Long Beach City Council
April 18, 2023

and plantings, a fire lane, retractable bollards, sidewalk improvements, a security gate, street parallel parking spaces, a dog run, gardens, a pedestrian trail, a playscape, a flex lawn, and potential pocket parks/parklets.

The project is harmonious, complete, and consistent within itself. The buildings are designed in a contemporary architectural style with traditional design elements and themes. Materials include cast-in-place concrete walls, aluminum panels, steel panels, brick veneer, perforated metal panels, aluminum lattice, clear and spandrel glazing, and areas of stucco on upper floors. The buildings express a consistent and coherent architectural concept and theme, and serve to create a well-designed “streetwall” that enhances the urban fabric. The three buildings share a complementary and harmonious style and are consistent with the general trend of high-quality architecture and development in large projects in downtown Long Beach.

The site configuration is well-planned, with adequate vehicular circulation and many elements that enhance the pedestrian-friendliness of the development and surrounding area. One major element is the proposed through-block paseo between 5 th Street and 6th Street, which will be a major improvement to the current situation on 6 th Street, which currently consists of a block-long impenetrable building wall from Pine Avenue to Long Beach Blvd. The closure of The Promenade North between 4th Street and 5th Street also functions well to enhance the pedestrian activation of the area while providing traffic calming.

The site’s immediate surroundings include commercial and restaurant uses across 6th Street to the north, the 5th Street Metro A Line (formerly the Blue Line) light rail station on Long Beach Boulevard to the east, and a commercial shopping center and multistory residential buildings to the east beyond. West of The Promenade North and south of 5th Street, the site is bounded by a four-story apartment building at the intersection of 5th Street and The Promenade, and retail/commercial uses further south, with a large above-grade City-owned parking structure to the west, and mixeduse ground floor commercial with residential above on Pine Avenue further west of the parking structure. North of 5th Street, the site is bounded by another City-owned above-grade parking structure. More restaurant and retail uses are located across 4th Street to the south of the site. The project site currently contains various retail and restaurant operations within two large one-story commercial buildings.

The project is compatible in design, character, and scale with the surrounding uses.

The project site is a portion of the CityPlace shopping center, which was originally an indoor mall and later transitioned to an outdoor mall, and consists of large buildings on large blocks, bounded by the wide Long Beach Boulevard right-of-way on the east, and large City-owned above-grade parking structures on the west. The proposed buildings will significantly enhance the character of the site and its surroundings without being out of scale or out of context. Consisting of eight-story mid-rise construction, the buildings’ volume and massing is well within the type of development contemplated and encouraged by the Downtown Plan. Likewise, the design, character, and scale of the project is consistent with the DT (Downtown) PlaceType Findings – Site Plan Review
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR222-060
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

of the General Plan Land Use Element, and the density and size of development allowed by the General Plan.

2. THE DESIGN CONFORMS TO ANY APPLICABLE SPECIAL DESIGN

GUIDELINES ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR R-3 AND R-4 MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES, PD GUIDELINES, OR THE GENERAL PLAN;
Positive Finding:

Several different sets of design guidelines apply to this project in a complementary fashion. These are the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE), the General Plan Urban Design Element (UDE), and the Downtown Plan Planned Development District (PD-30).

General Plan Land Use Element: The project site is located in the Downtown (DT) PlaceType of the LUE, which specifies the fundamental scale and form of development as well as basic design requirements (pp. 101–104, LUE). The DT PlaceType specifies that a mix of land uses and housing types is encouraged, with a focus on providing active ground-floor shops, restaurants and cafes. The LUE goes on to state that The Downtown PlaceType promotes a highly-urbanized core featuring compact development composed of a mix of compatible uses, building types and styles. Density must be balanced with open space, and new developments must preserve light, air circulation, views and privacy.

The basic development type and site plan are consistent with the DT PlaceType, providing a mix of land uses consisting of residential, ground floor commercial, and parking with active uses on the ground floor (commercial retail, cafes, and residential lobby and amenity spaces). The project also contributes to continuation of the development of a highly-urbanized core in Downtown Long Beach, adding 900 dwelling units in three eight-story mid-rise buildings. Aside from adding needed residential units to the housing supply, concentration of additional density in this area will provide for increased efficiency and quality of life, and reduce automobile commuting and driving. The project also balances this density with considerably more open space and amenity space than is required by the Downtown Plan. Project buildings also are appropriately designed and sited to preserve light, air, circulation, views, and privacy among the project buildings and neighboring uses.

General Plan Urban Design Element: The UDE specifies additional design standards for the Downtown PlaceType (pp. 58–59, UDE). These include the following strategies:
• Policy UD 27-1: Promote the importance of the transitions between uses and developments in the Downtown PlaceType, given the small block sizes and mix of different uses. The project is located on a development site consisting of two large blocks, and transitions are less of a concern in this context than for a project of similar density and height on a mixed block with existing uses.

Findings – Site Plan Review
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR222-060
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

Regardless, the project’s edges make good transitions into the urban fabric on the project boundaries, which have a different context on each side, consisting of wide Long Beach Blvd. and a large shopping center to the east, 6th Street and a mix of commercial and restaurant uses to the north, an imposing Cityowned parking structure to the west, and a pedestrian shopping environment with retail stores built to the sidewalk on 4th Street to the south. The project faces each of these edges with an appropriate context that enhances the pedestrian and built environment without overwhelming or turning its back on neighboring uses.
• Policy UD 27-2: Apply the development standards and guidelines prescribed in the Downtown Plan. The project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the Downtown Plan (PD-30). This is discussed later in this finding response, below.
• Policy UD 27-3: Establish sustainable streetscape design as a norm for this PlaceType. The project makes significant enhancements to the pedestrian environment (see project plans in file no. 2205-32) and will further normalize pedestrian-oriented streetscapes accessible to multiple forms of nonautomobile-oriented transit within the Downtown Area. Also of note is a new pedestrian paseo between 5th and 6th Street to the west of Buildings C1 and C2, which will act to create a break in the “super block” on the south side of 6th Street, which currently consists of a continuous building wall from Pine Ave. to Long Beach Blvd. Further, the closure of The Promenade North to vehicular traffic between 4th St. and 5th St. will create a fully pedestrian environment on this street segment.
• Policy UD 27-4: Enhance streetscapes and building elements to promote significant pedestrian activity by providing well-articulated building facades with quality building materials and workmanship, and featuring high-quality street furnishings and design. Similar to the above response, the project makes significant enhancements to the pedestrian realm, both in the public right-ofway and in the selections of building materials and overall design concept to create a pedestrian-focused development rather than an automobile-focused one. The project will create significantly more opportunities for pedestrian activity and for a lifestyle that is not automobile-focused for everyday activities and short trips to shops and restaurants, leveraging both existing nearby pedestrian-friendly uses, and the design of the project itself. • Policy UD 27-5: Establish a bustling urban environment that will allow pedestrians to feel comfortable and welcome. The project meets this design guideline; see above two responses.

The project’s consistency with the General Plan is further discussed in the General Plan Consistency Table at the end of this findings document.

Findings – Site Plan Review
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR222-060
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

Downtown Plan Planned Development District (PD-30) Design Guidelines: The Downtown Plan specifies overall design standards (pp. 57–71, PD-30) and specific standards by building type, in this case Mid-Rise (pp. 78–81, PD-30):

The overall standards focus address block structure, massing, streetwall design and the design of setbacks, and pedestrian-oriented uses:
• Block Structure. The Downtown Plan requires the use of paseos and other pedestrian-friendly features to break up the massing of full downtown blocks and provide environments that are permeable to pedestrian activity. The project meets these standards as discussed above, through its use of a pedestrian paseo to reconnect 5th St. and 6th St., through pedestrian-oriented design and active ground floor uses around the perimeter of all project buildings, and through the closure of The Promenade North between 4th St. and 5th St. to vehicular traffic to allow for a fully pedestrian environment on that street segment.
• Massing. The Downtown Plan requires large projects to be designed as a group of appropriately-scaled buildings to avoid long blocks without a break, and requires quarter, half, and full-block developments to follow the buildingspecific guidelines. The project complies with the requirement to be designed as a group of appropriately-scaled buildings, as the two half-block buildings on the larger northern portion of the project site (Buildings C1 and C2) are split and clearly articulated as two buildings. Further architectural articulation in plane, form, and massing clearly separates the two buildings on this block in compliance with this standard (see plans in project file no. 2205-32). Likewise, the full-block building on the smaller lot (Building B) also makes use of extensive architectural articulation to avoid the appearance of a single large building, and the proposed design reads as a series of elements grouped together, rather than a single monolithic apartment complex. • Streetwall Design, and Design of Setbacks. The Downtown Plan focuses on the creation of a “public room of the street” through the construction of streetwalls with minimum heights specified for four different downtown streets, and the usage of minimal setbacks to bring buildings close to the street edge.

The standard for Long Beach Blvd. is applicable to this project and requires a six-story streetwall for 75 percent of the public street frontage to promote a cohesive block face and appropriate density on downtown’s most important transit street. The project complies with the intent of this requirement using the building materials and architectural choices previously discussed (see plans in project file no. 2205-32). The Site Plan Review Committee adjusted the percentage of required frontage of six-story streetwall, allowing less than 75 percent at six stories, in consideration of the proposed building articulation and activation of the street corner at 5th Street and Long Beach Blvd. by locating the amenity deck of Building C2 on the third level at this corner (the Downtown Plan grants the Site Plan Review Committee the authority to consider and Findings – Site Plan Review
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR222-060
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

approve waivers to these types of standards). The result was found to further the goals and objectives of the Downtown Plan. Additional standards pertaining to ground-level building design, and setbacks and landscaping design, also are met.
• Pedestrian-Oriented Uses. The Downtown Plan requires ground-floor pedestrian-oriented uses and building design that creates a pedestrian-friendly ground-floor environment. The project includes active street-level uses as specified in the plan, as well as transparent windows, entrances facing the street, and a minimum ground floor height. The project complies with these standards of the Downtown Plan and furthers the goals and objectives of the Downtown Plan through the project’s design.

No other special design guidelines adopted by Planning Commission or Specific Plan applies.

3. THE DESIGN WILL NOT REMOVE SIGNIFICANT MATURE TREES OR STREET TREES, UNLESS NO ALTERNATIVE IS POSSIBLE;
Positive Finding:

Existing trees on site consist of common urban decorative landscape trees, including a group of date palms at the north side of the 5th St. and The Promenade North intersection. While there are mature trees on site, none are significant in terms of species, history, visual appeal, or habitat. Conditions of approval will require any trees that do not interfere with the site plan to be protected in place and maintained to be kept; however, this is unlikely to be feasible as the on-site trees interfere with the site plan layout of the proposed development. As all bird species potentially nesting in any trees are protected from nest disturbance by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, a condition of approval will require all tree removal to occur outside the nesting season, or within three days of a properly-prepared nesting bird survey that finds no active nesting activity on-site and under the supervision of a qualified biological monitor.

New street trees will be provided at not less than one per 25 linear feet of street frontage on all street frontages adjacent to the project site. Any dead or dying street trees also will be replaced. These requirements will be enforced through conditions of approval (see conditions in the project file).

4. THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL NEXUS BETWEEN THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT

REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THIS ORDINANCE AND THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT; AND
Positive Finding:

The developer is required to make public improvements per Chapter 21.47 and per the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comments submitted to the Planning Bureau by the Public Works Department, as detailed in the Public Works TAC memorandum dated August 4, 2022 (see memorandum in project file).

Findings – Site Plan Review
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR222-060
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

There is an essential nexus between all of the required improvements and the likely impacts of the proposed project. This nexus is created by the size and scale of the proposed development as compared to the existing infrastructure. The impacts of the development are created by the construction of 900 new residential dwelling units, and the associated construction traffic followed by operation traffic, as well as vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian trips generated by the project (see Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for EIR Addendum in project file), which trips will be added to the surrounding circulation infrastructure. The added trips resulting from the project would not be adequately accommodated by existing street configurations and sidewalks, and the required improvements are reasonably necessary for the practical functioning of the project and surrounding neighborhoods and public rights-of-way as a result of the project. All the above-listed improvements are necessary either for traffic/cyclist/pedestrian safety, or necessary to the circulation system’s capacity to accommodate the added trips resulting from the project, or both.

