.
No mitigation is required.
Refer to Response 4.10(c)(1). The project site is generally flat and is located within an urbanized area. At project completion, the site would be mostly paved. No substantial changes would occur to the existing topography or drainage pattern of the site and surrounding area in a manner that would result in flooding onor off-site. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in an increase of impervious surfaces from existing site conditions. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required.
2 California Department of Water Resources,
.
Q>----
Mitigation Measures:
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures:
2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures:
California Groundwater Live,
https.!lstorymaps.arcgis.comlstories/b3886b33b49c4fa8adf2ae8bdd8f7 6c3, access September 29, 2022
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.10-5 Hydrology and Water Quality
Refer to Responses 4.10(c)(1) and 4.10(c)(2). The proposed project would not result in an increase of impervious surfaces and drainage is anticipated to be similar to existing site conditions. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with NPDES requirements, which would ensure that potential water quality impacts are minimized to a less than significant level. Thus, impacts in this regard are anticipated to be less than significant.
No mitigation is required.
Refer to Responses 4.10(c)(2) and 4.10(d).
No mitigation is required.
FLOOD
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Map Service Center, the project site is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard area.3
As a result, no impacts would occur in this regard.
TSUNAMI
A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of a sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. The project site is located approximately 0.77-mile north of the Port of Long Beach, of the Pacific Ocean. However, according to the California Department of Conservation’s California Geologic Survey, the project site is located outside of the State tsunami hazard area.4 No impacts would occur in this regard.
SEICHE
A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. The project site is located approximately 2 miles north of the Port of Long Beach and approximately 2 miles northwest of Rainbow Harbor and is not in the vicinity of a dam, reservoir, or storage tank capable of creating a seiche. No impacts would occur in this regard.
No mitigation is required.
The
(Basin Plan) establishes water quality standards for ground and surface waters within the Los Angeles region, which includes the City, and is the basis for the Los Angeles RWQCB’s regulatory programs. 3 Federal Emergency Management Agency, , September 26, 2008. 4 California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps, accessed October 19, 2022.
Q>
3) Create
----
or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures:
4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures:
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact.
Mitigation Measures:
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties Flood Insurance Rate Map #06037C7962F, Panel 7955 of2350 California Tsunami Maps and Data,
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.10-6 Hydrology and Water Quality
The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires local public agencies and groundwater sustainability agencies in high- and medium-priority basins to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) or prepare an alternative to a groundwater sustainability plan. The City is located within the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles – West Coast groundwater basin, which is designated as a Very Low priority basin.5 Therefore, there is no groundwater sustainability plan established for the basin. However, the Water Replenishment District of Southern California developed the (GBMP), which identifies projects and programs to enhance basin replenishment, increase reliability of groundwater resources, and improve and protect groundwater quality in the Los Angeles West Coast and Central groundwater basins.6
As stated, project construction and operations would comply with existing NPDES program requirements established by the Los Angeles RWQCB; refer to Response 4.10(a). Additionally, as discussed under Response 4.10(b), project implementation would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Los Angeles RWQCB’s Basin Plan or Water Replenishment District of Southern California’s GBMP. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
No mitigation required.
5 California Department of Water Resources, , https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp2018-dashboard/p1/, accessed September 30, 2022.
6 Water Replenishment District of Southern California, , September 2016, https://www.wrd.org/sites/pr/files/GBMP_FinalReport_Text%20and%20Appendicies.pdf, accessed October 19, 2022.
Q>----
Groundwater Basins Master Plan
Mitigation Measures:
SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard
Groundwater Basins Master Plan
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K,_N_G-FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Would the project: Significant Impact With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a. Physically divide an established community? ✓
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the ✓ purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. Activities and features that could physically divide a community include, but are not limited to:
• Construction of major highways or roadways;
• Construction of storm channels;
• Closing bridges or roadways; and
• Construction of utility transmission lines.
The key factor with respect to this threshold is the potential to create physical barriers that change the connectivity between areas of a community to the extent that persons are separated from other areas of the community. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community as the project site consists of industrial uses (a shipping container storage yard facility). The project site is surrounded by existing industrial and commercial uses; refer to Exhibit 2-2, Site Vicinity. Residential uses are located approximately 220 feet north of the project site. Thus, development of the proposed shipping container storage yard facility would not result in any physical division of an established community or neighborhood. No impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
According to the General Plan Land Use Element, the project site has a Place Type designation of Industrial (I). The I PlaceType is reserved for manufacturing, processing, construction and heavy equipment yards, warehousing of products, research and development, creation of prototypes and a broad range of similar industrial practices and processes. Additionally, the I Place Type has a 65-foot maximum building height limit.
Table 4.11-1, General Plan Land Use Element Consistency Analysis, analyzes the project's consistency with applicable goals and policies in the General Plan Land Use Element.
December 2022 4.11-1 Land Use and Planning
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K1_N_G_FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_T_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 4.11-1
General Plan Land Use Element Consistency Analysis
Applicable General Plan
Land Use Element Policies
LU Policy 1-4: Require electric vehicle charging stations to be installed in new commercial, industrial, institutional and multiple-family residential development projects. Require that all parking for single-unit and two-unit residential development projects be capable of supporting future
electric vehicle supply equipment.
LU Policy 1-5: Encourage resources and processes that
support sustainable development for adaptive reuse
projects, as well as appropriate infill projects.
LU Policy 1-10: In addition to analyzing project and plan impacts on Levels of Service and Stop Delay, analyze
Vehicle Miles Traveled consistent with the State's
guidelines.
LU Policy 3-1 : Implement land use regulations and
economic development strategies that will help diversify the local economy and expand job growth. Accommodate a mix
of industries in Long Beach, including high technology, telecommunications, aerospace, green technology,
renewable energy, healthcare, higher education,
manufacturing, port and shipping, professional services, restaurants, entertainment and the film industry.
LU Policy 3-4: Promote and attract a mix of commercial and industrial uses by emphasizing the flexibility of the
Place Types designations.
LU Policy 4-1 : Provide a Land Use Plan that allows a place for green energy development and green businesses.
LU Policy 4-2: Promote the transition of some heavy
industrial and manufacturing sites to creative green and sustainable industries.
December 2022
Project Consistency Analysis
Consistent. The proposed project would include 231 parking stalls for trucks: 221 spaces at 1711 Harbor Avenue and 10 spaces at 1515 West 1 7th Street. North of the proposed office building, five zero-emission truck charging stations would be installed. Additionally, five plugins for refrigerated container charging would be installed along the northeasterly side of the site. The project would also include 13 parking stalls for personnel, located north of the proposed office building.
Consistent. The proposed shipping container storage yard facility is an infill development of an existing industrial property. The proposed project would be outfitted with zero emission truck charging stations.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, Response 4.17(b), the VMT Analysis prepared for the
proposed project determined that, as the project is estimated to generate 254 daily vehicle trips, which is below the 500 daily trip-threshold, the project meets the project type screening based on Project Size. As such, no additional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis is required and impacts would be less than significant.
Consistent. The project site is situated in one of the City's industrial districts that is located adjacent to the POLB. The project proposes to construct a shipping container storage yard and green trucking facility, outfitted with zero emission charging stations, that would provide temporary storage for shipping containers and local freight trailers en route to and from the POLB. Implementation of the proposed project would provide additional support for the global and regional supply chain, provide environmentally sustainable design and
practices, and introduce additional employment opportunities in the City.
Consistent. The project site has a Place Type designation of Industrial (I). The I PlaceType is intended for manufacturing, processing, construction and heavy equipment yards,
warehousing of products, research and development, creation of prototypes and a broad range of similar industrial practices and processes. Thus, the proposed shipping container
storage yard facility is an allowed and encouraged use in the I PlaceType.
Consistent. As stated, the project is a shipping container storage yard and green trucking facility, outfitted with zero emission charging stations, that would provide temporary storage for shipping containers and local freight trailers en route to and from the POLB.
Consistent. The project is a green infill development of an existing industrial property previously utilized for commercial and industrial uses associated with the former Snug Top operations.
4.11-2 Land Use and Planning
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K1_N_G_FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_T_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Applicable General Plan Project Consistency Analysis Land Use Element Policies LU Policy 6-1: Encourage a mix of land uses that is diverse, Consistent. Refer to response to LU Policy 3-1. innovative, competitive, entrepreneurial, local and
sustainable, which thereby promotes economic
development, increases City revenues, expands job growth and increases value, access and usability for existing
neighborhoods and communities.
LU Policy 6-10: Discourage fiscally draining land uses such Inconsistent. The project would provide temporary outdoor as public storage, vacant lots and outdoor storage. storage for shipping containers and local freight trailers en route to and from the POLB. Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with this policy.
LU Policy 14-6: Promote universal design in public and Consistent. Given the nature of the proposed use, universal private development to ensure accessibility for people of all design and accessibility is not substantially integrated into the abilities. project. However, the proposed office building would be compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
standards and the exterior of the building would include an ADA-accessible ramp. Pedestrian access to the 1711 Harbor Avenue property would also be provided at the southeast corner of the property along Harbor Avenue, adjacent to the office building and site parking. Additionally, two pedestrian access gates would be provided at the southwest corner of the 1711 Harbor Avenue property, one along West 17th Street and one along Caspian Avenue.
LU Policy 18-4: Increase the number of trees, first Consistent. As analyzed under 'Minimum Landscaped Area' in prioritizing areas identified as tree deficient, to provide the Table 4.11-2, /G Zoning District DeveloQ_ment Standards maximum benefits of improved air quality, increased carbon Consistency Analysis, the project would provide substantially dioxide sequestration, reduced stormwater runoff and more trees and shrubs than required for the site's General mitigated urban heat island effect. Industrial zoning district.
LU Policy 20-5: Prevent stormwater runoff and pollutants Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydroloqy and from entering natural water bodies, wildlife habitats, Water Quality, Resgonse 4.1 0{a), the proposed project would wetlands, rivers and the Pacific Ocean. implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) detailed in a project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) to ensure runoff and discharges during the project's construction phase do not violate any water quality standards; additionally, the project would comply with applicable laws and regulations, including National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), LBMC Chapter 18.61, and the Long Beach
Stormwater Management Program (LBSWMP), impacts
related to water quality standards and waste discharge
requirements during long-term operations would be less than significant.
Source: City of Long Beach, City of Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element, December 2019.
As analyzed in Table 4.11-1, the project would be mostly consistent with applicable General Plan Land Use Element policies and thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
MUNICIPAL CODE CONSISTENCY
According to the City of Long Beach Zoning Districts Map, the project site is zoned General Industrial (IG). Based on LBMC Section 21.33.020(C), the IG district allows uses such as large construction yards with heavy equipment. chemical manufacturing plants, rail yards, and food processing plants.
December 2022 4.11-3 Land Use and Planning
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K1_N_G_FA_c_1L_1T_Y_A_N_D_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_T_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The proposed shipping container storage yard and green trucking facility is a conditionally permitted use in the IG zone and thus, would require a Conditional Use Permit. Table 4.11-2, IG Zoning District Development Standards Consistency Analysis, evaluates the project's consistency with applicable development standards for the IG zoning district. As shown, the project would be consistent with relevant LBMC standards, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Table 4.11-2
IG Zoning District Development Standards Consistency Analysis Development Does Project
Standard IG District Requirement Proposed Project Satisfy Requirement?
The 1711 Harbor Avenue property is 196,350
Minimum Lot 20,000 square feet square feet and the 1515 West 17th Street property Yes Size is 14,590 square feet. In total, the project site is approximately 210,940 square feet in size.
The proposed office building on-site would be
Maximum Lot approximately 2,400 square feet in size and result Coverage 80 percent in a lot coverage of approximately one percent. The Yes remainder of the site would be for shipping container
storage and vehicular parking.