5. THE PROJECT CONFORMS TO ALL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 21.64 (TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT).

Table 25-1
Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Requirements TDM Requirements New Nonresidential Development
25,000+
Square Feet
50,000+
Square Feet
100,000+ Square
Feet
Transportation information
area
* * *
Preferential carpool/vanpool
parking * *
Parking designed to admit
vanpools * *
Bicycle parking * *
Carpool/vanpool loading
zones
*
Efficient pedestrian access *
Bus stop improvements *
Safe bike access from street
to bike parking *
Transit review For all residential and nonresidential projects subject to EIR
Positive Finding:

The project is a residential project that is subject to the Downtown Plan Program EIR (see EIR Addendum in project file). It has been submitted for transit review to Findings – Site Plan Review
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR222-060
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

Long Beach Transit and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro). LBT and Metro have recommended typical TDM measures of transportation information available to tenants but have not recommended any changes or improvements to bus or rail service or stops as a result of the project.

Additionally, conditions of approval will require the developer to provide all of the other TDM measures in the table above to the greatest extent feasible, as appropriate for residential development, but these improvements are not required per Table 25-1 and Chapter 21.64.

6. THE APPROVAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS

FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, AS LISTED IN SECTION

21.45.400.

Positive Finding:

The project is subject to compliance with the Green Building requirements of Section 21.45.400. These requirements will be met through a combination of compliance with the Title 24 building code requirements, and CalGreen building code requirements, which are locally adopted into the Long Beach Building Code.

Conditions of approval will require the development to achieve a project-wide (unit/building-averaged) attainment of LEED Certified rating or equivalent, as required by Section 21.45.400.

7. THE PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HOUSING REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 21.11.050 OF CHAPTER 21.11 (NO NET LOSS) OR SECTION 21.68.040.E OF THIS TITLE, AS APPLICABLE, AND WILL RESULT IN THE SAME OR GREATER NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS; AND

IN THE CASE OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNITS, THAT THE

DWELLING UNITS WILL BE REPLACED AT THE SAME OR DEEPER

AFFORDABILITY LEVELS, AND THAT APPLICABLE TENANT PROTECTIONS OF THE LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE WILL BE MET.

Not Applicable:

No existing residential dwelling units are present on the project site and this finding is not applicable.

VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd.

APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025
Application No. 2205-32, VTTM20-002
March 14, 2023 (City Council appeal)
Pursuant to Section 20.12.100 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, a Tentative Map approval can be granted only when positive findings are made consistent with the following criteria set forth in the Subdivision Ordinance. These findings and staff analysis are presented for consideration, adoption and incorporation into the record of proceedings.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL APPROVE A TENTATIVE MAP IF THE MAP

COMPLIES WITH STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND IF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS ARE MADE:

1. THAT THE PROPOSED MAP IS CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS;
This response will discuss how both the proposed map (Finding #1) and the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision (Finding #2) are consistent with the General Plan since there is significant overlap in the responses to Findings #1 and #2.

Positive Finding: The applicant requests approval of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the parcel on which Buildings C1 and C2 will be located. The parcel will be subdivided from one 170,736-square foot lot into two lots of 101,724 sq. ft. (2.34-acre) and 68,712 sq. ft. (1.58-acre), to provide a separate lot for each building. Building B will be located on a single existing parcel, which is not part of the requested subdivision.

The proposed Tentative Map and site design and improvements are subject to conformance with several elements of the General Plan. These include the Housing Element, Land Use Element, Mobility Element, and Urban Design Element. The compliance of the proposed map, and the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision, with the policies of each of these General Plan elements is discussed in the General Plan Consistency Table at the end of this findings document. Only applicable policies from each General Plan element have been included in this discussion, and non-applicable policies have been omitted.

This General Plan compliance table also is referenced in other finding responses for this project.

Findings – Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, VTTM20-002
March 14, 2023 (City Council appeal)

2. THAT THE DESIGN OR IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS; Positive Finding: See response to Finding #1, which also discusses how the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan since there is significant overlap in the responses to Findings #1 and #2. No Specific Plan applies to the project site.

3. THAT THE SITE IS PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT;
Positive Finding: The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed, which consists of three eight-story residential apartment buildings totaling 900 dwelling units, with ground-floor commercial space and a standalone retail pavilion, on an approximately 5.5-acre site within the Downtown Plan. The proposed project includes the complete demolition of on-site improvements, removing all 197,513 square feet of existing commercial and retail uses in two buildings. The project will then develop one 8-story mixed-use building (Building B) on the southern portion of the site and two 8-story buildings (one mixed-use building (Building C1) and one residential building (Building C2)) on the northern portion of the site, and a standalone retail pavilion on the northern portion of the site (see plans in project file no. 2205-32 for more details).

The size and scale of the development is consistent with development allowed and anticipated by the Downtown Plan Planned Development District (PD-30), which is the controlling zoning document for the project site, and the General Plan.

Development of significantly greater size and intensity on this site also could be consistent with the Downtown Plan and the General Plan. The site is adequately served by utilities, emergency services, and the transportation network, and is physically suitable for this type of dense urban development in a downtown environment.

4. THAT THE SITE IS PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT;
Positive Finding: The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development, which consists of three eight-story residential apartment buildings totaling 900 dwelling units, as further detailed in the finding above. The gross density of the entire site is 229.6 du/ac. The General Plan Land Use Element specifies that the Downtown (DT) PlaceType is appropriate for this type of development, stating “As a magnet for investment, office and residential towers and civic institutions, downtown will always be planned for more development activity and intensity than the City’s other neighborhoods,” and further adds, “The Downtown PlaceType promotes a highly-urbanized core featuring compact Findings – Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, VTTM20-002
March 14, 2023 (City Council appeal)

development composed of a mix of compatible uses, building types and styles.” No maximum density, building intensity, or building scale is specified in the DT PlaceType of the LUE. However, the Downtown Plan Planned Development District (PD-30) is the zoning document for the project site, and the project complies with the size, height, intensity, and other development standards of PD30, which implements the DT PlaceType.

5. THAT THE DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION OR THE PROPOSED

IMPROVMENTS ARE NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE OR SUBSTANTIAL AND AVOIDABLE INJURY TO FISH AND WILDLIFE OR THEIR HABITAT;
Positive Finding: The site is located in a fully urbanized setting on the site of an existing retail commercial building consisting of 197,513 square feet of existing commercial and retail uses in two one-story buildings. No fish or wildlife habitat is present on the site. Existing trees on site consist of common urban decorative landscape trees, including a group of date palms at the north side of the 5th St. and The Promenade North intersection. Conditions of approval will require any trees that do not interfere with the site plan to be protected in place and maintained to be kept; however, this is unlikely to be feasible as the on-site trees interfere with the site plan layout of the proposed development. As all bird species potentially nesting in any trees are protected from nest disturbance by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, a condition of approval will require all tree removal to occur outside the nesting season, or within three days of a properly-prepared nesting bird survey that finds no active nesting activity on-site and under the supervision of a qualified biological monitor.

The development also is subject to the Downtown Plan Program EIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (see EIR Addendum in project file).

The MMRP is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during both construction and operation phases of the project. For each mitigation measure, specifications are made in the MMRP that identify the action required and the monitoring that must occur. The party responsible for verifying compliance with individual mitigation measures is identified in the MMRP as well. Accordingly, through adherence to standard regulatory compliance and the MMRP during the permitting and construction process, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to fish and wildlife or their habitat.

Findings – Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, VTTM20-002
March 14, 2023 (City Council appeal)

6. THAT THE DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION OR THE TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT

IS NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY
PROBLEMS; AND
Positive Finding: The subdivision will take place on an existing 3.91-acre lot, which is the northern portion of the development site; the southern 1.58-acre portion is not included in the subdivision request (see project file for site plan and project details). The impact of the project upon the environment, with its residential and commercial/retail uses, will not cause any serious public health or safety problems.

Likewise, the design of the proposed subdivision complies with the Subdivision Regulations and is not designed in such a way that would result in serious public health or safety problems, either for the surrounding land uses or the site users.

Primary vehicular access is provided from Long Beach Blvd. for Buildings B and C1, while Building C2 takes drive access from 6th St. Pedestrian access, and emergency vehicle access, is provided via 6th St., Long Beach Blvd. 5th St., The Promenade North, and 4th St., which make up the majority of the site perimeter.

As such, the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems.

7. THAT THE DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION OR THE TYPE OF

IMPROVEMENTS WILL NOT CONFLICT WITH EASEMENTS ACQUIRED BY

THE PUBLIC AT LARGE FOR ACCESS THROUGH OR USE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION.

Positive Finding: The proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map has been reviewed by the Department of Public Works, and will be corrected and conditioned as necessary to ensure that the subdivision and its improvements do not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property that is subject of this request (see conditions of approval in project file).

The existing private streets within the City Place development, consisting of The Promenade North between 4th St. and 5th St., and 5th St. between Pine Ave. and Long Beach Blvd. will be dedicated to the City. This dedication was guaranteed through an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate (IOD) executed by the applicant’s predecessors when the CityPlace development was approved decades ago; the City will now exercise this IOD in conjunction with this development to require dedication of the streets from curbline to curbline. Sidewalks and parkways between curbline and property line will remain privately owned to allow greater flexibility for maintenance and programming, such as sidewalk dining. Public access to the privately-owned sidewalks and parkways will be guaranteed through the appropriate instrument(s) to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, as required by conditions of approval.

FINDINGS
General Plan Consistency Table
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd.

APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025
Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTTM20-002
March 14, 2023 (City Council appeal)
POLICY
NUMBER

HOUSING (HE)/

LAND USE (LU)/

MOBILITY (MOP)/

URBAN DESIGN (UD)

ELEMENT POLICIES

FINDING
Housing Element Policies
HE 1.3
Achieve a balance of rental and
homeownership opportunities,
including apartments, townhomes,
condominiums, single-family houses,
and accessory dwelling units, microunits and alternative housing options to accommodate the housing needs of all
socioeconomic segments of the
community, including large families.

The project will be developed as for-rent
units, providing greater opportunities for
renters within the downtown area, including
a greater mix of unit types. Six percent (54
units) of the 900 dwelling units are required
to be provided as affordable housing units at
the Very Low area median income level. The
project contributes to meeting a range of
housing needs with both market rate units
and affordable units included in a single
development.

HE 1.5
Encourage new high-quality rental and
ownership housing through the
implementation of objective design
standards, and architectural and green
building standards in alignment with the
Urban Design Element of the General
Plan.

The project will create opportunities for
rentals in a new, high-quality development
of 900 dwelling units. The project will be
compliant with objective design standards
and green building standards.

HE 1.7
Encourage residential development
along transit corridors, in the downtown
and close to employment,
transportation and activity centers; and
encourage infill and mixed-use
developments in designated districts in
alignment with the City’s Climate Action
and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) to
minimize carbon emissions by focusing
new housing near transit and jobs.

The project is located in the heart of
downtown and is immediately adjacent to
the Metro A Line 5th Street station. The
project infills a significantly underperforming
and underutilized retail site, and will include
ground-floor commercial uses to encourage
more walking and alternative transportation,
and less driving of personal automobiles.

HE 1.11
Utilize inclusionary housing and
enhanced density bonuses that expand
upon the density bonus and
development standard concessions
and incentives offered as tools to
facilitate the development of more
affordable housing, with a mix of
affordability levels within mixed-income
housing.

The project is subject to the inclusionary
housing ordinance and must provide 6% (54
units) of the 900-unit total as affordable units
at the Very Low Area Median Income (AMI)
level. Production of these 54 units of VLI
affordable housing is crucial to achievement
of the City’s RHNA targets.

Findings – General Plan Consistency Table
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTTM20-002
March 14, 2023 (City Council appeal)

POLICY
NUMBER

HOUSING (HE)/

LAND USE (LU)/

MOBILITY (MOP)/

URBAN DESIGN (UD)

ELEMENT POLICIES

FINDING
Land Use Element Policies
LU 1-1
Promote sustainable development
patterns and development intensities
that use land efficiently and
accommodate and encourage walking.

The project uses land efficiently at a
moderate du/ac density with a mixture of
unit and housing types, and provides
opportunities for walking to adjacent transit
and amenities.