Maximum 65 feet The office building would have a maximum building Yes Building Height height of 16 feet and five inches.
Maximum The 2.400-square foot office building would occupy Accessory Office 25 percent of gross floor area Yes Space approximately one percent of the lot size.
Building Setbacks
Yard Fronting The office building would have a zero-foot setback on Local or 0 feet from West 17th Street and an approximately five-foot Yes Collector Street setback from Harbor Avenue.
Parking Lot The parking lot and storage areas fronting Harbor Setback for Yard Fronting 5 feet Avenue, West 17th Street, and Caspian Avenue Yes on a Street would have 15-foot wide landscaped setbacks.
The 1711 Harbor Avenue property abuts
nonresidential uses to the north; however, no
Yards Abutting buildings are proposed along the northern property Nonresidential 0 feet boundary. Additionally, the 1515 West 17th Street Yes District property abuts nonresidential uses to the north and west; however, no buildings are proposed on the
property.
Transport Containers:
Transport containers used for
storing goods, materials, or
equipment to be transported by The project proposes to store shipping containers Outdoor Storage truck, train, or marine vessel on-site at a maximum of two stacked containers. Yes and Activities may be stored anywhere on a Shipping containers would not be stored in any lot, with the exception of any required corner cutoff areas. required corner cutoff area. No
more than two containers shall
be stacked atop one another.
December 2022 4.11-4 Land Use and Planning
~
~ .- . ·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K_1N_G_FA_c_1L_1T_v::..:;A~N::.;D~C~ON:L:.T:.:A~IN~ER~ST::.:;O~RA:.G~E~P:!;!R;;!.:;O~JE:C~T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Development IG District Requirement
Does Project
Standard Proposed Project Satisfy
Requirement?
The 210,940-square foot project site would consist
of a 2,400-square foot office building. Thus, the
project would be required to provide 1 O parking
Office Area: 4 spaces per Minimum Off- spaces for the office building.
Street Parking 1,000 gross floor area up to Yes
20,000 gross floor area The proposed project would provide 13 parking spaces for personnel. located north of the proposed
office building. Of the 13 parking spaces provided,
one would be ADA-accessible.
Wherever a parking area abuts The proposed project would provide drought- a property line adjacent to a Parking Areas street, a five-foot wide tolerant landscaping along the site perimeter, landscaped strip shall be including along Harbor Avenue, West 17th Street.
Abutting Streets and Caspian Avenue. Landscaped strips along Yes provided between the parking
area and the property line adjacent roadways would range from 10 to 15 feet abutting the public right-of-way in width.
Minimum Landscaped Area
The proposed project would provide 10- to 15-foot
wide landscaped strips along Harbor Avenue, West
17th Street. and Caspian Avenue.
The project frontage along Harbor Avenue is 433
linear feet. Thus, the project is required to provide
29 trees and 87 shrubs. The project would provide
29 trees and 575 shrubs along Harbor Avenue.
The project frontage along East Pacific Coast
Highway is 30 linear feet. Thus, the project is Yes.upon required to provide two trees and six shrubs. The Within the required setback project would provide two trees and 33 shrubs along approval of a area along all street frontages, East Pacific Coast Highway. landscaping except at driveways, a
materials
minimum five-foot wide The project frontage along West 17th Street is 566 substitution On-Site Street landscaping strip (inside linear feet in total (for both properties). Thus, the from the Frontage dimension to planter) shall be project is required to provide 38 trees and 114 Director of provided. This area shall be shrubs. The project would provide 36 trees and 653 Development landscaped with one tree for shrubs along West 17th Street across both Services, or each 15 linear feet of street properties. While the project would provide two upon approval frontage and three shrubs for fewer trees than what is required, the project would of an exception each tree. far exceed the shrub requirement along this from the Site frontage, and would exceed the tree requirements Plan Review along other frontages. Upon approval from the Committee.
Director of Development Services for the
substitution of two trees for 10 five-gallon shrubs
(per LBMC Section 21.42.040 (D)(4), the
substitution for "one (1) twenty-four inch (24 inch)
box tree for five (5) five (5) gallon shrubs" may be
made subject to approval of the Director of
Development Services); or exception granted by the
Site Plan Review Committee per LBMC Section
21.42.040 (H), the project would be consistent with
the LBMC landscaping standards.
December 2022 4.11-5 Land Use and Planning
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K1_N_G_FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_D_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_T_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Development Does Project
Standard IG District Requirement Proposed Project Satisfy Requirement?
The project frontage along Caspian Avenue is 561
linear feet in total (for both properties). Thus, the
project is required to provide 39 trees and 117
shrubs. The project would provide 45 trees and 784
shrubs along Caspian Avenue across both
properties.
One canopy tree shall be The proposed project would provide a total of 231 provided for each four open parking stalls for trucks (221 spaces at 1711 Harbor parking spaces. Trees may be Avenue and 10 spaces at 1515 West 17th Street). clustered provided the 50 North of the proposed office building, five green percent tree canopy shade truck charging stations would be installed. coverage of all parking stall Additionally, five plugins for refrigerated container and related drive aisle areas, charging would be installed along the northeasterly after 1 O years of growth, is side of the site. The project would also include 13 achieved. A minimum of one parking spaces for personnel. located north of the cluster for each 100 feet of a proposed office building. In total, the project would row or double row of parking provide 254 open parking spaces. Thus, the project Parking Lots spaces shall be provided. is required to provide 64 canopy trees. Across both Yes properties, the project would provide a total of 170
A minimum four foot by four trees. The trees would be minimum 24-inch box foot planter size shall be sizes.
provided to allow full growth of
proposed trees. Proposed parking areas abut street frontages along Harbor Avenue, West 17th Street. and Caspian
A three-foot tall masonry wall, Avenue. Eight-foot high black rod iron fencing is landscaped berm, or hedge proposed around the site perimeter of both shall be provided in the event properties. Additionally, 32-inch high concrete parking areas abut a street railing is proposed around the perimeter fencing of frontage. both properties.
Fence and Wall Height Limits
Within A 32-inch high concrete railing is proposed within Required Street Frontage 3 feet the project's street frontage setback of both Yes Setback properties.
Other Yard 12 feet Eight-foot high black rod iron fencing is proposed Yes around the site perimeter of both properties.
Source: City of Long Beach, Long Beach Municipal Code, codified through Ordinance No. ORD-22-0019, enacted July 5, 2022.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
December 2022 4.11-6 Land Use and Planning
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.12-1 Mineral Resources
4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
. According to the California Department of Conservation’s , the project site is identified as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3). MRZ-3 is defined as areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. Although the project site is classified as such, no mineral recovery activities have been known to occur or are planned on-site or in the project area. Furthermore, the site is not designated for mineral resource recovery in the General Plan. Operations of the shipping container storage yard facility would not involve mineral resource extraction activities, and there are no existing or proposed mineral resource extraction activities occurring in the vicinity. Thus, development of the proposed project would not result in a loss of availability of the identified mineral resources and no impacts would occur. : No mitigation is required.
. Refer to Response 4.12(a).
: No mitigation is required.
Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Los Angeles County- South Half
Mitigation Measures
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact
Mitigation Measures
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.12-2 Mineral Resources
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.13-1 Noise
4.13 NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
FUNDAMENTALS OF NOISE
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the Aweighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA.
Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver.
Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance.
Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance.
There are a number of metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over time.
One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time-varying sound. Noise exposure over a longer period of time is often evaluated based on the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions. Typical Ldn noise levels for light and medium density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA.
Two of the primary factors that reduce levels of environmental sounds are increasing the distance between the sound source to the receiver and having intervening obstacles such as walls, buildings, or terrain features between the sound source and the receiver. Factors that act to increase the loudness of environmental sounds include moving the sound source closer to the receiver, sound enhancements caused by reflections, and focusing caused by various meteorological conditions.
I -
✓
~
✓
✓
-
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.13-2 Noise
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State
The State Office of Planning and Research include recommended exterior and interior noise level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The contain a land use compatibility table that describes the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). A noise environment of 50 CNEL to 60 CNEL is considered to be “normally acceptable” for residential uses. The Office of Planning and Research recommendations also note that, under certain conditions, more restrictive standards than the maximum levels cited may be appropriate.
City of Long Beach
Long Beach General Plan
The (General Plan) Noise Element was adopted in 1975 and provides a description of existing and projected future noise levels, and incorporates comprehensive goals, policies, and implementing actions.
The following goals are applicable to the proposed project:
Long Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 8.80, of the (LBMC) sets forth all noise regulations controlling unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration in the City. As outlined in Section 8.80.150 of the LBMC, maximum exterior noise levels are based on land use districts. According to the in the LBMC, the project site and surrounding uses are located within Land Use District Four. The closest noise sensitive uses are located to the north of the project site and within Land Use District One. District One is defined as “predominantly residential with other land use types also present,” District Two is defined as “predominantly commercial with other land use types present,” and Districts Three and Four are defined as “predominantly industrial with other land types use also present.” Table 4.13-1, , summarizes the exterior and interior noise limits for the various land use districts within the City.
Table 4.13-1
City of Long Beach Noise Limits
Land Use District Exterior Noise Level (Leq) Interior Noise Level (Leq) 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
District One 50 45 45 35
District Two 60 55 -
1 -
1 District Three2 65 65 -
1 -
1 District Four2 70 70 -
1 -
1 Notes:
1. Interior noise limits vary for different uses within this district.
2. Districts Three and Four limits are intended primarily for use at their boundaries rather than for noise control within the district.
Source: City of Long Beach, Long Beach Municipal Code Section 8.80.160 and Section 8.80.170.
Q>----
Noise Element Guidelines
Noise Element Guidelines
Long Beach General Plan
Goals Related to Construction and Industrial Noise:
The overall goal of the City is to respond to demands for a reasonably quiet environment which is compatible with both existing ambient noise levels and continued building and industrial development. More categorized goals are:
1. To reduce the level of noise exposure to the population caused by demolition and construction activities.
2. To reduce the level of outdoor noise exposure to the population generated by industries.
Noise, Long Beach Municipal Code
Noise District Map
____ Citv of Long Beach Noise Limits
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.13-3 Noise
Additionally, exterior noise sources shall not exceed:
Standard 1: The noise standard for that land use district as specified in Table 4.13-1 for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour;
Standard 2: The noise standard plus five decibels for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour;
Standard 3: The noise standard plus ten decibels for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour;
Standard 4: The noise standard plus 15 decibels for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
Standard 5: The noise standard plus 20 decibels or the maximum measured ambient, for any period of time.
In accordance with the LBMC, if the existing measured ambient noise level exceeds the permissible level within any of the first four noise standard categories (Standards 1 through 4), the allowable noise exposure standard shall be increased in 5-decible increments in each category as appropriate to encompass or reflect the ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category (Standard 5), the maximum allowable noise level shall be the measured ambient noise level.1 Furthermore, the LBMC provides a reduction of 5 dBA for steady high-pitched noise or repeated impulsive noises.2
LBMC Section 8.80.250, , exempts performance of emergency work from the noise standard.
LBMC Section 8.80.202, , applies to construction activities where a building or other related permit is required and issued by the Building Official. LBMC Section 8.80.202 includes the following restrictions:
Weekdays and Federal holidays: No person shall operate any tool or equipment used for construction, which produce loud or unusual noise which annoys or disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivity between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day on weekdays, except for emergency work authorized by the Building Official. For purposes of this section, Federal holidays shall be considered weekdays.
Saturdays: No person shall operate or permit the operation of any tools or equipment used for construction, which produces loud or unusual noise that annoys or disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivity between the hours of 7:00 p.m. on Friday and 9:00 a.m. on Saturday and after 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, except for emergency work authorized by the Building Official.