LU 1-2
Support high-density residential,
mixed-use and transit-oriented
development within the downtown,
along transit corridors, near transit
stations and at neighborhood hubs.

The project will create 900 units at
approximately 229.6 du/ac within the
downtown area immediately adjacent to the
Metro A Line 5
th Street station transit stop.

LU 1-3
Require sustainable design strategies
to be integrated into public and private
development projects.

The project will be required to comply with
the Green Building Standards specified in
Section 21.45.400 of the Zoning
Regulations.

LU 1-7
Encourage neighborhood-serving
retail, employment and entertainment
destinations in new mixed-use projects
to create local, walkable daily trip
destinations.

The project will provide approximately
38,000 sq. ft. of ground-floor retail space
serving the project’s residential population
and nearby residents, as well as providing
service sector employment.

LU 6-9
Encourage the redevelopment of
parcels with poor land utilization such
as single-use commercial structures on
parcels over 5,000 square feet.

The project will redevelop a poorlyperforming and poorly-utilized shopping center in two one-story commercial
buildings totaling 197,513 sq. ft., which will
be removed as part of this project.

LU 7-6
Promote transit-oriented development
around passenger rail stations and
along major transit corridors.

This project will add 900 dwelling units
immediately adjacent to the Metro A Line 5th
Street station.

LU 7-7
Continue to develop the Downtown into
a city center that provides compact
development, accommodates new
growth, creates a walkable urban
environment, allows for diversified
businesses and is easily accessible to
surrounding neighborhoods and
regional facilities.

The project meets these objectives as
previously described in these findings.

LU 7-9
Focus infill development in the
downtown, Multi-Family residential
neighborhoods and transit-oriented
development areas, and along specific
corridors.

The project will infill/reuse an
underperforming site and is located
downtown on a major transit corridor as
previously described in these findings.

Findings – General Plan Consistency Table
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTTM20-002
March 14, 2023 (City Council appeal)

POLICY
NUMBER

HOUSING (HE)/

LAND USE (LU)/

MOBILITY (MOP)/

URBAN DESIGN (UD)

ELEMENT POLICIES

FINDING
LU 12-1
Allow a variety of housing types in new
residential developments with the goal
of establishing new opportunities for
persons of varied income ranges, ages,
lifestyles and family needs.

The project will include a variety of unit types
and plans to meet the needs of various
household sizes and economic levels within
the new 900 residential unit development.

LU 13-1
Promote an equitable distribution of
housing types for all income and
various cultural groups throughout the
City; avoid creating concentrations of
below-market-rate housing in
underserved and low-income
neighborhoods.

The project will provide a variety of housing
types at both market and affordable levels,
and will not concentrate below-market-rate
housing in an underserved or low-income
neighborhood.

LU 14-4
Establish livable communities across
all neighborhoods that encourage
walking, bicycling, using public transit
and exercising outdoors, and that
provide for economic and social
opportunities for all community
members.

The project will establish a livable
community that encourages walking,
bicycling, use of transit, and exercising,
through its pedestrian connections, its
proximity to the Metro A Line 5th Street
station, and its location within the greater
downtown area.

LU 16-8
Require an acoustical analysis prior to
project approval for projects subject to
CEQA review, for all noise sensitive
projects located in an area with noise
levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL. All
new residential land uses shall be
designed to maintain a standard of 45
dBA CNEL or less in building interiors,
consistent with the General Plan. Noise
reduction measures to achieve this
noise level could include, but are not
limited to, forced air ventilation so that
windows can remain closed and/or
upgraded wall and window assemblies.

The required acoustical analysis is included
in the Noise chapter EIR Addendum that has
been prepared for this project. Any required
mitigations will be included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
and conditions of approval.

LU 18-1
Require that new development
creatively and effectively integrate
private open spaces into project
design, both as green spaces and
landscaped courtyards.

The project includes both common and
private open space for the new residential
units that meet these standards.

LU 18-2
Enhance street corridors and spaces
between buildings by incorporating
small green areas, native and droughttolerant landscaping and street trees.

The streets surrounding the project site and
the project’s paseos and other common
open areas will incorporate landscaping and
drought-tolerant vegetation.

Findings – General Plan Consistency Table
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTTM20-002
March 14, 2023 (City Council appeal)

POLICY
NUMBER

HOUSING (HE)/

LAND USE (LU)/

MOBILITY (MOP)/

URBAN DESIGN (UD)

ELEMENT POLICIES

FINDING
LU 18-4
Increase the number of trees, first
prioritizing areas identified as tree
deficient, to provide the maximum
benefits of improved air quality,
increased carbon dioxide
sequestration, reduced stormwater
runoff and mitigated urban heat island
effect.

The project will comply with the
requirements of Chapter 21.42
(Landscaping) to meet these standards.

LU 20-5
Prevent stormwater runoff and
pollutants from entering natural water
bodies, wildlife habitats, wetlands,
rivers and the Pacific Ocean.

Regulatory compliance with required
standards during the permitting and
construction process will meet the required
standards for runoff and pollution
prevention.

Mobility Element Policies – Implementation Measures (IM) MOP IM-2
Routinely incorporate complete streets
features into all street redesign and
repaving projects.

The project will incorporate complete streets
features in the improved ROW adjacent to
the project site.

MOP IM-5
Create walking loops with steppingstone mile markers and other supportive features to support active
living.

The project will include a new paseo
between 5th St. and 6th St. to create more
opportunities for walking and increased
connectivity within the urban fabric.

MOP IM-33
Continue to implement pedestrian
streetscape designs, especially on
streets with projected excess vehicle
capacity, to reduce either the number of
travel lanes or the roadway width, and
use the available public rights-of-way to
provide wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes,
transit amenities, or landscaping.

This project implements pedestrian
streetscape design improvements to the
streets adjacent to the project site and will
create a continuous pedestrian environment
surrounding the project site, and will
especially enhance the 6th Street frontage
by incorporating a paseo through to 5th
Street.

Urban Design Element Policies
UD 27-1
Promote the importance of the
transitions between uses and
developments in the Downtown
PlaceType, given the small block sizes
and mix of different uses..

The project is located on a large block site
but creates proper transitions to surrounding
streets and uses.

UD 27-2
Apply the development standards and
guidelines prescribed in the Downtown
Plan.

The project meets this policy through its
compliance with the standards and
guidelines of the Downtown Plan.

UD 27-3
Establish sustainable streetscape
design as a norm for this PlaceType.

The project meets this policy as previously
described in these findings.

Findings – General Plan Consistency Table
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTTM20-002
March 14, 2023 (City Council appeal)

POLICY
NUMBER

HOUSING (HE)/

LAND USE (LU)/

MOBILITY (MOP)/

URBAN DESIGN (UD)

ELEMENT POLICIES

FINDING
UD 27-4
Enhance streetscapes and building
elements to promote significant
pedestrian activity by providing wellarticulated building facades with quality building materials and workmanship,
and featuring high-quality street
furnishings and design.

The project meets this policy as previously
described in these findings.

UD 27-5
Establish a bustling urban environment
that will allow pedestrians to feel
comfortable and welcome.

The project meets this policy as previously
described in these findings.

Attachment G

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd.

APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025
Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)
Special Conditions:

1. The following entitlements are approved for this project:
a. Site Plan Review for development of three eight-story residential apartment buildings (Buildings B, C1, and C2) totaling 900 dwelling units, with approximately 38,405 sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial space including an approximately 2,405-sq. ft. one-story-plus-mezzanine standalone retail pavilion, on an approximately 5.5-acre site within the Downtown Plan. b. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 83693 to subdivide one 170,736-square foot lot into two lots of 101,724 and 68,712 square feet, for the sites of Building C1 and C2.
c. Certification of an Addendum (EIRA-02022) to the Downtown Plan Program EIR (SCH No. 2009071006), determining that the project will not result in any new significant impacts that exceed those analyzed the Downtown Plan PEIR, and requiring this project to comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) of the Downtown Plan PEIR.

2. The Permittee shall provide six percent (6%) of the total number of dwelling units (54 units of 900) as affordable housing units at the Very Low Area Median Income (AMI) level, in accordance with Chapter 21.67 of the Zoning Regulations. a. The availability and affordable status of these units shall be guaranteed as required by Cal. Government Code Subsection 65915, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, including but not limited to recordation of a deed restriction for each affordable unit for a minimum of 55 years.
b. The affordable housing units shall be evenly distributed throughout the site plan and among the unit types of the residential development. c. The Permittee shall submit a Fair Housing and Marketing Plan to the Director of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The plan shall describe the applicant's marketing plan, which shall comply with all applicable fair housing laws and shall not discriminate in the sale or rental of inclusionary units on the basis of race, national origin, color, religion, gender, disability, familial status, age, income source, or marital status.
d. The Permittee shall pay the annual review and monitoring fee required for monitoring of the affordable units, per the fee resolution adopted by the City Council.

3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Permittee shall submit evidence of an executed contract or agreement with the City of Long Beach relating to a Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

$500,000 contribution by the Permittee towards parking and security improvements within the Downtown Plan (PD-30) area.

4. The project shall be developed in substantial conformance with the plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 19, 2023, except as amended herein.

Each project component shall be designed and constructed as depicted on these plans, maintaining the same architectural style, quality of materials, and consistency of design. Minor changes to the approved project design consistent with the project approval shall require, at a minimum, an additional review by Planning staff for Substantial Conformance to the approved plan set, or review by the Director of Development Services for the approval of minor modifications.

Significant alterations (as defined in Section 21.21.405) shall require additional review by the Planning Commission.

5. In the event that the Permittee wishes to develop the project in phases, the Permittee shall submit a phasing plan to the Director of Development Services for review for substantial conformance with this approval.
a. The Permittee shall pay the applicable fee for a substantial conformance/asplanned review per the fee resolution adopted by the City Council. Following substantial conformance approval, each phase shall be submitted into plan check in the manner directed by the Building Official. A master site plan shall be included with each phase submittal, identifying each phase on the site, and showing each building in each phase, with full dimensions and setbacks information for each building on the site plan. b. The affordable housing units may be constructed in phases if the marketrate units are constructed in phases, provided that the percentage of inclusionary units developed in each phase shall be equivalent to or greater than the total percentage of inclusionary units to be developed as part of the residential development until such time that all the inclusionary units have been built.

6. The Permittee shall provide for the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project:
a. A Transportation Management Office (TMO) for the residential and commercial components of the project, which will oversee the implementation of TDM strategies and goal achievement, distribute ridesharing and carpool information, distribute transit information, market and promote the TDM strategies it manages, maintain a TDM display in a centralized area of the project, and periodically evaluate and refine the TDM program;
b. Encouragement of Alternative Modes of Travel for Residents, including unbundled parking (rental of parking spaces to project residents separately from rental of dwelling units), establishing an on-site telecommuting center for residents to work from home on-site, provision of quality on-site bicycle parking and bike repair, a discounted transit pass program, and proximity to high-quality bus and light-rail transit;
Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

7. The Permittee shall submit a construction staging and management plan for the review of the Director of Development Services and Director of Public Works, and the Permittee shall make all required revisions to this plan and obtain the approval of said Directors on this plan prior to issuance of a building permit for the project.

The Permittee shall adhere to this plan throughout all stages of construction. The construction staging and management plan shall include the following:
a. The Permittee shall plan construction and construction staging to maintain pedestrian access on adjacent sidewalks throughout all construction phases. Pedestrian access closures shall be limited to the minimum necessary.
b. The Permittee shall maintain adequate and safe pedestrian protection, including physical separation (including utilization of barriers such as KRails or scaffolding, etc.) from work areas and vehicular traffic and overhead protection, due to sidewalk closure or blockage, at all times. c. Temporary pedestrian facilities shall be provided adjacent to the project site and shall provide safe, accessible routes that replicate as nearly as practical the most desirable characteristics of the existing pedestrian facilities. d. Covered walkways shall be provided where pedestrians are exposed to potential injury from falling objects.
e. The Permittee shall maintain adequate roadway width and travel lane capacity to allow for adequate emergency services access through the affected roadway.

8. The Permittee shall submit a traffic management plan to the City Traffic Engineer, and said plan shall be revised to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer and the Director of Development Services to specifically address roadway safety for all traffic entering or the project driveway(s) on Long Beach Blvd. and 6th St. during construction. No building permit shall be issued and no work shall commence on the project site until this plan is approved by the City Traffic Engineer, and all traffic to and from the project site shall be subject to this traffic management plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.

9. Architecture, design, and materials of the project as a whole shall comply with the following:
a. No rough-finish stucco is permitted, and all stucco finish shall be the finest sand finish that does not require hand application. Hand application stucco is encouraged and preferred on enhanced elevations and on community buildings.
b. All windows shall consist of high-quality materials. White vinyl windows shall be prohibited, and for vinyl windows, frame color shall complement the design of each building. Windows and doors should have an inset of at least 3 inches into the building wall to create sufficient shadow reading on elevations.

Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

c. No low-quality or inauthentic architectural detail elements are permitted.

Details shall be high-quality materials and shall be consistent with the tradition of the selected architectural styles.

10. Prior to the issuance of building permits and commencement of construction activities, the Permittee shall notify adjacent and adjoining property owners/occupants of the initiation of construction activities. The notification shall include the days and hours of construction and contact information for potential complaints.

11. During construction, in order to avoid archaeological resources, human remains, and paleontological resources, the Permittee shall prepare plans containing specific details and logistics for carrying out the Program EIR mitigation measures.

The plans shall cover archaeological resources/human remains and paleontological resources, and shall include: the professional qualification standards for archaeological and paleontological staff (following the Secretary of the Interior and Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, as applicable); communication protocols; a description and maps noting the locations/depths of where monitoring is required based on sensitivity and construction plans; training for construction personnel; the process for modifying monitoring frequency (reducing or discontinuing); protocols to follow in the event of a discovery, including work stoppage and notification procedures; an outline for significance evaluations of discovered resources; protocols for sampling, recovery, treatment, and analysis of resources; and reporting and curation requirements.

12. Tribal Cultural Resources monitoring with the local culturally affiliated Native American tribe shall be required during construction unless determined not to be necessary by the tribe. The Permittee shall retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the culturally affiliated tribe and is listed under the NAHC’s Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant shall be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities.

Ground disturbing activities are defined as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor/consultant shall complete daily monitoring logs that provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources or that further monitoring is not needed.

13. Pile-driving as a means of construction is explicitly prohibited during all phases of construction.

14. Any murals proposed on the project site shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Development Services prior to installation.

Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

15. The Permittee shall complete the dedication of private streets to the City, per the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate executed by the Permittee’s predecessor in interest, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. This dedication shall be completed prior to approval of the Final Map, or prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever of these three occurs first.

16. Each residential building and dwelling unit shall be designed and constructed to maintain a 45 dBA community noise exposure level (CNEL) or less in building interiors.

17. The Permittee shall provide for an enhanced pedestrian crossing on 6th Street between Pine Ave. and Long Beach Blvd. to allow safe pedestrian crossing to and from the project’s paseo between 5th and 6th Streets. This enhanced crossing should be located on the western side of the intersection with Locust Ave. unless otherwise directed by the Director of Public Works. The pedestrian crossing shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.

18. The Permittee shall guarantee public access through the pedestrian paseo connecting 5th Street and 6th Street via recordation of a public access easement to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and Director of Public Works.

19. All modifications to vegetation on onsite and offsite (public right-of-way) shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), including the completion of nesting bird surveys prior to any tree or vegetation removal:
a. If initial clearing activities prior to the start of construction take place during the bird nesting season (generally January through September, but variable based on seasonal and annual climatic conditions), a nesting bird survey should be performed by a qualified biologist within three days of such activities to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on-site or within 100 feet of the site. The findings of the survey should be summarized in a report to be submitted to the City of Long Beach prior to undertaking construction activities at the site. b. If nesting birds are found on-site, a construction buffer of 500 feet for nesting raptors or threatened or endangered species and 100 feet of all other nesting birds should be implemented around the active nests and demarcated with fencing or flagging. Nests should be monitored at a minimum of once per week by the qualified biologist until it has been determined that the nest is no longer being used by either the young or adults. No ground disturbance should occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist confirms that the breeding/nesting is completed and all the young have fledged. If project activities must occur within the buffer, they should be conducted at the discretion of the qualified biologist. c. If no nesting birds are observed during pre-construction surveys, no further actions shall be necessary.

20. The project shall achieve a cumulative project-wide rating of LEED Certified. The project shall be registered with the USGBC to obtain the required LEED Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

certification, or the project may be certified by a third party as meeting the intent of LEED at the Certified level in lieu of registration with the USGBC. Verification that the project will achieve the required LEED Certified rating shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services prior to building permit issuance or as otherwise ordered by the Director.

21. The Permittee shall provide the following in accordance with the Green Building Standards of Section 21.45.400 of the Zoning Regulations:
a. Canopy trees shall provide shade coverage, after five (5) years of growth, of forty percent (40%) of the total area dedicated to parking stalls and associated vehicular circulation, or paving materials with a solar reflectance index of at least twenty-nine (29) shall be used on a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of paving surfaces dedicated to parking stalls and associated vehicular circulation;
b. Bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum of one (1) space for every five (5) residential units, one (1) space for each five thousand (5,000) square feet of commercial building area, one (1) space for each seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet of retail building area and one (1) space for each ten thousand (10,000) square feet of industrial building area. Fractions shall be rounded up to whole numbers;
c. Roofs shall be designed to be solar-ready subject to all applicable state and local construction codes and provide conduit from the electrical panel to the roof; and
d. A designated area for the collection of recyclables and organics refuse shall be provided adjacent to the area for the collection of waste.

22. All forms of barbed wire and razor wire shall be prohibited on the site.

23. The Permittee shall provide for the construction of trash receptacle areas of sufficient number and size to meet all reasonably foreseeable refuse needs of the residential units, commercial space, common areas, amenities, and public areas of the project. All trash receptacle areas shall be located and constructed in accordance with Section 21.45.167 of the Zoning Regulations.

24. All trash receptacles, including receptacles for recycling and for organics, shall be stored in the designated trash areas shown on approved plans. Trash receptacles shall be moved to the exterior pickup location only on collection day(s) and shall not be stored or kept outside or in the public right-of-way except as needed on collection day(s).

25. All bicycle racks on-site and in off-site improvements shall conform to the guidance in “Essentials of Bike Parking” by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals.

26. Required residential bicycle parking spaces shall be provided in a secured area, secured room, or secured lockers within the project garages or residential buildings.

Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

27. All exterior on-site newsstands and racks (including free publications, classifieds, etc.), vending machines, donation bins, and publicly-accessible telephones shall be prohibited, and any existing ones shall be removed.

28. Any trees removed or replaced on the development site shall be replaced at a ratio of no less than two-to-one (2:1) to the greatest extent feasible.

29. Street trees shall be provided on all street frontages adjacent to the project site, at a tree spacing of not more than 25 feet on-center. Street trees shall be of a species approved by the Department of Public Works in accordance with the tree species requirements on page 96 of the Downtown Plan. Street trees shall be installed under a right-of-way permit from the Department of Public Works.

30. All on-site landscaping and improvements and all off-site improvements shall be completed prior to approval of a final building inspection or certificate(s) of occupancy for any residential units in the final phase of the development.

31. The Director of Development Services and the Director of Public Works may approve minor modifications to the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, if said modifications are consistent with the original approval per Section 20.12.170, are consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20, LBMC) and the Subdivision Map Act (Cal. Gov’t Code section 66410 et seq.), and do not significantly alter the original Tentative Map approval per Section 21.21.405.

32. The Final Map shall be prepared to conform to all conditions and requirements of Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the City of Long Beach, unless specified otherwise herein.

33. All property taxes and all outstanding special assessments shall be paid in full prior to approval of the Final Map.

34. All required off-site improvements shall be financially provided for to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works prior to approval of the Final Map.

35. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Permittee shall deposit sufficient funds with the City to cover the cost of processing the Final Map through the Department of Public Works. Furthermore, the Permittee shall pay the Planning processing fees for the Final Map. The Permittee shall pay fees to the City for processing of the Final Map based on the total number of lots or units in the subdivision, including both ground lots and airspace lots.

36. Prior to issuance of a grading or demolition permit (whichever occurs first), the Permittee shall submit a proposed haul route/trucking route for all construction truck trips for review by the Director of Development Services and the City Engineer. The Director of Development Services and/or City Engineer may modify this proposed haul route/trucking route prior to its approval, as they deem necessary to protect the public safety and welfare, and to prevent negative impacts upon neighboring uses. Said modifications (if any), approval, and enforcement shall be binding upon all hauling activities and construction truck trips by the Permittee.

Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

37. The Permittee shall abide by and enforce the haul route/trucking route approved by the Director of Development Services and City Engineer. Failure to do so shall cause the City to issue a stop work order and withhold issuance of further construction permits, inspections, or certificates of occupancy, until such time as the Director of Development Services and City Engineer determine the Permittee’s hauling practices to be remedied.

38. Minor changes to these approved plans, in keeping with the intent and spirit of the project approvals, may be approved at the discretion of the Director of Development Services. For any major changes, including changes to building/architectural materials, on-site improvements, site plan or layout, landscaping, or other significant items (including deviations from any of these conditions of approval), the Permittee shall be required to submit an application for a Modification of Approved Permit – Site Plan Review Committee Approval level.

39. All groundcover and shrubs shall be drought-tolerant and low-water requirement species. The project landscaping shall comply with the Water Efficient Landscaping standards of Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Regulations.

40. The Permittee shall provide for all CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) recommendations issued for the project by the Long Beach Police Department, in the memo dated February 3, 2022, which by this reference is made a part of these conditions of approval.

41. Any streetlights, pedestrian lights, parking lot lights, and other exterior lights to be provided within the development or adjacent public rights-of-way shall be subject to review by the Director of Development Services prior to issuance of building and electrical permits. All lights shall be adequately shielded so as to prevent the intrusion of light and glare upon any adjacent property or structure, in compliance with the appropriate backlight/uplight/glare (BUG) rating requirements of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) equivalent to the previous standard for certified full-cutoff fixtures, or meeting IESNA specifications for full-cutoff fixtures.

42. The Permittee shall provide a construction staging plan to the Director of Development Services for review and approval prior to the issuance permits for each phase of construction, including demolition/site preparation, rough grading, precise grading, and each phase of building permits.

43. All trucks, construction vehicles, and equipment not actively in use on the project site, including those queueing off-site, shall be prohibited from engine idling for more than 5 minutes, and the Permittee shall utilize best management practices (BMPs) and best available technology to achieve this. The Permittee shall post a clearly-legible sign on the exterior construction fencing with the phone number of a construction site complaint/issues coordinator responsible for managing truck and equipment idling. Complaints of violations regarding truck and equipment idling shall be resolved within 24 hours of the receipt of the complaint. The Director of Development Services is authorized to issue stop work orders and withhold the issuance of building permits if the Permittee fails to remedy engine idling violations as required, until such time as the violations are remedied.

Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

44. All equipment reverse signal alarms utilized by construction vehicles and equipment on the site, as required per OSHA regulations and provided in Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1926.601(b)(4) and 1926.602(a)(9), shall not be of the single-tone high-pitch type. Alternate pitch, broad-spectrum sound, or other non-single-tone non-high-pitch alarms meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.601(b)(4) and 1926.602(a)(9) shall be utilized instead.

45. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Permittee shall depict all utility apparatus, such as, but not limited to, backflow devices and Edison transformers, on both the site plan and the landscape plan. Wherever feasible, these devices shall not be located in any front, side, or rear yard area that is adjacent to a street.

Furthermore, these devices shall be screened to the greatest extent feasible by landscaping or another screening method approved by the Director of Development Services.

Project EIR and Mitigation Measures

46. The Permittee shall comply with all mitigation measures of the Downtown Plan Program EIR and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as detailed in the EIR Addendum (EIRA-02-22) prepared for this project. The MMRP is attached to these conditions of approval and by this reference made a part hereof.