Sundays: No person shall operate any tool or equipment used for construction at any time on Sunday, except for emergency work authorized by the Building Official or except for work authorized by permit issued by the Noise Control Officer.
LBMC Section 8.80.200 prohibits the operation of any device that creates vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at 150 feet from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way. The perception threshold as defined by the LBMC is
0.001 g’s (gravity) in the frequency range of 0-30 hertz (Hz) and 0.003 g’s in the frequency range of 30-100 Hz.3 1 LBMC Section 8.80.150, .
2 LBMC Section 8.80.160,
3 One “g” is the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth’s surface, approximately 9.8 meters per second squared.
Q>----
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exemption-Emergencies
Construction Activity-Noise Regulations
Exterior noise limits-Sound levels by receiving land use district Exterior noise limits-Correction for character of sound.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.13-4 Noise
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stationary Noise Sources
The project area consists of commercial and industrial uses. The primary sources of stationary noise in the project vicinity are urban-related activities (i.e., mechanical equipment and parking areas). The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, short-term, or long-term/continuous noise.
Mobile Noise Sources
The majority of the existing noise in the project area is generated from vehicle sources along Interstate 710, East Pacific Coast Highway, and Harbor Avenue. Additionally, aircraft overflights are a source of mobile noise in the City.
NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Three short-term noise measurements were taken on September 21, 2022, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure at the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site. Short-term (Leq) measurements are considered representative of the noise levels in the project vicinity. As shown in Table 4.13-2, , short-term noise levels during the daytime ranged from 64.1 to 77.8 dBA Leq.
Table 4.13-2
Short-Term Noise Measurements
Site
No. Location Leq(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Peak
(dBA) Date Time
ST1 In front of 1821 Harbor Avenue, along the
sidewalk 64.1 53.4 76.9 98.3 9/21/22 10:17 a.m.
ST2 In front of 1829 Caspian Avenue, along
the sidewalk 60.7 80.8 79.0 103.8 9/21/22 10:35 a.m.
ST3 In front of Hiland Motel at 1441 East
Pacific Coast Highway, along the sidewalk 77.8 60.0 96.0 111.8 9/21/22 10:49 a.m.
Notes: Leq = Equivalent Sound Level; Lmin = Minimum Noise Level; Lmax = Maximum Noise Level Source: Michael Baker International, 2022; refer to Appendix D.
Meteorological conditions consisted of clear skies, warm temperatures, with light wind speeds (5 miles per hour), and low humidity. Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient noise survey consisted of a Brüel & Kjær Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 equipped with a Type 4189 pre-polarized microphone. The monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of the American National Standards Institute for Type I (precision) sound level meters. The results of the field measurements are included in Appendix D, .
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of noise than are the general population. Land uses considered sensitive by the State of California include schools, playgrounds, athletic facilities, hospitals, rest homes, rehabilitation centers, long-term care and mental care facilities. Generally, a sensitive receptor is identified as a location where human populations (especially children, senior citizens, and sick persons) are present.
Land uses less sensitive to noise are business, commercial, and professional developments. Noise receptors categorized as being least sensitive to noise include industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, natural open space, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, and transit terminals. These types of land use often generate high noise levels. Moderately sensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, and Q>----
Short-Term Noise Measurements ----
____ Noise Analysis
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.13-5 Noise
outpatient clinics. Existing land uses surrounding the project site include commercial and industrial uses. The nearest sensitive receptor (Hiland Motel) to the project site is approximately 120 feet north of the proposed project site. The nearest residences are located approximately 220 feet north of the proposed project site. . It is difficult to specify noise levels that are generally acceptable to everyone; noise that is considered a nuisance to one person may be unnoticed by another. Standards may be based on documented complaints in response to documented noise levels or based on studies of the ability of people to sleep, talk, or work under various noise conditions. However, all such studies recognize that individual responses vary considerably.
Standards usually address the needs of the majority of the general population.
As stated above, the LBMC includes regulations controlling unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise within the City. As outlined in the LBMC, maximum noise levels are based on land use districts.
SHORT-TERM NOISE IMPACTS
Construction activities generally are temporary and have a short duration, resulting in periodic increases in the ambient noise environment. Construction activities would occur over approximately seven months and would include the following phases: demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Ground-borne noise and other types of construction-related noise impacts typically occur during the initial demolition and grading phase. This phase of construction has the potential to create the highest levels of noise. Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment are shown in Table 4.13-3, . It
should be noted that the noise levels identified in Table 4.13-3 are maximum sound levels (Lmax), which are the highest individual sound occurring at an individual time period. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts).
Table 4.13-3
Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Acoustical Use Factor1 Lmax at 50 Feet (dBA) Lmax at 120 Feet (dBA) Concrete Saw 20 90 82
Crane 16 81 73
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79 71
Backhoe 40 78 70
Dozer 40 82 74
Excavator 40 81 73
Forklift 20 78 70
Paver 50 77 69
Roller 20 80 72
Tractor 40 84 76
Water Truck 40 80 72
Grader 40 85 77
General Industrial Equipment 50 85 77
Note:
1. Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, January 2006.
Q>----
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact
____ Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054),
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.13-6 Noise
Construction noise levels in the project vicinity would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of usage for the varying equipment. The effects of construction noise largely depend on the type of construction activities occurring on any given day, noise levels generated by those activities, distances to noise-sensitive receptors, and the existing ambient noise environment in the receptor’s vicinity. Construction generally occurs in several discrete phases, with each phase requiring different equipment with varying noise characteristics. These phases alter the characteristics of the noise environment generated on the proposed project site and in the surrounding community for the duration of the construction process.
Construction noise impacts generally happen when construction activities occur in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, during noise sensitive times of the day, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time. The closest sensitive receptor is the existing motel use located at approximately 120 feet to the north of the project construction activities. As indicated in Table 4.13-3, typical construction noise levels would range from approximately 69 to 82 dBA at the sensitive receptors. These noise levels could intermittently occur for a few days when construction equipment is operating closest to the motel use. The remainder of the time, the construction noise levels would be much less because the equipment would be working in an area farther away from the existing sensitive uses. Furthermore, the project construction activities will be shielded from the existing commercial and industrial buildings located to the north of the project site from the line of sight of the motel use. As a result, construction noise levels will be further reduced at the nearest sensitive receptor.
As previously discussed, the City does not have established noise standards for construction activities if the construction activities occur within the allowable hours specified by the LBMC. Pursuant to LBMC Section 8.80.202, construction activities may only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Project construction activities would occur within the allowable hours specified by the LBMC, and nighttime construction would not be required. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
LONG-TERM NOISE IMPACTS
Mobile Noise
The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing buildings and associated equipment on-site to construct a storage yard facility for the temporary storage of shipping containers en route to and from the POLB. An existing building located on the southeast corner of the project site is to remain and would be renovated to serve as an office building. According to the , a doubling of
traffic volumes would result in a 3 dB increase in traffic noise levels, which is barely detectable by the human ear.4 Based on the (VMT
Screening Memo) developed by Michael Baker International, Inc. (dated November 22, 2022), the proposed project would generate approximately 254 average daily trips, including 54 passenger car trips and 200 drayage truck trips.
Due to the size of the two properties that make up the project, most of the project’s trip generation would occur at the 1711 Harbor Avenue property. Therefore, traffic noise impacts associated with the 1515 West 17th Street property would be nominal. Access to the 1711 Harbor Avenue property would be provided via driveways along Harbor Avenue and East Pacific Coast Highway; however, the egress-only driveway along East Pacific Coast Highway would be limited to overweight cargo and emergency vehicle access. Based on the latest Citywide Traffic Flow Map, existing average daily traffic volumes along Harbor Avenue in the vicinity of the proposed project are approximately 2,900 vehicles per day.5 Based on the latest California Department of Transportation Traffic Census Program, existing average daily traffic volumes along East Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity of the proposed project are approximately 36,500 vehicles 4 U.S. Department of Transportation, , updated August 24, 2017, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm, accessed on September 23, 2022. 5 City of Long Beach Traffic Engineering Division, , https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/pw/medialibrary/documents/resources/general/maps-and-gis/2014-citywide-traffic-flow, accessed September 23, 2022.
Q>----
Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance 1771 Harbor Avenue and 1515 West 17th Street City of Long Beach, VMT Screening Analysis Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance 2074 Citywide Traffic Flow
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K1_N_G_FA_c_1L_1r_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration per day. 6 As such, the project's trip generation (approximately 254 average daily trips) would not double existing traffic volumes and an increase in traffic noise along local roadways would be imperceptible. Therefore, project-related traffic noise would be less than significant.
Stationary Noise
The project involves construction of a shipping container storage yard facility. The primary noise source associated with these facilities is the on-site operation of trucks. An existing building located on the southeast corner of the project site is to remain and would be renovated to serve as an office building. As such, it is not anticipated that the office building would include additional stationary noise sources on-site.
On-Site Operation of Trucks
The project would include approximately 174 double stacked shipping container stalls and approximately 57 single stacked shipping container stalls, for a total of 231 stalls to accommodate approximately 405 shipping containers onsite. The site is located within an urban area featuring industrial and commercial businesses. Noise generated by trucks arriving and departing the site, backing up, and loading/unloading would be the primary sources of noise associated with the proposed project. Truck circulation within the proposed project would occur at slow speeds and would be relatively short in duration. Noise would also be generated from instantaneous backup beepers during circulation.
Trucks loading/unloading would generate the highest level of noise. The average noise levels from truck loading/unloading areas would be approximately 96 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) from the boundary of the truck activity area. 7 The nearest sensitive receptor (Hiland Motel) to the project site is approximately 120 feet north of the proposed project operational activities. Noise from the operation of proposed project would be approximately 65 dBA at 120 feet.
Existing noise levels at the motel are approximately 77 .8 dBA; refer to Table 4.13-2. The nearest residences are located at 1821 Harbor Avenue, approximately 220 feet north of the proposed project site. Noise from the operation of proposed project would be approximately 59 dBA at 220 feet. Existing noise levels at the nearest residences are approximately
64.1 dBA; refer to Table 4.13-2. As such, the project operational noise levels would not be audible above the existing noise levels. As previously stated, there are existing industrial and commercial use buildings located between the project site and the motel. which would further attenuate operational noise from the on-site activities.
LBMC Section 8.80.150 has established a significance threshold of 5 dBA over ambient noise levels. Therefore, noise levels generated by the proposed project would not exceed the daytime significance thresholds for both the motel and the nearest residential uses. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.
CONSTRUCTION
Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures. Ordinary buildings that are not California Department of Transportation, Traffic Census Program, Traffic Volumes: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) 2020, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census, accessed November 7, 2022.
The Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, Baltrenas et al. 2004.
December 2022 4.13-7 Noise
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K1_N_G_FA_c_1L_1r_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment.
The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time.
Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. The groundborne vibration limit provided by the City is based on human perception in terms of acceleration level in g's. Groundborne vibration levels can be described in terms of acceleration (i.e., g's) or velocity (i.e., peak particle velocity [PPV]). Since the published vibration levels for typical construction equipment are expressed in terms of velocity (i.e., PPV), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines are used to evaluate potential impacts related to construction vibration for both potential building damage and human annoyance. The FTA has identified an architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations of 0.20 inch/second PPV. Further, as the nearest sensitive receptors to project construction are industrial and commercial use buildings, the criterion for human annoyance of 0.20 inch/second PPV is utilized. Typical vibration produced by construction equipment is illustrated in Table 4.13-4, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.