Public Works Conditions

47. The Permittee shall provide for the following to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Submittal of construction documents into plan check may result in additional or modified requirements from the Department of Public Works.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
a. The final map shall be based upon criteria established by the California Subdivision Map Act and/or Title 20 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. b. Prior to final map approval, the Permittee shall obtain utility clearance letters for any public entity or public utility holding any interest in the subdivision as required by the Subdivision Map Act.
c. All off-site and/ or public improvements and facilities required by the Department of Public Works not in place and accepted prior to final map approval shall be guaranteed by instrument of credit or bond to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
d. Prior to final map approval, the Permittee shall submit its on-site parking management plan and project Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R’s), or other acceptable documentation for review and approval of the Director of Public Works.
e. The Permittee and successors shall be responsible for the maintenance of the site drainage system, and for the operation and maintenance of any private sewer connection to the public sewer in the abutting public right-of-way, and for the maintenance of the sidewalk, parkway, street trees and other landscaping, including irrigation, within and along the adjacent public right-of-way. Such Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

responsibilities shall be enumerated and specified in the project CC&R’s or other acceptable documentation, and a recorded copy of said document shall be provided to the Director of Public Works.
f. No cross-lot drainage shall be permitted. Existing cross-lot drainage problems shall be corrected prior to approval of the final map, or a private drainage easement recorded on the map, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. g. Permittee proposes architectural projection encroachments into the public right-ofway that include architectural features, signage, balconies and awnings.

Construction plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for all projections over the public right-of-way to be reviewed for approval, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
h. Doors and/or gates shall not swing or project into the public right-of-way. All door openings swinging into public rights-of-way shall be eliminated, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
i. Any proposed signage shall be located entirely on site, on private property, completely out of the public right-of-way. Any signage initially proposed in public rights-of-way shall be eliminated, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. j. The Permittee is proposing a refuse and recycling receptacle area as part of the proposed development. All proposed refuse and recycling structures and receptacles must be placed entirely on private property, outside of the public rightof-way. The Permittee and/ or successors shall be responsible for the cleanliness of the sidewalk/roadway adjacent to the refuse and recycling area and the overall development.
k. Prior to the start of ANY demolition, excavation, or construction, the Permittee shall:
i. Submit a construction plan for pedestrian protection, construction staging, scaffolding and excavations, and
ii. Submit a traffic control plan with street lane closures and routing of construction vehicles (excavation hauling, concrete and other deliveries, etc.) prepared by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer in the State of California, with wet seal and signature, and
iii. Submit a plan for construction area and/or site perimeter fencing with custom printed screen(s),
iv. All for review and approval by the Department of Public Works and installed in accordance with the latest version of the Public Works Development Guideline
Work, including hauling soils or other debris, is not allowed within the right-of-way without a valid Public Works permit. The Permittee shall comply with all requirements outlined within the latest version of the Public Works Development Guideline and all referenced standards at the time of application submittal Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

l. The Permittee shall construct all off-site improvements needed to provide full ADA accessibility compliance within the adjacent public right-of-way, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. If a dedication of additional right-of-way is necessary to satisfy ADA requirements, as determined during the plan check process, the right-of-way dedication way shall be provided. m. Public improvements shall be constructed in accordance with Public Works construction standards, and per plans reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. Detailed off-site improvement plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer, stamped, signed and submitted to the Public Works counter at the Permit Center on the 2nd Floor of City Hall (411 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802), for review and approval. The City’s Public Works Engineering Standard Plans are available online at
www.longbeach.gov/pw/resources/engineering/standard-plans. This is in addition to, and separate from, any plan check required by the Department of Development Services, Building & Safety Bureau.
n. All conditions of approval, including cover letter signed by the Planning Officer and Case Planner, must be printed verbatim on all plans submitted for plan review to the Department of Public Works

PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
o. All architectural projection encroachments shall be constructed in compliance with Long Beach Municipal Code, Title 14, Chapter 14.48 and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Construction plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for all projections over the public right-of-way, to be reviewed for approval for compliance with the referenced code, and City Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines, or be eliminated to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
p. Note: Per the referenced LBMC, encroachments into the public right-of-way above eight feet in height above a sidewalk are allowed for awnings, canopies, signs, architectural features, balconies, and windows. These improvements can encroach over the property line one inch for each additional one inch of clearance above eight feet. The maximum encroachment shall be four feet at a minimum clearance height of twelve feet.
q. 4th Street, 5th Street and The Promenade North adjacent to/in the vicinity of the project are currently private streets subject to a previously executed Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate (IOD). The City shall accept the IOD over the roadway from back of curb to back of curb making the roadway public right-of-way while allowing the sidewalks to remain private with public access easements. As illustrated in the project plans, the Permittee is proposing to process a street closure of the Promenade North between 3rd Street and 5th Street to vehicular traffic and only allow for pedestrian access. The street closure shall be processed as a part of the final map or per separate instrument, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.

Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

r. Pursuant to the conditions d and e noted above, in lieu of CC&R’s, Permittee may provide appropriate documentation from affected property owners demonstrating that all property owners agree to continue to maintain their sidewalk frontage along 4th street and 5th street to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. s. Permittee shall be responsible for the relocation and/ or undergrounding of utilities, right-of-way dedications, quitclaim of easements, and/or any new utility easements required in connection with the proposed development, and removal of any related abandoned facilities, or equipment as needed or required; as structures cannot be built within an easement or dedicated area.
t. Permittee shall be responsible for resolving all matters of easement(s) and/ or utilities encroachment to the satisfaction of the interested agency, City Department, and the Director of Public Works.
u. Unless approved by the Director of Public Works, easements shall not be granted to third parties within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication to the City of Long Beach for public streets, alleys, utility or other public purposes until the final map filing with the County Recorder. If easements are granted after the date of tentative map approval and prior to final map recordation, a notice of subordination must be executed by the third-party easement holder prior to the filing of the final map.

OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
v. The Permittee shall remove unused driveways, pull-outs, and curb cuts, and replace with full-height curb, curb gutter and sidewalk pavement to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Existing pavers shall be salvaged prior to construction and re-used within the reconstructed sidewalk to the fullest extent possible. Additional sidewalk improvements shall be constructed with Portland Cement Concrete. Aprons, curb, and gutter improvements shall be constructed with Portland cement concrete.
w. Note: Bus pull-out improvements are subject to the review and approval of Long Beach Transit.
x. Subject to the improvement limits of the proposed driveways along Long Beach Blvd and 6th Street, the Permittee shall provide for the relocation of the existing facilities in conflict with the new points of access, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The Permittee shall contact the interested agency or City Department to schedule the relocation work prior to submitting on-site grading plans. Agencies can include, but are not limited to, Metro, Long Beach Water Department, Long Beach Transit etc.
y. Subject to the improvement limits of the proposed transit island along Long Beach Blvd, the Permittee shall provide for the relocation of the existing facilities in conflict with the new transit island to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The Permittee shall contact the interested agency or City Department to schedule the relocation work prior to submitting on-site grading plans.

Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

z. Permittee shall confirm that the existing curb ramp at the southwest corner of the intersection of Long Beach Blvd and 6th street is ADA compliant. If curb ramp is deemed non-compliant, Permittee shall demolish and construct a new ADA compliant curb ramp to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Curb ramp improvements shall be constructed with Portland cement concrete. Affected adjacent sidewalk improvements shall match existing pavers in kind. Existing pavers shall be salvaged prior to construction and re-used within the reconstructed sidewalk to the fullest extent possible, otherwise sidewalk improvements shall be constructed with Portland Cement concrete.
aa.Permittee shall confirm that the existing curb ramps at the intersection of Long Beach Blvd and 5th street are ADA compliant. If the curb ramps are deemed noncompliant, Permittee shall demolish and construct new ADA compliant curb ramps to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Curb Ramp improvements shall be constructed with Portland cement concrete. Affected adjacent sidewalk improvements shall match existing pavers in kind. Existing pavers shall be salvaged prior to construction and re-used within the reconstructed sidewalk to the fullest extent possible, otherwise sidewalk improvements shall be constructed with Portland Cement concrete.
bb.Permittee shall confirm that the existing curb ramp at the northwest corner of Long Beach Blvd and 4th street is ADA compliant. If the curb ramp is deemed noncompliant, Permittee shall demolish and construct a new ADA compliant curb ramp to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Curb Ramp improvements shall be constructed with Portland cement concrete. Affected adjacent sidewalk improvements shall match existing pavers in kind. Existing pavers shall be salvaged prior to construction and re-used within the reconstructed sidewalk to the fullest extent possible, otherwise sidewalk improvements shall be constructed with Portland Cement concrete.
cc. The Permittee shall, as applicable, either 1) protect existing trees that are not affected by the proposed improvements, 2) replace dead or dying street trees adjacent to the site, or 3) provide new street trees at driveway closures that would result in a gap in street tree spacing along Long Beach Blvd and 6th Street adjacent to the project site, per Section 21.42.050 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. The Permittee and/or successors shall water and maintain all street trees, landscaping and sprinkler systems required in connection with this project. The Permittee shall contact the Street Tree Division of the Department of Public Works, at (562) 570- 2770, prior to beginning the tree planting, landscaping, and any irrigation system work. The Street Tree Division will assist with the size, type and manner in which the street trees are to be installed. At a minimum, parkway trees shall provide shade coverage, after five years of growth, of 50% of the total area of public right of way, along the project frontage.
dd.The Permittee shall reconstruct cracked, deteriorated, or uplifted/depressed sections of sidewalk pavers, curb and curb gutter along all perimeter streets adjacent to the project site to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.

Sidewalk and curb and gutter improvements shall be constructed with Portland Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

Cement Concrete. The Permittee shall construct all off-site improvements needed to provide full ADA accessibility compliance within the adjacent public right-of-way. ee.The Permittee shall check with the Long Beach Water Department at (562) 570- 2300 and the Gas and Oil Department at (562) 570-2030 for scheduled main replacement work prior to submitting any improvement plans to the Department of Public Works.
ff. The Permittee proposes improvements that may impact existing under- and aboveground utilities through and adjacent to the project site, such as gas lines, water pipelines, and utility poles and overhead lines, and along the perimeter streets and alleyways adjacent to the project site. The Permittee shall be responsible for all design, applicable utility approval, permitting, relocation and/or undergrounding work, easements relocation and commissioning as required by the interested agency and shall work with each utility directly.
gg.The Permittee shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of off-site improvements abutting the project boundary during construction of the on-site improvements, until final inspection of the on-site improvements by the City.

All off-site improvements adjacent to the development site, and/or along the truck delivery route found damaged as a result of construction activities, shall be reconstructed or replaced by the Permittee, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
hh.The Permittee shall provide for the resetting to grade of existing manholes, pull boxes, and meters in conjunction with the required off-site improvements, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
ii. The Permittee shall submit a grading plan with hydrology and hydraulic calculations showing building elevations and drainage pattern and slopes, for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building Services and the Director of Public Works, prior to approval of the map and/or release of any building permit.
jj. The Permittee shall submit a drainage plan for approval by Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
kk. The Permittee shall provide a trip generation and trip distribution analysis. Based on these studies, a traffic impact analysis may be required. Any conditions generated by the analysis shall be made a part of these conditions. ll. The Permittee shall be responsible to improve certain traffic signal related equipment to current California Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and/or City of Long Beach Standards. The traffic signal related equipment shall be within signalized intersections that are directly impacted by the Permittee’s project (i.e. the intersection of 6th Street and Long Beach Blvd). If not existing, the Traffic Signal related equipment shall include, but may not be limited to the following:
i. All Traffic Signal indications shall be updated to 12” LED units.

Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

ii. Vehicular detection shall be installed on all approaches to the signalized intersection. This may include presence, mid or advance detection per City direction. Options will include standard Type E loops or video detection.
iii. All pedestrian indications shall be upgraded to LED Countdown Modules within all pedestrian crossings.
iv. All pedestrian push buttons shall be upgraded to the most current City Standard.
v. All signalized intersections shall require the installation of Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption (EVPE) equipment. The equipment and installation must be completed per the most current City Standard.
vi. Because of the fact that so many City of Long Beach traffic signals operate and share coordinated signal timing plans, the Permittee shall install a GPS Module at all traffic signals that are directly impacted by their project. The GPS Modules create accurate time-based communications between nearby traffic signals.
vii. The Permittee may be asked to update the traffic signal controller located in the traffic signal cabinet. The existing traffic signal controller may not have the capability to handle the complexities of new traffic patterns that are directly related to the Permittee’s project. In such cases, the Permittee will be asked to install a new traffic signal controller based on the most current City Standard, McCain 2070 Controllers. mm. There are high volume Long Beach Transit bus stops on 6th Street and Long Beach Blvd adjacent to the development site. The Permittee shall incorporate enhancements to improve the bus stops into this project. Amenities such as a roof overhang for additional shelter and architectural seating for bus patrons should be integrated into the project. Enhanced 12-foot wide sidewalk paving should be provided for the bus stop per Long Beach Transit standards. The Permittee shall collaborate with Long Beach Transit and the City’s Public Works Department to take advantage of this opportunity.
nn.Permittee shall contact Long Beach Transit prior to commencement of work to coordinate design and construction issues and to ensure that construction does not interfere with transit bus operations at any bus stops near the project site.

Contact Christopher MacKechnie at (562) 489 -8466.
oo.There appears to be a shared Torrance Transit bus stop on Long Beach Blvd.

Permittee shall coordinate with Torrance Transit prior to commencement of work to coordinate design and construction issues and to ensure that construction does not interfere with transit bus operations at any bus stops near the project site. pp.At the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer, the Permittee shall be responsible to implement the most recent Bicycle Master Plan of the City at its frontage blocks: A transit boarding island including a bike path behind the transit shelter shall be constructed on Long Beach Boulevard between 6th Street and the garage entry.

Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

A minimum of four public bike racks on 6th Street and nine public bike racks on Long Beach Boulevard shall be provided. The existing Long Beach Bike Share hub shall be preserved on Long Beach Blvd north of 5th Street.

Note: The transit boarding island shall be located 100’ from the corner of 6th Street to increase the width of the sidewalk. Additionally, Permittee shall design the protected bikeway to optimize the parkway/sidewalk in this area. qq.The Permittee shall submit a signing and striping plan for review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer
rr. The size and configuration of all proposed driveways serving the project site shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Driveways greater than 28 feet in width require a variance to be processed with the submittal of offsite improvement plans.

Note: As illustrated on the proposed site plan, Permittee is proposing garage entry points along Long Beach Blvd and 6th Street. Entry points appear to be designed with curb returns, which is not acceptable to Public Works. Driveway approach design, geometry and configuration shall be per City of Long Beach Standard Plans and are subject to review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. ss. The Permittee shall salvage and reinstall all traffic signs that require temporary removal to accommodate new construction within the public right-of-way. All traffic signs shall be reinstalled to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. tt. The Permittee shall replace all traffic signs and mounting poles damaged or misplaced as result of construction activities to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer.
uu.The Permittee shall repaint all traffic markings obliterated or defaced by construction activities to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. vv. The Permittee shall contact the Transportation Mobility Bureau, at (562) 570-6331, to modify any existing curb marking zones adjacent to the project site. ww. All traffic control device installations, including pavement markings within the private parking lot, shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2012 or current edition (i.e. white parking stalls, stop signs, entry treatment signage, handicapped signage, etc.).
xx. All bike racks and bike rack placement must follow the guidance in “Essentials of Bike Parking” by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals.

Metro Conditions

48. The Permittee shall comply with the following conditions provided by Metro (LACMTA):
a. Technical Review: The Permittee shall submit engineering drawings and calculations, as well as construction work plans and methods including any crane placement and radius, to evaluate any impacts to the Metro A Line (Blue) infrastructure in relationship to the Project. Before issuance of any Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

building permit for the Project, the Permittee shall obtain Metro’s approval of final construction plans.
b. At-Grade Crossings: The Permittee shall analyze traffic and safety impacts and comply with all regulations and requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) with respect to the Project’s potential impacts on the at-grade rail crossing at the intersection of 6thStreet and Long Beach Boulevard and 4thStreet and Long Beach Boulevard. CPUC may have additional comments and requirements regarding this Project and should be contacted in consultation efforts.
c. OCS Protection: The Permittee shall take all necessary measures to protect the OCS from damage due to Project activities during and after construction, pursuant to applicable California Department of Industrial Relations regulations (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 8). The Permittee shall post proper signage for equipment working around the OCS wires. d. Setback: Any building protrusions facing the ROW (e.g. balconies, awnings and other appurtenances), as well as landscaping shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from the OCS wires and support structures. e. Sidewalk OCS Support: During Project construction, the Permittee shall take precautions to protect in place all poles and underground infrastructure, and maintain access for Metro personnel to service them at all times.
f. Construction Safety: The construction and operation of the Project shall not disrupt the operation and maintenance activities of the Metro A Line (Blue) or the structural and systems integrity of Metro’s light rail infrastructure. Not later than two months before Project construction, the Permittee shall contact Metro Construction Management Department to schedule a preconstruction meeting with all Project construction personnel and Construction Safety staff. During Project construction, the Permittee shall:
i) Construct a protection barrier to prevent objects, material, or debris from falling onto the ROW;
ii) Notify Metro of any changes to demolition and construction activities that may impact the use of the ROW; and
iii) Permit Metro staff to monitor demolition and/or construction activities to ascertain any impact to the Metro A Line (Blue).
g. ROW Entry Permit: For any temporary or ongoing access to Metro ROW for demolition, construction, and/or maintenance activities, the Permittee shall complete Metro’s Track Allocation process with Metro Rail Operations and obtain a Right of Entry Permit from Metro Real Estate. Approval for single tracking or a power shutdown, while possible, is highly discouraged; if sought, the Permittee shall apply for and obtain such approval from Metro not later than two months before the start of Project construction. The Permittee shall apply for and obtain approval from Metro for any special Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

operations, including the use of a pile driver or any other equipment that could come into close proximity to the OCS or support structures, not later than one month before the start of Project construction. h. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Requirements:

Demolition, construction and/or excavation work in proximity to Metro ROW with potential to damage light rail tracks and related infrastructure may be subject to additional OSHA safety requirements.
i. Technical Review: Metro charges for staff time spent on engineering review and construction monitoring. Permittee shall pay review fees or costs as required.
j. Cost of Impacts: The Permittee shall be responsible for costs incurred resulting from Project construction/operation issues that cause delay or harm to Metro service delivery or infrastructure, including single-tracking or bus bridging around closures. The Permittee shall also bear all costs for any noise mitigation required for the Project.

Long Beach Water Department Conditions

49. The Permittee shall provide for the following to the satisfaction of the General Manager of the Long Beach Water Department:
a. Demolition plans shall be submitted to LBWD for review and approval, and shall direct the Permittee to protect-in-place or demolish water services and sewer laterals as specified.
b. The development shall have separate domestic and commercial water services.
c. Backflow prevention assemblies shall be required on all water services.

Long Beach Energy Resources (Gas) Department Conditions

50. The Permittee shall provide for the following to the satisfaction of the Director of the Long Beach Energy Resources Department:
a. The Permittee shall be responsible for coordinating with LBER to make sure there is a plan in place for the relocation, or cut and cap of gas facilities. Per LB Municipal Code, any structures or obstructions are not allowed to be built above the existing gas lines deterring access to those facilities. b. The Permittee shall review and obtain approval for proposed meter(s) locations with LBER inspector.
c. The Permittee shall provide gas loads for proposed development and to confirm that the new meter(s) locations meet all LBER requirements.

Standard Conditions – Plans, Permits, and Construction:

51. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Permittee shall submit a revised set of plans reflecting all of the design changes set forth in the conditions of approval, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

52. All conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on all plans submitted for plan review to the Department of Development Services. These conditions shall be printed on the site plan or a subsequent reference page.

53. The plans submitted for plan review shall explicitly call out and describe all materials, textures, accents, colors, window, door, planter, and paving details that were approved by the Site Plan Review Committee or the Planning Commission.

No substantial changes shall be made without prior written approval of the Site Plan Review Committee or the Planning Commission.

54. The Director of Development Services is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved design plans or to any of the conditions of approval if such modifications shall not significantly change or alter the approved project.

Any major modifications shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, Site Plan Review Committee, or Planning Commission, respectively.

55. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from public view. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of theme, materials, colors and textures. If the screening is not specifically designed into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Development Services prior to the issuance of a building permit.

56. Upon plan approval and prior to issuance of a building permit, the Permittee shall submit a reduced-size set of final construction plans for the project file.

57. A permit from the Department of Public Works shall be required for any work to be performed in or over the public right-of-way.

58. Any off-site improvements found to be damaged as a result of construction activities related to this project shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.

59. Separate building permits are required for fences, retaining walls, flagpoles, and pole mounted yard lighting foundations.

60. The Permittee shall file a separate landscaping plan check submittal to the Department of Development Services for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

61. The Permittee shall file a separate plan check submittal to the Long Beach Fire Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.

62. All structures shall conform to the Long Beach Building Code requirements.

Notwithstanding this subject permit, all other required permits from the Building Bureau shall be secured.

Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

63. Site development, including landscaping, shall conform to the approved plans on file with the Department of Development Services. At least one set of approved plans containing Planning, Building, Fire, and, if applicable, Health Department stamps shall be maintained at the job site, at all times for reference purposes during construction and final inspection.

64. For projects consisting of new buildings, parking lots, or landscaped area, the Permittee shall submit complete landscape and irrigation plans for the approval of the Director of Development Services prior to application for a temporary certificate of occupancy, or certificate of occupancy. The landscaping plan shall include drought tolerant street trees to be installed consistent with the specifications of the Street Tree Division of the Department of Public Works. Approved root guards shall be provided for all street trees. On-site landscaping shall comply with Chapter

21.42 (Landscaping Standards), as applicable, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

65. For new construction, all landscaped areas shall comply with the State of California’s model landscape ordinance. Landscaped areas shall be planted with drought tolerant plant materials and shall be provided with water conserving automatic irrigation systems designed to provide complete and adequate coverage to sustain and promote healthy plant life. The irrigation system shall not cause water to spray or flow across a public sidewalk.

66. All landscaping irrigation systems shall use high efficiency sprinkler nozzles. The models used and flow rates shall be specified on the landscaping plan. For residential-type or small-scale sprinkler systems, sprinkler head flow rates shall not exceed 1.00 GPM and shall be of the rotating type. Where feasible, drip irrigation shall be used instead. If an in-ground irrigation system is to be installed, such system shall be controlled by an automatic self-adjusting weather-based irrigation controller.

67. All outdoor fountains or water features shall utilize water recycling or re-circulation systems. The plans submitted for review shall specifically identify such systems.

68. Energy conserving equipment, lighting, and construction features shall be utilized in this project.

69. Low-flow fixtures shall be used for all lavatory faucets, kitchen faucets, showerheads, toilets, and urinals. Toilets may be either low-flow or dual flush.

Maximum flow rates for each fixture type shall be as follows: lavatory faucet – 2.75 GPM, kitchen faucet – 2.20 GPM, showerhead – 2.00 GPM, toilet – 1.3 GPF, dual flush toilet – 0.8/1.6 GPF, urinal – 1.0 GPF. Plans submitted for review shall specifically identify such fixtures and flow rates.

70. Demolition, site preparation, and construction activities are limited to the following (except for the pouring of concrete which may occur as needed):
a. Weekdays and federal holidays: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; b. Saturday: 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.; and
c. Sundays: not allowed
Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

Standard Conditions – General:

71. As provided in Section 21.21.406 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, every right or privilege authorized under this permit shall terminate three (3) years after the granting of the request and be of no further force and effect if the right or privilege has not been commenced within that three-year period. The termination will take effect without further City action if a timely request for extension of time has not been made or is denied. Any interruption or cessation necessitated by publicly declared emergency, fire, flood, earthquake or act of war or vandalism or cessation shall not result in the termination of the right or privilege.

72. This permit shall be invalid if the owner(s) and/or Permittee(s) have failed to return written acknowledgment of their acceptance of the conditions of approval on the Conditions of Approval Acknowledgment Form supplied by the Planning Bureau.

This acknowledgment shall be submitted within 30 days from the effective date of approval (final action date or, if in the appealable area of the Coastal Zone, 21 days after the local final action date).

73. This approval is required to comply with these conditions of approval as long as the use is on the subject site. As such, the site shall allow periodic re-inspections, at the discretion of city officials, to verify compliance. The property owner shall reimburse the City for the inspection cost as per the special building inspection specifications established by City Council (Sec. 21.25.412, 21.25.212).

74. In the event of transfer of ownership of the property involved in this application, the new owner shall be fully informed of the permitted use and development of said property as set forth by this permit together with all conditions that are a part thereof. These specific requirements shall be recorded with all title conveyance documents at time of closing escrow.