Table 4.13-4
Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Approximate peak particle Approximate peak particle Approximate peak particle Equipment velocity at 5 feet velocity at 15 feet velocity at 25 feet (inches/second) (inches/second) (inches/second)
Loaded Trucks 0.850 0.160 0.076
Larqe Bulldozers 0.995 0.191 0.089
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.034 0.006 0.002
Notes: NA = Not Applicable
Calculated using the following formula:
PPV equip= PPV,erx (25/D)1,5
where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (reO = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 12-2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
The nearest structures to the project site are located immediately to the north of the west and east portions of the project site. Construction activities are anticipated to occur up to the project boundary line. Groundborne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. As indicated in Table 4.13-4, based on the FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operation at the proposed project construction area would range from 0.034 to 0.995 inch/second PPV at 5 feet from the source of activity. Therefore, construction groundborne vibration would exceed the human annoyance criterion and the structural damage criterion (0.2 inch/second PPV). As such, Mitigation Measure NOI-MM-1 would be required during construction to reduce vibration impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure NOI-MM-1 is directly related to vibration control, as it requires a qualified professional to prepare construction vibration mitigation plans and to utilize pneumatic impact equipment. It also requires a buffer distance for heavy construction equipment operation adjacent to sensitive uses and structures. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-MM-1, impacts would be less than significant.
OPERATION
The project proposes to construct a shipping container storage yard facility and would not generate groundborne vibration that could be felt at surrounding uses. The proposed project would not involve railroad operations, and truck operations would be intermittent. and therefore would not result in substantial vibration impacts at surrounding uses. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
December 2022 4.13-8 Noise
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K,_N_G-FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures:
NOl-1 The following measures shall be incorporated on all grading and building plans and specifications subject to approval of the City's Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit (whichever occurs first):
• The developer shall ensure construction equipment will not approach the construction buffer zone adjacent to the structures along the project's northern boundaries. The buffer zone shall be tiered based on distances established in Table 4.13-4, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment. As shown in Table 4.13-4, loaded trucks and large bulldozers shall not operate within 15 feet of nearest structures located to the north of the project site; the buffer zone shall be in enforced around the existing structures between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.80.202.
• The developer shall utilize a construction vibration monitoring system with the potential to measure low levels of vibration (i.e., 0.2 inch-per-sec PPV) to ensure human annoyance and structural damage does not occur. If the human annoyance criterion and the structural damage criterion (0.2 inch-per-second PPV) are exceeded, construction must cease, and alternate strategies shall be employed to ensure the human annoyance and structural damage vibration criteria are not exceeded.
• Conduct sensitivity training to inform construction personnel about the existing sensitive receptors surrounding the project and about methods to reduce noise and vibration. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport to the project site is the Long Beach Airport, located approximately 3.6 miles to the northeast of the project site. According to the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, the project site is located outside of the Compton/Woodley Airport Influence Area. 8 Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan, Long Beach Airport - Airport Influence Area, revised December 1, 2004, https://planning.lacounty.gov/assetslupl/data/pd_alup.pdf, accessed October 2, 2022.
December 2022 4.13-9 Noise
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.13-10 Noise
This page left intentionally blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.14-1 Population and Housing
4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
. A project can induce population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and/or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
No residential uses would be developed as part of the project. Therefore, the project would not induce unplanned direct population growth in the City through new housing development.
The project would not have the capacity to result in significant impacts related to indirect unplanned population growth.
While the project would involve the construction of a shipping container storage yard facility which would improve shipping operations for the Port of Long Beach (POLB), move the local industry toward greener practices, and potentially provide new employment opportunities in the City, it is not anticipated that the project would result in a substantial indirect increase in permanent residents within the City as project operations would require approximately 8 to 12 employees (4 to 6 employees are anticipated to be on-site per shift). The minor new employment generated by the project would not have the capacity to induce substantial population growth within the area. Development of the project would not induce unplanned indirect population growth through extension of roads or other infrastructure improvements and no new roads are proposed. Impacts would be less than significant. : No mitigation is required.
. The project site is currently developed with buildings, storage areas, surface parking, and ancillary infrastructure, including a water tower, for commercial and industrial uses. There is no existing housing on-site. As such, project implementation would not displace any existing housing or residents and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur in this regard. : No mitigation is required.
Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact
Mitigation Measures
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.14-2 Population and Housing
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.15-1 Public Services
4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?
. The Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) provides fire protection within the City. The LBFD has 23 stations, fire headquarters, and a beach operations facility within the City of Long Beach. The nearest fire stations to the project site are Fire Stations 3 and 13 located at 1222 Daisy Avenue (approximately 0.8-mile to the southeast) and 2475 Adriatic Avenue (approximately 0.8-mile to the north), respectively. The proposed project would include the demolition of various existing buildings and associated equipment to construct a shipping container storage yard facility. Given the proposed use of the site, the project would not substantially increase the need for fire protection services as no residential uses are proposed and the project is not expected to result in an increase in the City’s population. Construction and operations of the shipping container storage yard facility would not result in a substantial increase in the likelihood of a fire or other hazard compared to existing conditions on site. Additionally, all proposed activities would be subject to compliance with requirements set forth in the California Fire Code and California Building Code related to fire safety. The project would also be subject to compliance with the fire provisions specified in Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Title 18, . The project plans would be subject to LBFD site/building plan review, which would ensure adequate emergency access, fire hydrant availability, and compliance with all applicable codes. Overall, project implementation is not anticipated to adversely impact existing LBFD services upon compliance with existing regulations. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. : No mitigation is required.
. The Long Beach Police Department (LBPD) provides law enforcement services to the City, including the project site. The closest LBPD station is the West Division station located at 1835 Santa Fe Avenue, approximately 0.25-mile northwest of the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
2) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact
Building and Construction
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.15-2 Public Services
increase the need for additional police protection services to the project site. As a shipping container storage yard facility, the project would not introduce any new permanent residents into the City or not introduce a use that would substantially increase the need for police response. As a result, project implementation is not anticipated to increase response times to the project site or surrounding vicinity or require the construction of new or physically altered police protection facilities. As detailed in Section 2.5.3, for safety and security, fencing and block walls would be constructed around the site perimeter, high-efficiency perimeter lighting would be installed, and a security guard shack would be located within the northern portion of the 1711 Harbor Avenue property. The project would be subject to site plan review by the City prior to project approval to ensure that it meets City requirements in regard to public safety (e.g., nighttime security lighting) to minimize the potential for safety concerns.
Moreover, LBMC Chapter 18.22, , was adopted for the purpose of imposing mitigation fees on applicants seeking to construct development projects. The purpose of such fees is to assure that the impacts created by proposed development pay its fair share of the costs required to support needed police facilities and related costs necessary to accommodate such development. The amount of applicable police facilities impact fees would be calculated based on the gross square feet of floor area and type of use and location in a non-residential development.
Compliance with LBMC Chapter 18.22, which requires payment of police facilities impact fees, would ensure that project implementation, and would result in a less than significant impact to police protection services. : No mitigation is required.
. The area surrounding the shipping container storage yard facility is served by the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD), which includes 84 public schools in the cities of Long Beach, Lakewood, Signal Hill, and Avalon on Catalina Island.1 James A Garfield Elementary School is located approximately 0.5-mile north of the project site at 2240 Baltic Avenue; William Logan Stephens Middle School is located approximately 1.3-miles north of the project site at 1830 West Columbia Street; and Cabrillo High School is located approximately 0.3-miles northwest of the project site at 2001 Santa Fe Avenue.
Project operations would require approximately 8 to 12 employees (4 to 6 employees per shift), which could increase population in the project vicinity; refer to Section 4.14, . However, the potential population increase would not result in the need for the construction of additional school facilities, as the project would not result in a substantial increase in population. However, the project would be subject to the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 50, which allow school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new projects. According to Section 65996 of the California Government Code, development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation.” Thus, upon payment of required fees by the project applicant consistent with existing State requirements, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels. : No mitigation is required.
. The project does not propose new or physically altered parks or recreational facilities.
According to the City of Long Beach Parks, Recreation, and Marine Department, the City maintains 169 parks with 26 community centers, among other programs and services.2 Nearby parks include Admiral Kidd Park (2125 Santa Fe Avenue) and Hudson Park (2335 Webster Avenue). Although the project could indirectly increase population growth 1 Long Beach Unified School District, , http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/District/, accessed November 6, 2022.
2 City of Long Beach, , http://www.longbeach.gov/park/, accessed September 27, 2022.
Q>----
Police Facilities Fee
Mitigation Measures
3) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact
Population and Housing
Mitigation Measures
4) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact
About - Long Beach Unified School District
Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine Department Website
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.15-3 Public Services
within the project vicinity, the nominal increase would not generate a substantial increase in demand for park facilities or substantially increase the use of existing facilities. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard. : No mitigation is required.
. Library services within Long Beach is provided by the Long Beach Public Library (LBPL). The closest LBPL branch library to the project site is the Bret Harte Neighborhood Library, located at 1595 West Willow Street, approximately one mile to the north. Although the project may result in a negligible increase in population growth within the project vicinity, the nominal increase would not result in a substantial increase in demand for library facilities. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard. : No mitigation is required.
Q>----
Mitigation Measures
5) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.15-4 Public Services
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.16-1 Recreation
4.16 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Refer to Response 4.15(a)(4). The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in demand on parks or other recreational facilities and would not result in the physical deterioration of these facilities. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.
No mitigation is required.
The project does not include recreational facilities, nor would it require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. No impacts would result in this regard.
No mitigation is required.
Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures:
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact.
Mitigation Measures:
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.16-2 Recreation
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.17-1 Transportation
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
This section is primarily based upon the
(VMT Analysis) prepared by Michael Baker International, dated November 22, 2022; refer to Appendix E, .
.
ROADWAY FACILITIES
Refer to Response 4.17(b) below regarding project impacts on roadway facilities.
TRANSIT, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Transit services in the project area are provided by Long Beach Transit (Routes 41, 171, 175, 191, and 192). Several bus stops are located along East Pacific Coast Highway, the closest of which is approximately 0.02-mile to the north near the intersection of East Pacific Coast Highway and Harbor Avenue (Routes 171 and 175).
There are no bicycle facilities along Harbor Avenue, West 17th Street, or Caspian Avenue. However, a shared-lane bike route (Class III) is provided along East Pacific Coast Highway, north of the project site, that connects to the Los Angeles River Bikeway, a shared-use path (Class I) located approximately 0.4-mile east of the project site.1 Pedestrian sidewalks are provided around the site perimeter.
Construction
Construction activities associated with the project may temporarily impact transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities as temporary partial lane closures may be required during construction; however, these roadways would remain open to traffic at all times. During periods of partial lane closures, the Applicant would be required to implement a temporary Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to maintain traffic flow and emergency access during the construction process (Mitigation Measure TRA-1). The TMP would include potential measures such as construction signage, limitations on 1 City of Long Beach, , December 2016.
Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
✓
✓
7777 Harbor Avenue and 7575 W 17th Street City oflong Beach, VMT Screening Analysis
VMT Analysis
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated Bicycle Master Plan, A Supplement to the Mobility Element
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.17-2 Transportation
timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours, temporary striping plans, and the need for a construction flagperson to direct traffic during heavy equipment use, among others. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the project would not conflict with existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Operations
At project completion, operations of the green trucking and container storage facility would not conflict with any program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the City’s existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian network. Project operations would occur within the project boundary and the surrounding roadways, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be restored to pre-project conditions upon the completion of construction. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. :
TRA-1 Prior to project construction activities, the project Applicant shall prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for approval by the City of Long Beach Traffic Engineer. The TMP shall include measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours, temporary striping plans, and the need for a construction flagperson to direct traffic during heavy equipment use. The TMP shall specify that one direction of travel in each direction must always be maintained along East Pacific Coast Highway, Harbor Avenue, West 17th Street, or Caspian Avenue throughout project construction. Bicycle lanes, pedestrian sidewalks, and bus stops shall remain open and accessible, to the greatest extent feasible, during construction or shall be re-routed to ensure continued connectivity while maintaining Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility. The TMP shall be incorporated into project specifications for verification prior to final plan approval. . The VMT Analysis evaluates the project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts in accordance with the (City Guidelines; May
2020). Based on the City Guidelines, land use projects that meet any of the screening thresholds based on size, location, proximity to transit or trip-making potential are presumed to result in a less than significant impact in regard to VMT.
Trip generation rates for land use projects are typically obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) , 11th Edition. However, a review of the ITE Trip Generation Manual indicates no land use similar to the proposed project. A site-specific trip generation rate was developed given the specific proposed land use.
The following site characteristics were accounted for in the trip generation analysis:
1. Hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. that operate in two shifts. Day shift assumed to be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and night shift from 5:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.
2. Saturday hours of operation are from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., thus weekdays would experience greater trips than Saturdays.
3. 8 to 12 employees are anticipated to be employed at the site.
4. 4 to 6 employees are anticipated to be on site per shift.
5. The anticipated type of truck that will access the site is a drayage trucks.
Table 4.17-1, , details the project’s trip generation. As shown, the project is anticipated to generate 254 daily trips (54 passenger vehicles and 200 trucks).
Q>----
Mitigation Measures
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact
City of Long Beach CEQA Transportation Thresholds of Significance Guide Trip Generation Manual
____ WeekdavAverage Proiect Trip Generation
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K,_N_G-FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 4.17-1
Weekday Average Project Trip Generation
Land Use Vehicle Daily Trips AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour Breakdown Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Shipping Passenqer Cars 54 0 0 0 6 0 6
Container Trucks 200 33 33 66 5 5 10
Storage Total 254 33 33 66 11 5 16 Facility
Notes: 1 Emplovees utilizina passenaer cars for the dav shift are assumed to be on site prior to the AM Peak Hour.
Source: Refer to Appendix E.
A project can be presumed to result in a less than significant impact if the project generates a low volume of daily traffic. Based on the VMT Analysis and the City Guidelines, the project meets the VMT project type screening criteria for project size (Screening Criteria 5) as the project daily trips (254 daily trips) would be below the City's threshold (500 Average Daily Traffic). As such, additional VMT analysis is not required and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose changes to the City's circulation system, such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections, and would not introduce incompatible uses to area roadways (e.g., farm equipment).
For site access, the project proposes to utilize the existing driveways along Harbor Avenue, East Pacific Coast Highway, Caspian Avenue, and West 17th Street with the exception of the southeastern driveway at 1515 West 17th Street along West 17th Street, which would be removed; refer to Exhibit 2-3, Proposed Site Plan. The egress-only driveway along East Pacific Coast Highway would be limited to overweight cargo and emergency vehicle access. As such, the project would not increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated, the project would be accessed via existing driveways along Harbor Avenue, East Pacific Coast Highway, Caspian Avenue, and West 17th Street and no changes are proposed that would result in inadequate emergency access. However, project construction activities may result in temporary partial lane closures along Harbor Avenue, East Pacific Coast Highway, Caspian Avenue, and West 17th Street rights-of-way for utility connections and other ancillary improvements. As such, Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would require a Traffic Management Plan be prepared and implemented to ensure traffic flow and emergency access are maintained during the construction process. As stated, the TMP would include potential measures such as construction signage, limitations on timing for lane closures to avoid peak hours, temporary striping plans, and the need for a construction flagperson to direct traffic during heavy equipment use, among others. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, which requires the project Applicant to notify the Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD), Long Beach Police Department (LBPD), and City of Long Beach Public Works Department of construction activities that could impede movement (such as temporary partial lane closures) along Harbor Avenue, West 17th Street, East Pacific Coast Highway, and Caspian Avenue. Compliance with Mitigation Measures TRA-1 and December 2022 4.17-3 Transportation
~
~ .- .·, ___________ G_R_E_E_N-TR_u_c_K,_N_G-FA_c_1L_1T_v_A_N_o_co_N""T-AllliilN-ER_s_r_o_RA_G_E_P_R_o_JE_c_T Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration HAZ-2 would allow for uninterrupted emergency access to evacuation routes. Thus, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 and TRA-1 .
December 2022 4.17-4 Transportation
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.18-1 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted and expanded CEQA by establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. The bill specifies that any project that may affect or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource would require a lead agency to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditional and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Section 21074 of AB 52 also defines a new category of resources under CEQA called “tribal cultural resources.” Tribal cultural resources are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is either listed on or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register, or if the lead agency chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource.
In compliance with AB 52, the City of Long Beach distributed letters on September 16, 2022 to Native American tribes notifying each tribe of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the proposed project; refer to Appendix F, . The tribes were identified based on a list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) or were tribes that had previously requested to be notified of future projects proposed by the City.
On February 19, 2016, the California Natural Resources Agency proposed to adopt and amend regulations as part of AB 52 implementing Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, CEQA Guidelines, to include consideration of impacts to tribal cultural resources pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.6. On September 27, 2016, the California Office of Administrative Law approved the amendments to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and these amendments are addressed within this environmental document.
Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
____ AB
52 Consultation Documentation
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.18-2 Tribal Cultural Resources
. As detailed in Response 4.5(a), no historic resources or sites listed or eligible for listing in a State or local register of historic resources are located on the project site. Therefore, no impacts related to historic tribal cultural resources defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) would occur.
No mitigation is required.
. As stated above, in accordance with AB 52, the City
distributed letters on September 16, 2022 to Native American tribes notifying each tribe of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the proposed project. The tribes had 30 days to respond to the City’s request for consultation.
On September 19, 2022, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation formally requested consultation with the City. A consultation meeting was held on October 20, 2022 between the tribe and City staff. The tribe requested any relevant information regarding the history of the subsurface soils that would be impacted as part of the project’s ground disturbing activities in order to determine whether the project would result in the removal and/or disturbance of native soils. The City provided the Cultural/Paleontological Resources Report to the tribe, which included a brief description of on-site soils; refer to Appendix B, . Upon reviewing, the tribe requested that a tribal monitor be present during all ground-disturbing activities to ensure potentially uncovered tribal cultural resources are not adversely impacted. As such, Mitigation Measure TCR-1 is included to reduce such impacts to less than significant levels.
:
TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the project site, the project Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation (Tribe) and is listed under the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) tribal contact list for the project area.
The Tribal monitor shall only be present during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities associated with project implementation. Ground disturbing activities are defined as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Long Beach Planning Bureau prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence ground-disturbing activity. The Tribal Monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that provide descriptions of the relevant ground disturbing activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. Monitor logs shall identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, and places of significance. Copies of monitor logs shall be provided to the project Applicant/City of Long Beach upon written request to the Tribe. The on-site monitoring shall end when (1) written confirmation to the Tribe from a designated point of contact for the project Applicant that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Tribe to the project Applicant that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact tribal cultural resources. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural resources, construction activities shall cease in the Q>
a) Would
----
the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k), or No Impact
Mitigation Measures:
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024. 1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated ____ Cultural/Pa/eontologica/ Resources Report
Mitigation Measures
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.18-3 Tribal Cultural Resources
immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 50 feet) until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal Monitor. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Tribe will retain the tribal cultural resources in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural, and/or historic purposes.
If human remains and/or associated grave goods are discovered or recognized at the project site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified, and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the most likely descendant shall be conducted per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from the discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Tribe determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered Native American human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-tribal cultural resources) shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
As the Most Likely Descendant, the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations shall either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard shall be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe shall make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials be removed. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project Applicant and/or landowner, before grounddisturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.
Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags.
All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on-site, if possible. These items shall be retained and reburied within six months of recovery.
The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. The Tribe shall work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches.
All data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.18-4 Tribal Cultural Resources
does not authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.19-1 Utilities and Service Systems
4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? WATER
Water service for the project site is provided by the Long Beach Water Department (LBWD). The LBWD provides water utility services for most of the City of Long Beach. To meet customers’ needs, LBWD uses a combination of 50 percent local groundwater from wells throughout the City, 40 percent surface water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), which is imported from the Colorado River watershed and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta, and 10 percent recycled water processed at the Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant (LBWRP).1 2 3 According to LBWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City’s projected water demand by 2050 would be 52,570 acre-feet per year (AFY) in a normal year, a single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios; the City’s projected water supply by 2050 for these scenarios would be 88,752 AFY, resulting in a surplus of 36,182 AFY. 4 The UWMP includes an analysis of water supply reliability projected through 2050. Based on the analysis, the City would be capable of providing adequate water supply to its service area under a normal supply and demand scenario, single 1 Long Beach Water District, , https://lbwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Leave-Behind_Digital-1.pdf, accessed October 26, 2022.
2 Long Beach Water District, , https://lbwater.org/water-sources/ground-and-imported-water/#ground-water, accessed October 26, 2022.
3 Long Beach Water District, , https://lbwater.org/water-sources/reclaimed-recycled-water/, accessed October 26, 2022.
4 Long Beach Water Department. . Adopted June 2021.
Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact.
LBWD Fact Sheet
Ground and Imported Water
Rec/aimed/Recycled Water
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.19-2 Utilities and Service Systems
dry-year supply and demand scenario, and multiple dry-year supply and demand scenario through 2050. Thus, the UWMP accounts for increased demand as growth within the City occurs.
The project is consistent with the City’s planned growth under the General Plan and, as such, would be consistent with the assumptions of the UWMP for the project site. The project proposes the demolition of various existing buildings and equipment associated with the former Snug Top operations on-site to construct a shipping container storage yard facility. Based on the UWMP’s water use rate for Industrial land uses at 54 gallons per day (gpd) per employee, with a maximum of 12 employees the project would use approximately 0.7-acre feet (or 236,520 gallons) of potable water per year (or 648 gpd). Water-efficient irrigation outfitted with low-flow fixtures would be utilized for all proposed landscaping.
Based on LBWD correspondence with the City, LBWD currently supplies potable water to the project site; eight-inch water mains are located within East Pacific Coast Highway, Caspian Avenue, and West 17th Street rights-of-way and six- and eight-inch laterals provide water to the site. As such, it is not anticipated that project implementation would require the relocation or construction of new or expanded LBWD water facilities. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
WASTEWATER
The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) works in coordination with Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) oversees treatment facilities that serve the City. Wastewater conveyance services for the project site are provided by LBWD. The LBWD operates and maintains over 700 miles of sanitary sewer lines, delivering over 40 million gallons per day to LACSD facilities.5 Currently, the majority of the City’s wastewater is delivered to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) of the LACSD. The remaining portion of the City’s wastewater is delivered to the LBWRP of the LACSD. JWPCP is located approximately
4.2 miles northwest of the project site at 24501 South Figueroa Street in the City of Carson. The JWPCP is the largest of the LACSD’s wastewater treatment plants and provides both primary and secondary treatment for 280 million gpd of wastewater. The LBWRP is located at 7400 East Willow Street in the City of Long Beach, approximately 7.2 miles to the east of the project site. The plant provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment for 18 million gpd of wastewater.6
Temporary construction activities associated with the project would not generate substantial wastewater and would be short-term in nature. The project site is currently developed with a 6,070-square-foot main building, 122,060 square feet of factory/warehouse area, and 1,746 square feet of office space. Implementation of the proposed project would involve demolition of the main building and factory/warehouse area and a 654-square foot addition to the existing office.
As such, it is anticipated that the operation of the proposed shipping container storage yard facility would result in a decrease in demand for wastewater treatment and disposal compared to existing conditions.
Based on LBWD correspondence with the City, eight to 21 inch sewer mains exist within East Pacific Coast Highway, Harbor Avenue, Caspian Avenue, and West 17th Street, adjacent to the project site. The project would be subject to standard connection fees collected by LACSD for all new development projects within its service area. These connection fees ensure that sufficient capacity is available and that the wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB are met. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
STORMWATER
The project site is currently fully developed and paved with limited ornamental landscaping located along the site boundary. As discussed in to Section 4.10, , stormwater drainage in the project area would be similar to existing conditions; stormwater would continue to be direct to storm drains in the surrounding streets. 5 Long Beach Water District, , https://lbwater.org/customer-services/sewer/, accessed October 26, 2022. 6 Ibid.
Q>----
____ Hvdrolog_vand Water Quality
Sewer
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.19-3 Utilities and Service Systems
Aside from minor ancillary connections to existing City storm drain facilities, no other drainage facilities would need to be constructed. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
DRY UTILITIES
Dry utilities include electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. Electrical services to the project site are provided by Southern California Edison (SCE); natural gas by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas); and telecommunications by Spectrum Communication, Frontier Communications, and AT&T U-Verse.
Project construction and operations would not increase dry utility use substantially above existing conditions in a manner that would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded dry utilities facilities. As shown in Table 4.6-1, , the project’s energy usage would constitute an approximate 0.0002 percent increase over Los Angeles County’s typical annual electricity consumption and an approximate 0.00001 percent increase over Los Angeles County’s typical annual natural gas consumption. As such, it is not anticipated that project implementation would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded dry utilities. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. : No mitigation is required.
. As described in Response 4.19(a), based on the UWMP, the LBWD would be capable of providing adequate water supply to its service area under a normal supply and demand scenario, single dry-year supply and demand scenario, and multiple dry-year supply and demand scenario through 2050; refer to Table 4.19-1, . The UWMP projections are based upon growth and
buildout as provided within the City’s General Plan, and the proposed project is consistent with the site’s PlaceType designation of Industrial (I).
Table 4.19-1
Supplies and Demands Under Different Hydrologic Conditions 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Normal Year
Supply Totals 84,752 84,752 84,752 88,752 88,752 88,752 Demand Totals 53,964 53,964 51,861 51,691 51,653 52,570 Difference 30,788 30,788 36,891 37,061 37,099 36,182
Single-Dry Year
Supply Totals 84,752 84,752 84,752 88,752 88,752 88,752 Demand Totals 53,964 53,964 51,861 51,691 51,653 52,570 Difference 30,788 30,788 36,891 37,061 37,099 36,182
Multi-Dry Years
Supply Totals 84,752 84,752 84,752 88,752 88,752 88,752 Demand Totals 53,964 53,964 51,861 51,691 51,653 52,570 Difference 30,788 30,788 36,891 37,061 37,099 36,182
Notes: Units are in acre-feet (AF)
Source: Long Beach Water Department, , Adopted June 2021.
As stated above, the LBWD would have a sufficient water supply to serve the project site. Further, the project would be required to comply with water efficiency standards in the 2019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. As such, impacts related to water supply in this regard would be less than significant. : No mitigation is required.
Q>----
Proiect and Countvwide Energy Consumption
Mitigation Measures
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact
Supplies and Demands Under Different Hvdrologic Conditions 2020 Urban Water Manaoement Plan
Mitigation Measures
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.19-4 Utilities and Service Systems
. Refer to Response 4.19(a). Temporary construction activities associated with the project would not generate substantial wastewater and would be short-term in nature. The project site is currently developed with a 6,070-square-foot main building, 122,060 square feet of factory/warehouse area, and 1,746 square feet of office space. Implementation of the proposed project would involve demolition of the main building and factory/warehouse area and a 654-square foot addition to the existing office. As such, it is anticipated that the operation of the proposed shipping container storage yard facility would result in a decrease in demand for wastewater treatment and disposal compared to existing conditions. Based on available data, it is anticipated that the JWPCP has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand for wastewater treatment. Therefore, the project’s impacts to wastewater treatment would be less than significant.
: No mitigation is required.
. Implementation of the proposed project would result in demolition of various existing buildings and associated equipment on-site to construct a shipping container storage yard facility. Solid waste generated by the proposed project is anticipated to be transferred to the Falcon Refuse Center, Inc., located at 3031 East ‘I’ Street, Wilmington, approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the project site. This facility is a 5.7-acre large volume transfer station/processing facility and accepts construction and demolition waste, green materials, industrial, inert, and mixed municipal waste.7 Once the waste has been processed at Falcon Refuse Center, Inc., waste would be transferred to a nearby landfill for disposal. The nearest landfill to the project site that would handle solid waste and recycling for the project is anticipated to be the Savage Canyon Landfill located at 13919 Penn Street in the City of Whittier, approximately 17 miles to the northeast of the project site. The Savage Canyon Landfill has a daily permitted capacity of 3,350 tons per day and a maximum permitted capacity of 19,337,450 cubic yards (with a remaining capacity of 9,510,833 cubic yards). 8
All construction activities would be subject to conformance with relevant federal, State, and local requirements related to solid waste disposal. Specifically, the project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which requires all California cities to “reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible.” AB 939 requires that at least 50 percent of waste produced is recycled, reduced, or composted. Local jurisdictions, including the City of Long Beach, are monitored by the State (CalRecycle) to verify if waste disposal rates set by CalRecycle are being met that comply with the intent of AB939. As of the latest data available (2019), the City has met the target rates set by CalRecycle.9 The project would also be required to demonstrate compliance with CALGreen, which includes design and construction measures that act to reduce construction-related waste though material conservation measures and other constructionrelated efficiency measures. Compliance would be verified by the City through review of project plans and specifications. Compliance with these programs would ensure the project’s construction-related solid waste impacts are less than significant.
7 CalRecycle, Facility/Site Summary Details: Falcon Refuse Center, Inc. (19-AR-0302), http://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3147?site ID=1500, accessed November 11, 2022. 8 CalRecycle, ,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3494?siteID=1399, accessed November 10, 2022. 9 CalRecycle, Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary (2007-Curremt), https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionPost2006, accessed November 11, 2022.
Q>
c) Result
----
in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact
CONSTRUCTION
Site Activity Details: Savage Canyon Landfill {79-AH-0007)
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.19-5 Utilities and Service Systems
OPERATION
Based on solid waste generation rates provided by CalRecycle for similar types of industrial uses (transportation/communication/utilities), the project would generate an estimated 1.48 tons per day of solid waste.10 Based on the disposal capacity of landfills serving the project site, this would be an incremental increase in total disposal that would not affect the availability of solid waste disposal capacity (i.e., 0.03 percent of Savage Canyon Landfill’s daily permitted capacity). In addition, as noted above, the project would be required to adhere to the requirements of AB 939 and CALGreen to minimize solid waste generation. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.
: No mitigation is required.
. Refer to Response 4.19(d). The project would comply with all federal, State, and local statutes (including AB 939 and CALGreen) and regulations related to solid waste management and reduction during construction and operations. As such, the project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant. : No mitigation is required.
10 CalRecycle, , https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates, accessed November 10, 2022.
Q>----
Mitigation Measures
e) Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.19-6 Utilities and Service Systems
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.20-1 Wildfire
4.20 WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? . According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire, the project site and entire City of Long Beach are not located within or near a State responsibility area or identified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.1 Therefore, no impacts would occur in this regard.
: No mitigation is required.
. Refer to Response 4.20(a).
: No mitigation is required.
. Refer to Response 4.20(a).
: No mitigation is required.
1 Cal Fire, , https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed September 27, 2022.
Q>----
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
✓
✓
✓
✓
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact
Mitigation Measures
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact
Mitigation Measures
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact
Mitigation Measures
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.20-2 Wildfire
. Refer to Response 4.20(a).
: No mitigation is required.
Q>
d) Expose
----
people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact
Mitigation Measures
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.21-1 Mandatory Findings of Significance
4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
. As detailed in Section 4.4, , no
impacts would occur to any special-status plant or wildlife species known to occur in the project area. However, the proposed project may result in the removal of ornamental vegetation on-site, which could impact nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would minimize potential impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels. As such, the project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.
Further, as indicated in Section 4.5, , Section 4.7, , and Section 4.18, , project implementation is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to historical, archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources upon implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, GEO-2, and TCR-1.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require construction activities to halt if previously unknown archaeological resources are inadvertently discovered. A qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology would evaluate the find and make appropriate recommendations. Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would require a Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) qualified paleontological monitor spot-check (part-time) ground disturbing activities such as but not limited to grading, excavation, and boring activities below five feet in depth. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, all construction activities in the area of the find shall be temporarily halted and a qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find to determine the appropriate treatment in accordance with SVP guidelines for identification, evaluation, disclosure, avoidance, recovery, and/or curation, as appropriate. Any fossils recovered during mitigation shall be deposited to an Q>----
Would the project:
✓
✓
✓
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated ____ Biological Resources ____ Cultural Resources ___ _ Geology and Soils _ ___ Tribal Cultural Resources
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.21-2 Mandatory Findings of Significance accredited and permanent scientific institution. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would ensure a Native American monitor is present during all ground-disturbing construction activities to evaluate any potential finds that could be a tribal cultural resource. In the event that human remains and/or associated grave goods are discovered, or recognized at the project site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified, and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the most likely descendant shall be conducted per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-tribal cultural resources) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. As such, upon implementation of recommended mitigation measures, the project is not anticipated to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
. The proposed project involves constructing a shipping container storage yard facility. The proposed project would not result in substantial population growth within the area, either directly or indirectly. Although the project may incrementally affect other resources that were determined to be less than significant, the project’s contribution to these effects is not considered “cumulatively considerable,” in consideration of the relatively nominal impacts of the project and mitigation measures provided. . Previous sections of this Initial Study reviewed the
proposed project’s potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hydrology/water quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, traffic, and other issues. As concluded in these previous discussions, the proposed project would result in less than significant environmental impacts with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
Q>----
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.22-1 References
4.22 REFERENCES
The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study. These documents are available for review at the City of Long Beach Development Services Department, located at 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Long Beach, California 90802, and online at the following websites.
1. Baltrënas et al., , 2004.
2. Cal Fire, , https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed September 27, 2022.
3. California Air Resources Board, , November 2017.
4. California Air Resources Board, ,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php?tab=specialrpt, accessed September 15, 2022.
5. California Air Resources Board, , https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/, accessed October 7, 2022.
6. California Code of Regulations Section 15064(h)(3).
7. California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection, , May 2022.
8. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, , August
2000.
9. California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, , 1994.
10. California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey, , https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps, accessed October 19, 2022.
11. California Department of Conservation, ,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed August 29, 2022.
12. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, , April 2019.
13. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, , https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/materials#Material, accessed October 4, 2022.
14. California Department of Transportation ,
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed September 19, 2022.
15. California Department of Transportation,
, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census, accessed November 7, 2022.
Q>----
The Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer
2017 Scoping Plan
Air Quality Data
EMFAC 2017 Web Database
The Williamson Act Status
Report 2020-21
A General Location Guide for
Ultramafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report Generalized Mineral Land
Classification Map of Los Angeles County - South Half
California Tsunami Maps and Data
California Important Farmland Finder
California Natural Community Conservation Plans
Green Building Materials
, California State Scenic Highway System Map
Traffic Census Program, Traffic Volumes: Annual Average Daily Traffic (MDT) 2020
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.22-2 References
16. California Department of Water Resources, ,
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b3886b33b49c4fa8adf2ae8bdd8f16c3, access September 29, 2022.
17. California Department of Water Resources, ,
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp2018-dashboard/p1/, accessed September 30, 2022.
18. California Emissions Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod).
19. California Energy Commission, , March 2018.
20. California Energy Commissions, , https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2021-integrated-energy-policy-report, accessed September 23, 2022.
21. California Energy Commission, ,
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx, accessed September 23, 2022.
22. California Energy Commissions,
, February 2022.
23. California Energy Commission,
, February 2022.
24. California Energy Commission, ,
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx, accessed September 23, 2022.
25. California Environmental Protection Agency, ,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf, accessed September 22, 2022.
26. California Environmental Protection Agency, , https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed August 26, 2022.
27. California Geological Survey, ,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/App/, access September 27, 2022.
28. California Geological Survey, ,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/App/, access September 27, 2022.
29. California Natural Resources Agency, , pp. 11-13, 14, 16, December 2009, https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf, accessed September 22, 2022.
30. CalRecycle, ,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates, accessed November 10, 2022.
31. CalRecycle, ,
http://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3147?site ID=1500, accessed November 11, 2022.
32. CalRecycle, ,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionPost2006, accessed November 11, 2022.
Q>----
Decarbonization
Demand Forecast
California Groundwater Live
SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard
2079 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
2027 Integrated Energy Policy Report
Electricity Consumption by County
Final 2027 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume I Building Final 2027 Integrated Energy Policy Report Volume IV California Energy Gas Consumption by County
California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2079
Cortese Listing
Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Map Viewer
Fault Activity Map of California
Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action
Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates
Facility/Site Summary Details: Falcon Refuse Center, Inc. (79-AR-0302) Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary (2007-Curremt)
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.22-3 References
33. CalRecycle, ,
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/3494?siteID=1399, accessed November 10, 2022.
34. City of Long Beach Traffic Engineering Division, ,
https://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/pw/media-library/documents/resources/general/maps-andgis/2014-citywide-traffic-flow, accessed September 23, 2022.
35. City of Long Beach, , December 2016.
36. City of Long Beach, CEQA Transportation Thresholds of Significance Guide, May 2020.
37. City of Long Beach, , updated 2022.
38. City of Long Beach, , codified through Ordinance No. ORD-22-0027, enacted September 13, 2022.
39. City of Long Beach, ,
http://www.longbeach.gov/park/, accessed September 27, 2022.
40. Federal Emergency Management Agency, ,
September 26, 2008.
41. Federal Highway Administration, , January 2006.
42. Federal Transit Administration, , September 2018.
43. Long Beach Unified School District, ,
http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/District/, accessed November 6, 2022.
44. Long Beach Water Department. . Adopted June 2021.
45. Long Beach Water District, , https://lbwater.org/water-sources/ground-andimported-water/#ground-water, accessed October 26, 2022.
46. Long Beach Water District, , https://lbwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/LeaveBehind_Digital-1.pdf, accessed October 26, 2022.
47. Long Beach Water District, , https://lbwater.org/water-sources/reclaimedrecycled-water/, accessed October 26, 2022.
48. Long Beach Water District, , https://lbwater.org/customer-services/sewer/, accessed October 26, 2022.
49. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan, , revised December 1, 2004,
https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/pd_alup.pdf, accessed October 2, 2022.
50. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board,
, September 8, 2016.
Q>----
Site Activity Details: Savage Canyon Landfill {19-AH-0007) 2074 Citywide Traffic Flow
Bicycle Master Plan, A Supplement to the Mobility Element City of Long Beach General Plan
City of Long Beach Municipal Code
Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine Department Website Flood Insurance Rate Map #06037C7962F, Panel 7955 of 2350 Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054)
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
About - Long Beach Unified School District
2020 Urban Water Management Plan
Ground and Imported Water
LBWD Fact Sheet
Reclaimed/Recycled Water
Sewer
Beach Airport -Airport Influence Area
Long
Order No. R4-2014-0024-A01 Amending Order No. R4-
2014-0024, NPDES Permit No. CAS004003, Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges from the City of Long Beach
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.22-4 References
51. Michael Baker International,
, November 22, 2022.
52. Michael Baker International,
,
November 1, 2022.
53. Omega Environmental Services, Inc.,
, December 16, 2021.
54. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, ,
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/, accessed September 22, 2022.
55. South Coast Air Quality Management District,
, October 2008.
56. South Coast Air Quality Management District, , March 2016.
57. South Coast Air Quality Management District, , June 2003 (Revised 2008).
58. South Coast Air Quality Management District, ,
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf, accessed October 10, 2022.
59. South Coast Air Quality Management District, ,
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-data-studies/meteorological-data/data-for-aermod, accessed October 7, 2022.
60. Southern California Association of Governments,
, Adopted April 2016.
61. Southern California Association of Governments,
, September 3, 2020.
62. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, , April 13, 2009, https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C01.pdf, accessed September 22, 2022.
63. U.S. Department of Transportation, ,
updated August 24, 2017,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm, accessed on September 23, 2022.
64. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ,
https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator_pdf.cfm?i=10, accessed September 15, 2022.
65. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website, ,
http://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed August 23, 2022.
66. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ,
https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/related/aermap/aermap_userguide_v18081.pdf, accessed August 5, 2022.
Q>----
7777 Harbor Avenue and 7575 W 17th Street, Cityoflong Beach, VMT Screening Analysis
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Identification Report for the Green Trucking Facility and Container Storage Project City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 1717 Harbor A venue and 157 5 West 17th Street Long Beach, CA 92337
Carbon Dioxide Concentration at Mauna Loa Observatory
Draft Guidance Document - Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Significance Threshold
Final 2076 Air Quality Management Plan
Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology
Rule 7113 Architectural Coatings
SCAQMD Meteorological Data for AERMOD
2076-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy
Connect SoCa/.' 2020-2040 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
Transmittal of the Governor's Office of
Planning and Research's Proposed 5897 CEQA Guidelines Amendments to the Natural Resources Agency
Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance Carbon Monoxide Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator
User's Guide for the AERMOD Terrain Preprocessor (AERMAP)
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.22-5 References
67. Water Replenishment District of Southern California, , September 2016, https://www.wrd.org/sites/pr/files/GBMP_FinalReport_Text%20and%20Appendicies.pdf, accessed October 19, 2022.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.22-6 References
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.23-1 Report Preparation Personnel
4.23 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
LEAD AGENCY
CITY OF LONG BEACH
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Long Beach, California 90802
562.570.5934 Sergio
PROJECT APPLICANT
CARGOMATIC, INC.
211 East Ocean Boulevard Suite #350
Long Beach, CA 90802
866.513.2343
CEQA CONSULTANT
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
949.472.3505
Q>----
Gutierrez, Planner /II
Steve Jackson, Applicant Representative
Alan Ashimine, Project Director
Jessica Ditto, Project Manager
Allie Beauregard Environmental Analyst
Oscar Escobar, Environmental Analyst
Zhe Chen, Air Quality!GHG/Noise Specialist
Carla Dietrich, PE, PTOE, Transportation Manager
Kholood Abdo, Cultural Resources Specialist
Jeanette Cappiello, Graphic Artist
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 4.23-2 Report Preparation Personnel
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 5-1 Consultant Recommendation
5.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, we recommend that the City of Long Beach prepare a mitigated negative declaration for the Green Trucking Facility and Container Storage Project. We find that the proposed project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts, but that mitigation measures have been identified that reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. We recommend that the second category be selected for the City of Long Beach’s determination (see Section 6.0, ).
12/15/2022
Date Jessica Ditto, Project Manager
Michael Baker International
Q>----
___ Lead
Agency Determination
)~ roject Manager
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 5-2 Consultant Recommendation
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
6.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required .
Signature:
Title:
Printed Name: Sergio Gutierrez
Agency: City of Long Beach
Date:
December 2022 6-1
□
□
□
□
Lead Agency Determination
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
December 2022 6-2 Lead Agency Determination
This page intentionally left blank.
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 2023 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST
Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting
Process
Monitoring
Milestones
Party Responsible for
Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials Date Remarks
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 If ground-disturbing activities or removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat
are scheduled within the avian nesting season
(generally from January 1 through August 31), a
qualified biologist retained by the Applicant shall
conduct a pre-construction clearance survey for
nesting birds within three days prior to any ground
disturbing activities.
The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall
document the negative results if no active bird
nests are observed on the project site during the
clearance survey with a brief letter report indicating
that no impacts to active bird nests would occur
before construction can proceed. If an active avian
nest is discovered during the pre-construction
clearance survey, construction activities shall stay
outside of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest.
For raptor species, this buffer shall be 500 feet.
The biologist shall be present to delineate the
boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the
active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not
adversely affected by the construction activity.
Results of the pre-construction survey and any
subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the City
of Long Beach Development Services Department,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
and other appropriate agency(ies).
Completion of
Pre-Construction
Nesting Birds
Clearance Survey
Within 3 Days
Prior to Initiation
of Ground
Disturbing
Activities
City of Long Beach
Development Services;
California Department
of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW); Project
Biologist
EXHIBIT B Q . _____ _ . . -
r -
I I ~
- I I I I I I
-
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 2023 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting
Process
Monitoring
Milestones
Party Responsible for
Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials Date Remarks
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1 Archaeological Resources Inadvertent Discovery.
In the event that any subsurface cultural resources
are encountered during earth-moving activities, all
work within 50 feet shall halt and the project
Applicant shall retain an archaeologist who meets
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for archaeology to evaluate
the findings and make appropriate
recommendations. The archaeologist may evaluate
the find in accordance with federal, State, and local
guidelines, including those set forth in the
California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2,
to assess the significance of the find and identify
avoidance or other measures as appropriate. If the
discovery proves to be significant under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
additional work such as data recovery excavation
may be warranted to mitigate any significant
impacts. In the event that an identified cultural
resource is prehistoric or otherwise Native
American in origin or potential significance, then
consulting Native American tribes shall be
contacted to obtain their input as to the significance
and treatment of the find. Based on the
recommendations of the qualified archaeologist
and the results of consultation with Native
American governments, the City of Long Beach
shall make a determination, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, whether the find
is significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1 and therefore constitutes a tribal cultural
Archaeological
Evaluation and/or
Native American
Monitoring
In the Event Any
Subsurface
Cultural
Resources are
Encountered
City of Long Beach
Development Services;
Project
Archaeologist/Native
American Monitor (if
necessary)
.,,,
..
. ... -
I I I I I
-
I ~
I I I I I I -
I I I I I I I
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 2023 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting
Process
Monitoring
Milestones
Party Responsible for
Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials Date Remarks
resource. If the City determines the resource is
significant, then a plan of treatment shall be
prepared and implemented by the qualified
archaeologist as informed by the City’s consultation
with interested Native American tribal
governments.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the project Applicant shall retain a qualified
geotechnical engineer to prepare a site-specific
geotechnical/soils report. The geotechnical report
shall identify existing geotechnical conditions (e.g.,
liquefaction, landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, collapse, expansive soils) and
evaluate such conditions on the proposed
development. The report shall identify required
seismic design parameters consistent with the City
of Long Beach General Plan, Long Beach
Municipal Code, and California Building Code to
reduce potential geotechnical hazards and
maximize structural stability. The City of Long
Beach Building and Safety Bureau shall ensure
that all required seismic design parameters
detailed in the geotechnical report are included in
the project design plans.
Review of Project
Plans and
Specifications
Prior to Initiation
of Construction
Activities
City of Long Beach
Building and Safety
Bureau; Project
Geotechnical Engineer
GEO-2 Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the Applicant shall retain a Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology (SVP) qualified paleontological
monitor to spot-check (part-time) ground disturbing
activities such as but not limited to grading,
excavation, and boring activities below five feet in
depth.
Paleontological
Monitoring,
Assessment, and
Recovery
Prior to the Start
of Ground
Disturbing
Activities
(Monitoring); In
the Event
Paleontological
Resources are
City of Long Beach
Development Services;
Project Paleontologist
.,,,
..
. ... -
I I I I I
~ -
-
~
I I I I I I I -
~
I -
~
-
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 2023 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting
Process
Monitoring
Milestones
Party Responsible for
Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials Date Remarks
In the event that paleontological resources are
encountered during earth-disturbing activities, all
construction activities in the area of the find shall
be temporarily halted and a qualified paleontologist
shall evaluate the find to determine the appropriate
treatment in accordance with SVP guidelines for
identification, evaluation, disclosure, avoidance,
recovery, and/or curation, as appropriate. Any
fossils recovered during mitigation shall be
deposited to an accredited and permanent
scientific institution. A qualified professional
paleontologist is a professional with a graduate
degree in paleontology, geology, or related field,
with demonstrated experience in the vertebrate,
invertebrate, or botanical paleontology of
California, as well as at least one year of full-time
professional experience, or equivalent specialized
training in paleontological research (i.e., the
identification of fossil deposits, application of
paleontological field and laboratory procedures and
techniques, and curation of fossil specimens), and
at least four months of supervised field and analytic
experience in general North American
paleontology.
Encountered
(Assessment and
Recovery)
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1 Prior to demolition of existing structures, the project Applicant shall retain qualified specialists or
contractor to conduct surveys of asbestoscontaining materials (ACMs), lead-based paints (LBP), and universal waste. Surveys shall be
submitted to the City of Long Beach City Engineer
for approval. If ACMs are located, abatement of
asbestos shall be completed prior to any activities
Hazardous
Material Survey
and Subsequent
Abatement/
Removal
Prior to
Demolition of
Existing
Structures
City of Long Beach City
Engineer; Project
Contractor/Hazardous
Materials Specialist;
Project Applicant
.,,,
..
. ... -
I I I I I
~ -
-
I I I I I I I ~
-
-
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 2023 7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting
Process
Monitoring
Milestones
Party Responsible for
Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials Date Remarks
that would disturb ACMs or create an airborne
asbestos hazard. Asbestos removal shall be
performed by a State certified asbestos
containment contractor in accordance with the
South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 1403. If LBPs are found,
abatement shall be completed by a qualified Lead
Specialist prior to any activities that would create
lead dust or fume hazard. LBP removal and
disposal shall be performed in accordance with
California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section
1532.1, which specifies exposure limits, exposure
monitoring and respiratory protection, and
mandates good worker practices by workers
exposed to lead. Specialists or contractors
performing ACM, LBP, and/or universal waste
removal shall provide evidence of abatement
activities to the City of Long Beach City Engineer, if
applicable. The project Applicant shall inform the
City Engineer, via the monthly compliance report,
of the date when all ACMs, LBPs, and universal
waste are removed from the site, if applicable.
HAZ-2 At least three business days prior to any lane
closure, the construction contractor shall notify the
Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) and Long
Beach Police Department (LBPD), along with the
City of Long Beach City Engineer, of construction
activities that would impede movement (such as
lane closures) along East Pacific Coast Highway,
Harbor Avenue, Caspian Avenue, and West 17th
Street in order to ensure uninterrupted emergency
access and maintenance of evacuation routes.
Notification of Any
Lane Closure or
Impeding of
Movement Along
Adjacent
Roadways
At Least Three
Business Days
Prior to Any Lane
Closure
City of Long Beach City
Engineer; Construction
Contractor; Long
Beach Fire
Department; Long
Beach Police
Department
TRA-1 Refer to Mitigation Measure TRA-1 under
---- :,,
..
. ... -
I I I I I
~ -
-
~
-
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 2023 8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting
Process
Monitoring
Milestones
Party Responsible for
Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials Date Remarks
‘Transportation.’
NOISE
NOI-1 The following measures shall be incorporated on all grading and building plans and specifications
subject to approval of the City’s Building and Safety
Division prior to issuance of a demolition or grading
permit (whichever occurs first):
• The developer shall ensure construction
equipment will not approach the construction
buffer zone adjacent to the structures along
the project’s northern boundaries. The buffer
zone shall be tiered based on distances
established in Table 4.13-4, Typical Vibration
Levels for Construction Equipment. As shown
in Table 4.13-4, loaded trucks and large
bulldozers shall not operate within 15 feet of
nearest structures located to the north of the
project site; the buffer zone shall be in
enforced around the existing structures
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.80.202.
• The developer shall utilize a construction
vibration monitoring system with the potential
to measure low levels of vibration (i.e., 0.2
inch-per-sec PPV) to ensure human
annoyance and structural damage does not
occur. If the human annoyance criterion and
the structural damage criterion (0.2 inch-persecond PPV) are exceeded, construction must cease, and alternate strategies shall be
employed to ensure the human annoyance
and structural damage vibration criteria are
not exceeded.
Incorporation of
Measures on All
Grading and
Building Plans
and Specifications
Prior to Issuance
of Demolition or
Grading Permits
City of Long Beach
Building and Safety
Division; Project
Developer;
Construction
Contractor
.,,,
..
. ... -
I I I I I
-
I ~
I - I I
-
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 2023 9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting
Process
Monitoring
Milestones
Party Responsible for
Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials Date Remarks
• Conduct sensitivity training to inform
construction personnel about the existing
sensitive receptors surrounding the project
and about methods to reduce noise and
vibration.
TRANSPORTATION
TRA-1 Prior to project construction activities, the project Applicant shall prepare a Traffic Management Plan
(TMP) for approval by the City of Long Beach
Traffic Engineer. The TMP shall include measures
such as construction signage, limitations on timing
for lane closures to avoid peak hours, temporary
striping plans, and the need for a construction
flagperson to direct traffic during heavy equipment
use. The TMP shall specify that one direction of
travel in each direction must always be maintained
along East Pacific Coast Highway, Harbor Avenue,
West 17th Street, or Caspian Avenue throughout
project construction. Bicycle lanes, pedestrian
sidewalks, and bus stops shall remain open and
accessible, to the greatest extent feasible, during
construction or shall be re-routed to ensure
continued connectivity while maintaining Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility. The TMP
shall be incorporated into project specifications for
verification prior to final plan approval.
Review of Project
Plans and
Specifications;
Construction
Inspection(s)
Prior to and
During
Construction
Activities
City of Long Beach
Traffic Engineer;
Construction
Contractor
HAZ-2 Refer to Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 under ‘Hazards
and Hazardous Materials.’
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground
disturbing activity at the project site, the project
Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor
approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Review of Project
Plans and
Specifications;
Construction
Prior to Any
Ground
Disturbing
Activity; During
City of Long Beach
Development Services;
Native American
Monitor
.,,,
..
. ... -
I I I I I
~ -
-
~ -
- I I
I
~
-
I I I
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 2023 10 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting
Process
Monitoring
Milestones
Party Responsible for
Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials Date Remarks
Indians-Kizh Nation (Tribe) and is listed under the
Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC)
tribal contact list for the project area. The Tribal
monitor shall only be present during the
construction phases that involve ground-disturbing
activities associated with project implementation.
Ground disturbing activities are defined as
activities that may include, but are not limited to,
pavement removal, potholing or auguring,
grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading,
excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the
project area. A copy of the executed contract shall
be submitted to the City of Long Beach Planning
Bureau prior to the issuance of any permit
necessary to commence ground-disturbing activity.
The Tribal Monitor shall complete daily monitoring
logs that provide descriptions of the relevant
ground disturbing activities, including construction
activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. Monitor logs shall identify and describe
any discovered tribal cultural resources, including
but not limited to, Native American cultural and
historical artifacts, remains, and places of
significance. Copies of monitor logs shall be
provided to the project Applicant/City of Long
Beach upon written request to the Tribe. The onsite monitoring shall end when (1) written confirmation to the Tribe from a designated point of
contact for the project Applicant that all grounddisturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in
connection with the project are complete; or (2) a
determination and written notification by the Tribe
Inspection(s) Construction
.,,,
..
. ... -
I I I I I
~ -
-
I_ I I I I I I I J
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 2023 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting
Process
Monitoring
Milestones
Party Responsible for
Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials Date Remarks
to the project Applicant that no future, planned
construction activity and/or
development/construction phase at the project site
possesses the potential to impact tribal cultural
resources. Upon discovery of any tribal cultural
resources, construction activities shall cease in the
immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the
surrounding 50 feet) until the find can be assessed.
All tribal cultural resources unearthed by project
activities shall be evaluated by the qualified
archaeologist and Tribal Monitor. If the resources
are Native American in origin, the Tribe will retain
the tribal cultural resources in the form and/or
manner the Tribe deems appropriate, including for
educational, cultural, and/or historic purposes.
If human remains and/or associated grave goods
are discovered or recognized at the project site, all
ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and
the County Coroner and Native American Heritage
Commission shall be notified, and consultation with
the individual identified by the Native American
Heritage Commission to be the most likely
descendant shall be conducted per Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and
grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per
California Public Resources Code Section
5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Construction activities may
resume in other parts of the project site at a
minimum of 200 feet away from the discovered
human remains and/or burial goods, if the Tribe
determines in its sole discretion that resuming
---- :,,
..
. ... -
I I I I I
~ -
-
-
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 2023 12 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting
Process
Monitoring
Milestones
Party Responsible for
Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials Date Remarks
construction activities at that distance is acceptable
and provides the project manager express consent
of that determination and, if necessary, mitigation
takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]).
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the
preferred manner of treatment for discovered
Native American human remains and/or burial
goods. Any historic archaeological material that is
not Native American in origin (non-tribal cultural
resources) shall be curated at a public, non-profit
institution with a research interest in the materials,
such as the Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an
institution agrees to accept the material. If no
institution accepts the archaeological material, it
shall be offered to a local school or historical
society in the area for educational purposes. Any
discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be
kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
As the Most Likely Descendant, the Koo-nas-gna
Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe,
the term “human remains” encompasses more
than human bones. In ancient as well as historic
times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not
limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and
the ceremonial burning of human remains. If the
discovery of human remains includes four or more
burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a
cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be
created. The prepared soil and cremation soils are
to be treated in the same manner as bone
.,,,
..
. ... -
I I I I I
~ -
-
I_ I I I I I I I J
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 2023 13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting
Process
Monitoring
Milestones
Party Responsible for
Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials Date Remarks
fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary
objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or
ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to
have been placed with individual human remains
either at the time of death or later; other items
made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain
human remains can also be considered as
associated funerary objects. Cremations shall
either be removed in bulk or by means as
necessary to ensure complete recovery of all
sacred materials. In the case where discovered
human remains cannot be fully documented and
recovered on the same day, the remains shall be
covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can
be moved by heavy equipment placed over the
excavation opening to protect the remains. If this
type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard
shall be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe
shall make every effort to recommend diverting the
project and keeping the remains in situ and
protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may
be determined that burials be removed. In the
event preservation in place is not possible despite
good faith efforts by the project Applicant and/or
landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may
resume on the project site, the landowner shall
arrange a designated site location within the
footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.
Each occurrence of human remains and
associated funerary objects shall be stored using
opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary
objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural
.,,,
..
. ... -
I I I I I
~ -
-
I_ I I I I I I I J
GREEN TRUCKING FACILITY AND CONTAINER STORAGE PROJECT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
January 2023 14 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation
Number Mitigation Measure
Monitoring and
Reporting
Process
Monitoring
Milestones
Party Responsible for
Monitoring
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Initials Date Remarks
patrimony shall be removed to a secure container
on-site, if possible. These items shall be retained
and reburied within six months of recovery. The
site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project
site but at a location agreed upon between the
Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in
perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding
any cultural materials recovered. The Tribe shall
work closely with the project’s qualified
archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is
treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data
recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation
shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum)
detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data
recovery-related forms of documentation shall be
approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data
recovery is performed, once complete, a final
report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the
NAHC. The Tribe does not authorize any scientific
study or the utilization of any invasive and/or
destructive diagnostics on human remains.
.,,,
..
. ... -
I I I I I
~ -
-
__J