75. Approval of this development project is expressly conditioned upon payment (prior to building permit issuance or prior to Certificate of Occupancy, as specified in the applicable Ordinance or Resolution for the specific fee) of impact fees, connection fees and other similar fees based upon additional facilities needed to accommodate new development at established City service level standards, including, but not limited to, sewer capacity charges, Park Fees and Transportation Impact Fees.

76. No publicly accessible telephones shall be maintained on the exterior of the premises. Any existing publicly accessible telephones shall be removed.

77. The property shall be developed and maintained in a neat, quiet, and orderly condition and operated in a manner so as not to be detrimental to adjacent properties and occupants.

78. The operator of the approved use shall prevent loitering in all parking and landscaping areas serving the use during and after hours of operation. The operator shall clean the parking and landscaping areas of trash and debris on a daily basis. Failure to do so shall be grounds for permit revocation. If loitering problems develop, the Director of Development Services may require additional Conditions of Approval
450 The Promenade North, 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. (APNs: 7280-005-051, 7280-005-025) Application No. 2205-32, SPR22-060, VTPM22-002
April 11, 2023 (City Council appeal)

preventative measures such as but not limited to, additional lighting or private security guards.

79. Exterior security bars and roll-up doors applied to windows and pedestrian building entrances shall be prohibited.

80. Any graffiti found on site shall be removed within 24 hours of its appearance.

81. All required utility easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the concerned department, agency, or utility company.

82. All trash and refuse containers shall be fully screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

83. As a condition of any City approval, the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of City concerning the processing of the proposal/entitlement or any action relating to, or arising out of, such approval. At the discretion of the City and with the approval of the City Attorney, a deposit of funds by the applicant may be required in an amount sufficient to cover the anticipated litigation costs.

Attachment H
City of Long Beach Environmental Reports website:
https://www.longbeach.gov/lbds/planning/environmental/reports/ Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report:
• All EIR documents are located in the “Approved/Certified” section, under the heading of “Final Downtown Plan.”
636 Locust Ave. and Land Use Equivalency Program (LUEP) EIR Addendum:
• Addendum is located in the “Approved/Certified” section, under the heading of “Downtown Plan Program EIR Land Use Equivalency Program and 7th and Locust Development – Downtown Plan EIR Addendum.”
• Direct link to 636 Locust Ave. Addendum:
https://www.longbeach.gov/link/79316172f3344c29939f245882eef39

2.aspx
The Mosaic Project 1 ESA / D201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2023

THE MOSAIC PROJECT
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
Response to Appeal Letter
Responses to the appeal letter received from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (CREED LA) on January 27, 2023, are provided below.

An appeal is hereby made to Your Honorable Body from the decision of the Site Plan Review Committee
Zoning Administrator
Planning Commission
Cultural Heritage Commission
Which was taken on the _______ day of ________________, 20 ____.

Project Address:____________________________________________________________ I/We, your appellant(s), hereby respectfully request that Your Honorable Body reject the decision and Approve / Deny the application or permit in question.

ALL INFORMATION BELOW IS REQUIRED
Reasons for Appeal: ________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Appellant Name(s):___________________________________________________________ Organization (if representing) ___________________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________________________ City ________________________ State _______ ZIP _______ Phone __________________ Signature(s) _______________________________________________ Date ____________ • A separate appeal form is required for each appellant party, except for appellants from the same address, or an appellant representing an organization. • Appeals must be filed within 10 days after the decision is made (LBMC 21.21.502). • You must have established aggrieved status by presenting oral or written testimony at the hearing where the decision was rendered; otherwise, you may not appeal the decision. • See reverse of this form for the statutory provisions on the appeal process.

BELOW THIS LINE FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Appeal by Applicant Appeal by Third Party
Received by: Case. No.: Appeal Filing Date:

Fee: Fee Paid Project (receipt) No.: ___________________________ Application For Appeal
Development Services
Planning Bureau
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 2nd Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 562.570.6194
19 January 23
450 The Promenade North/501-599 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802 Please see attached.

Kelilah Federman
Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (CREED LA) Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco CA 94080-7037 (650) 589-1660
1/27/23
Comment Letter
Statutory Provisions for Appeal, from LBMC Chapter 21.21 (Administrative Procedures) Division V. - Appeals

21.21.501 - Authorization and jurisdiction.

A. Authorization. Any aggrieved person may appeal a decision on any project that required a public hearing.

B. Jurisdiction. The Planning Commission shall have jurisdiction on appeals of interpretations made pursuant to Section 21.10.045 and decisions issued by the Zoning Administrator and Site Plan Review Committee, and the City Council shall have jurisdiction on appeals from the Planning Commission as indicated in Table 21-1. Decisions lawfully appealable to the California Coastal Commission shall be appealed to that body.

21.21.502 - Time to file appeal. An appeal must be filed within ten (10) days after the decision for which a public hearing was required is made.

21.21.503 - Form of filing. All appeals shall be filed with the Department of Planning and Building on a form provided by that Department.

21.21.504 - Time for conducting hearing of appeals. A public hearing on an appeal shall be held:

A. In the case of appeals to the City Planning Commission, within sixty (60) days of the date of filing of the appeal with the Department of Planning and Building; or B. In the case of appeals to the City Council, within sixty (60) days of the receipt by the City Clerk from the Department of Planning and Building of the appeal filed with the Department.

21.21.505 - Findings on appeal. All decisions on appeal shall address and be based upon the same conclusionary findings, if any, required to be made in the original decision from which the appeal is taken.

21.21.506 - Finality of appeals.

A. Decision Rendered. After a decision on an appeal has been made and required findings of fact have been adopted, that decision shall be considered final and no other appeals may be made except:

1. Projects located seaward of the appealable area boundary, as defined in Section 21.25.908 (Coastal Permit—Appealable Area) of this title, may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission; and

2. Local coastal development permits regulated under the city's Oil Code may be appealed to the city council.

B. No Appeal Filed. After the time for filing an appeal has expired and no appeal has been filed, all decisions shall be considered final, provided that required findings of fact have been adopted.

C. Local Coastal Development. Decisions on local coastal development permits seaward of the appealable area shall not be final until the procedures specified in Chapter 21.25 (Coastal Permit) are completed.

Comment Letter
City of Long Beach
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Visit us at longbeach.gov/lbds
LongBeachBuilds
This information is available in alternative format by request at 562.570.3807.

For an electronic version of this document. visit our website at longbeach.gov/lbds.

Comment Letter
6266-004acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
January 27, 2023
Via Email and Hand Delivery
City of Long Beach City Council
Mayor Rex Richardson
Vice Mayor Cindy Allen
Councilmember Mary Zendejas
Councilmember Kristina Duggan
Councilmember Daryl Supernaw
Councilmember Megan Kerr
Councilmember Dr. Suely Saro
Councilmember Roberto Uranga
Councilmember Al Austin
Councilmember Dr. Joni Ricks-Oddie
City Manager Thomas B. Modica
City Clerk Monique De La Garza
411 West Ocean Blvd.

Long Beach, CA 90802
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Via Email Only
Scott Kinsey, AICP, Project Planner
[email protected]
Re: Appeal to City Council of Planning Commission Decision to Approve the Mosaic Project (23-009PL, 450 The Promenade North) Dear Mayor Richardson, Vice Mayor Allen, Councilmembers: Zendejas, Duggan, Supernaw, Kerr, Dr. Saro, Uranga, Austin, Dr. Ricks-Oddie, City Manager Modica, City Clerk De La Garza, and Mr. Kinsey:

We are writing on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles to appeal the City of Long Beach Planning Commission’s January 19th, 2023 decision to approve the Mosaic Project (SCH No. 2009071006) (“Project”), located at 450 The Promenade North/501-599 Long Beach Blvd. proposed by Oren Hillel for Waterford Property Company and Long Beach Center Loan, LLC (collectively, “Applicant”).1 This Appeal is taken from the following actions, and is accompanied by the payment of the required appeal fee of $432.00:
1 City of Long Beach, Planning Commission, Staff Report, Agenda Item No. 1, (January 19, 2023), http://longbeach.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11576482&GUID=90AC49BA-C7C9-4B77-9469- D7740D27570A (“Staff Report”).

Comment Letter
1 January 27, 2023

6266-004acp
printed on recycled paper
1) Planning Commission’s January 19, 2023 approval of the Addendum (EIRA-02-22) to the Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2009071006) (“Downtown Plan PEIR”)2,
2) Planning Commission’s January 19, 2023 approval of Site Plan Review for the construction of three (3) eight (8)-story apartment buildings with a total of 900 dwelling units and 38,405 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 1,383 parking stalls in at-grade parking garages (SPR22-060),
3) Planning Commission’s January 19, 2023 approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 83693 to subdivide one 170,736-square-foot lot into two lots of 101,724 and 68,712 square feet (TPM22-002), located at 450 The Promenade North/501-599 Long Beach Blvd. in the Downtown Plan Planned Development District (PD-30).

The Project proposes the complete demolition of on-site improvements, including removing all 197,513 square feet of existing commercial and retail uses in two buildings. The Project proposes to develop two eight-story mixed-use buildings and one residential building, and a standalone retail pavilion. The Project includes a total of 900 residential units. The Project includes 31,195 square feet of common indoor open space, 62,027 square feet of common outdoor open space, and 29,747 square feet of private open space. Additionally, the Project proposes to develop 38,405 square feet of leasable commercial/retail space, including a 2,405 squarefoot, one-story plus-mezzanine retail pavilion on the north side of 5th Street at the intersection with The Promenade North, separate from the three eight-story buildings. The Project is located at 450 The Promenade North/501-599 Long Beach Blvd. in the Downtown Plan Planned Development District (PD-30).

This Appeal letter, and CREED LA’s oral comments at the Planning Commission hearing on January 19, 2023,3 demonstrate that the Project may result 2 City of Long Beach, The Mosaic Project Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum (December 2022), http://longbeach.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11596311&GUID=6A73A66A-6DF0-4400-90BE22F901626769 (“Addendum”). 3 Godfrey Wachira on behalf of CREED LA – Testimony at 56:45 Planning Commission hearing January 19th, 2023,
https://longbeach.granicus.com/player/clip/13510?view_id=84&redirect=true&h=5ca5a816027cab4ad 84e4641a6c7c433 (“We have some concerns about the environmental clearance for the Project. It is inadequate as the Drury letter says. Our experts are reviewing the Addendum for issues related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise impacts and public health impacts. We do reserve the right to provide additional comments and we incorporate all comments in the administrative record.

Comment Letter
1 (cont.)
January 27, 2023

6266-004acp
printed on recycled paper
in significant environmental impacts that were not analyzed or mitigated in the Downtown Plan PEIR, or are more severe than previously analyzed, and require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report (“EIR”).

In particular, the Addendum fails to adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate the Project’s new and more severe air quality, greenhouse gas, and public health impacts. Therefore, the City lacks substantial evidence to support its decision that an Addendum is appropriate, and a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the Project.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CREED LA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Los Angeles.

Individual members of CREED LA and its member organizations, including Godfrey Wachira and others, live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Long Beach, City of Los Angeles, and other surrounding communities.

Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself.

They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

CREED LA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction industry over the longterm by supporting projects that have positive impacts for the community, and which minimize adverse environmental and public health impacts. CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.

Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more Just as an example of our concerns, with regards to air quality, the City uses Tier 4 emissions standards in its air quality emissions calculations, yet such equipment is not required in the mitigation measures. So because Tier 4 obviously has less emissions, the calculation makes the Project not have significant impacts. But if it’s not required in the mitigation measures what guarantees are there that Tier 4 equipment will be used during construction? That’s an inadequate mitigation measure right there. There are many more. Also, the Project is using the Downtown Plan EIR and the Commission can use a statement of overriding considerations to require local hire.”) Comment Letter
1 (cont.)
2 January 27, 2023

6266-004acp
printed on recycled paper
difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.

II. THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S RELIANCE AN ADDENDUM

FOR PROJECT APPROVAL VIOLATED CEQA
CEQA has two basic purposes, neither of which are satisfied by the Addendum. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental impacts of a project before harm is done to the environment.4 The EIR is the “heart” of this requirement.5 The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”6
To fulfill this function, the discussion of impacts in an EIR must be detailed, complete, and “reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure.”7 An adequate EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just an agency’s conclusions.8 CEQA requires an EIR to disclose all potential direct and indirect, significant environmental impacts of a project.9
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring imposition of mitigation measures and by requiring the consideration of environmentally superior alternatives.10 If an EIR identifies potentially significant impacts, it must then propose and evaluate mitigation measures to minimize these impacts.11 CEQA imposes an affirmative obligation on agencies to avoid or reduce environmental harm by adopting feasible 4 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15002(a)(1) (“CEQA Guidelines”); Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.
5 No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 84. 6 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. 7 CEQA Guidelines § 15151; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 721-722.
8 See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 568. 9 Pub. Resources Code § 21100(b)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a). 10 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of Cal. (1998) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. 11 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3).

Comment Letter
2 (cont.)
3 January 27, 2023

6266-004acp
printed on recycled paper
project alternatives or mitigation measures.12 Without an adequate analysis and description of feasible mitigation measures, it would be impossible for agencies relying upon the EIR to meet this obligation.

Under CEQA, an EIR must not only discuss measures to avoid or minimize adverse impacts, but must ensure that mitigation conditions are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments.13 A CEQA lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA findings unless the record shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved; an agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility.14 This approach helps “insure the integrity of the process of decision by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug.”15
Following preliminary review of a project to determine whether an activity is subject to CEQA, a lead agency is required to prepare an initial study to determine whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration, identify whether a program EIR, tiering, or other appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project’s environmental effects, or determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project, among other purposes.16 CEQA requires an agency to analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an EIR except in certain limited circumstances.17 A negative declaration may be prepared instead of an EIR when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project “would not have a significant effect on the environment.”18 When an environmental document has already been prepared for a project, CEQA requires the lead agency to conduct subsequent or supplemental environmental review when one or more of the following events occur:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report;
12 Id., §§ 21002-21002.1.
13 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2). 14 Kings County Farm Bur. v. County of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727-28 (a groundwater purchase agreement found to be inadequate mitigation because there was no record evidence that replacement water was available).
15 Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935. 16 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060, 15063(c).
17 See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code § 21100. 18 Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597; Pub. Resources Code § 21080(c).

Comment Letter
3 (cont.)
4 January 27, 2023

6266-004acp
printed on recycled paper
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report; or
(c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.19
The CEQA Guidelines explain that the lead agency must determine, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, if one or more of the following events occur:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
19 Pub. Resources Code § 21166.

Comment Letter
4 (cont.)
January 27, 2023

6266-004acp
printed on recycled paper
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.20
Only where none of the conditions described above calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred may the lead agency consider preparing a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.21
Here, the City’s decision to prepare an Addendum, rather than a subsequent or supplemental EIR, for the Project, was not supported by substantial evidence.

The Addendum does not simply provide “some changes or additions” to the EIR.

Rather, it includes project-level analysis for construction of a new three (3) eight (8)- story apartment buildings with a total of 900 dwelling units and 38,405 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 1,383 parking stalls in at-grade parking garages. Accordingly, the Project may have new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the Downtown Plan PEIR, and has site-specific impacts that were not analyzed in the program EIR and required project-level review at this stage pursuant to CEQA.22 And as described below, the Addendum’s site-specific analysis conducted for the Project is also flawed in several ways. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s reliance on the Addendum for Project approval was an abuse of discretion and contrary to law. The Planning Commission’s decision to adopt the Addendum should be vacated, and a subsequent or supplemental EIR prepared for the Project.

A. The Project May Result in New and More Significant Project-Level Impacts than Previously Analyzed
The Project involves the construction of three (3) eight (8)-story apartment buildings with a total of 900 dwelling units and 38,405 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 1,383 parking stalls in at-grade parking garages. The Addendum relies on the Downtown Plan PEIR, which contemplated 5,000 units of additional housing, and has already approved more than 3596 units under the 20 CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(1)-(3).
21 CEQA Guidelines § 15162(b).
22 Id.; § 15164.

Comment Letter
4 (cont.)
5 January 27, 2023

6266-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Downtown Plan PEIR.23 However, construction of this Project may cause the City to exceed the 5,000 units contemplated in the Downtown Plan PEIR, and the Addendum does not analyze the impacts of this exceedance.

The Addendum also recognizes that the Project exceeds the CAAP screening threshold for annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, but concludes that Project impacts to GHG emissions would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, GHG-1(a) and GHG-2(b).24 But, the Addendum does not provide substantial evidence to support this conclusion. The Project may require a backup generator due to its size and scale, but the Air Quality and GHG modeling does not account for backup generator emissions which may be significant under CEQA. Further, the Addendum fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s construction and operational air emissions. For these reasons, and as discussed herein, the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project and adopt the Addendum was not supported by substantial evidence and should be vacated. The City must prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR for the Project before the Project can be reconsidered for approval.

B. The City’s Air Quality Analysis Fails to Disclose Back-Up Generator Emissions, thus Underestimating the Project’s Potentially Significant Air Quality, GHG, and Health Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 defines “project” to mean “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”25 Courts have explained that a complete description of a project must “address not only the immediate environmental consequences of going forward with the project, but also all “reasonably foreseeable consequence[s] of the initial project.”26 “If a[n]…EIR…does not adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project for intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences of the project, informed decision-making cannot occur under CEQA and the final EIR is inadequate as a matter of law.”27
23 CEQANet, SCH Number 2009071006, Downtown Long Beach Community Plan (EIR-04-08), https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/Project/2009071006. 24 Addendum p. 83. 25 CEQA Guidelines § 15378.
26 Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 398 (emphasis added); see also Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 449-50. 27 Riverwatch v. Olivenhain Municipal Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal. App. 4th 1186, 1201.

Comment Letter
5 (cont.)
6 7
January 27, 2023

6266-004acp
printed on recycled paper
The Addendum fails to accurately disclose whether backup generators will be used during project operation. The Addendum’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis states that “the proposed project does not include any emergency generators.”28 But, Table M of the Addendum details the number of hours that will be utilized for Building Construction – Generator Sets which may be used up to 8 hours per day.29 Backup generators will certainly be used for Project construction.

And emergency backup generators may also be required for Project operation due to the Project’s size and scope. The Project may be required to have an emergency backup generator to supply emergency power to the elevator system in the case of a loss of power.

Such generators can significantly impact air quality, GHG emissions, and public health through DPM emissions.30 Therefore, since the Project involves the reasonably foreseeable use of a back-up generator, the Addendum’s failure to disclose the impacts of emissions resulting from the use of such a generator is a failure to disclose all “reasonably foreseeable consequence[s] of the initial project.”31 These consequences may include significant air quality, GHG emissions, and public health impacts. According to SCAQMD Rules 1110.232 and 1470,33 back-up generators are allowed to operate for up to 200 hours per year, and operate for maintenance up to 50 hours per year.
28 Addendum, p. 1.
29 Id. at 59.
30 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps (showing that generators commonly rely on gasoline or diesel, and that use of generators during power outages results in excess emissions); California Air Resources Board, Use of Back-up Engines for Electricity Generation During Public Safety Power Shutoff Events (October 25, 2019), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/use-back-engines-electricity-generation-during-publicsafety-power-shutoff (“When electric utilities de-energize their electric lines, the demand for back-up power increases. This demand for reliable back-up power has health impacts of its own. Of particular concern are health effects related to emissions from diesel back-up engines. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant, composed of carbon particles and numerous organic compounds, including over forty known cancer-causing organic substances. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs and make them more susceptible to injury.

Much of the back-up power produced during PSPS events is expected to come from engines regulated by CARB and California’s 35 air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts)”).
31 Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 398.
32 Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/rule-1110-2.pdf. 33 Available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xiv/rule-1470.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

Comment Letter
7 (cont.)
January 27, 2023

6266-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Further, a back-up generator would operate during unscheduled events like Public Safety Power Shutoff (“PSPS”) events and extreme heat events (“EHEs”).

Although such events are unscheduled, they occur frequently enough in California that they are reasonably foreseeable. For example, the total duration of PSPS events in California lasted between 141 hours to 154 hours in 2019. In 2021, two EHEs have been declared so far, which lasted 120 hours combined. These two EHEs would have tripled the calculated yearly DPM emissions from the Project.

These conditions are expected to increase in severity.34 Therefore, a failure to consider this source of emissions drastically underestimates the Project’s air quality, GHG, and public health impacts. A subsequent or supplemental EIR must be prepared to analyze these potentially significant impacts.

C. The Addendum Incorrectly Claims to Mitigate the Project’s Significant Air Pollution and GHG Impacts with Nonbinding Mitigation
Public agencies must adopt feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen or avoid a project’s potentially significant environmental impacts and describe those mitigation measures in the CEQA document.35 A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility.36 “Feasible” means capable of successful accomplishment within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.37 Mitigation measures must be enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.38 CEQA requires an EIR identify mitigation measures which are both effective and enforceable. “Effective” means the measures can reasonably be expected to avoid or reduce a potential significant impact.39 “Enforceable” means the measures are stated as conditions of approval in a permit, agreement or other legally binding document or incorporated into a plan, policy, regulation, or project design.40 34 OEHHA, Extreme Heat Events, February 11, 2019, https://oehha.ca.gov/epic/changesclimate/extreme-heat-events (showing that frequency of extreme heat events is increasing); NASA Earth Observatory, California Heatwave Fits a Trend, September 6, 2020, https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/147256/california-heatwave-fits-a-trend (showing trends toward longer and more intense heatwaves in Southern California). 35 Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002, 21081(a), 21100(b)(3); 14 C.C.R. § 15126.4. 36 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727–728. 37 14 C.C.R. § 15364.
38 Id. § 15126.4(a)(2).
39 14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(A).
40 14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(A).

Comment Letter
7 (cont.)
8 January 27, 2023

6266-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) provides that “[a]ll offroad diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available.”41 “Where available” is not binding. Mitigation measures must be enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.42 AQ-1 is therefore insufficient mitigation to reduce the Project’s air quality, public health, and GHG emissions to the greatest extent feasible.

Further, Mitigation Measure AQ-4(b) provides that MERV technology will be utilized.43 And includes in another nonbinding section of the Addendum that MERV 13 filters will be utilized.44 If the air quality emissions calculations were conducted based on MERV 13 specifications, but MERV 13 filters are not legally required under the MMRP, then the indoor air quality may be worse than estimated in the Addendum. Absent the use of the most protective MERV filter, indoor air quality impacts may be significant and unmitigated. The City must revise MM AQ-4(b) to require the most protective MERV filter available to ensure the safest indoor air quality in binding mitigation before the Project can be approved. An EIR must thus be prepared which adequately analyzes and mitigates Project air quality and GHG impacts.

D. The Addendum Fails to Disclose Potentially Significant Health Risks from Construction Emissions that Are More Severe than Previously Analyzed
An agency must support its findings of a project’s potential environmental impacts with concrete evidence, with “sufficient information to foster informed public participation and to enable the decision makers to consider the environmental factors necessary to make a reasoned decision.”45 A project’s health risks “must be ‘clearly identified’ and the discussion must include ‘relevant specifics’ about the environmental changes attributable to the Project and their associated health outcomes.”46
Courts have held that an environmental review document must disclose a project’s potential health risks to a degree of specificity that would allow the public 41 Addendum, p. 12.
42 14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(2).
43 Addendum, p. 14. 44 Addendum Appendix D Mosaic Project Energy Memorandum. 45 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516. 46 Id. at 518.

Comment Letter
8 (cont.)
9 10
January 27, 2023

6266-004acp
printed on recycled paper
to make the correlation between the project’s impacts and adverse effects to human health.47 In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”), the court found that the EIRs’ description of health risks were insufficient and that after reading them, “the public would have no idea of the health consequences that result when more pollutants are added to a nonattainment basin.”48 And in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (“Sierra Club”), the Supreme Court of California disapproved of an EIR that failed to compare the health effects from exposure to ozone emissions against applicable thresholds.49 The Court held that it is insufficient to merely state that “exposure to ambient levels of ozone ranging from 0.10 to 0.40 [parts per million of ozone] has been found to significantly alter lung functions” – the EIR must also compare the Project’s impacts against this threshold.50
Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) provides:

Prior to construction of each development phase of onsite land uses that are proposed within 1,500 feet of sensitive receptors, each project applicant shall perform a project-level CEQA analysis that includes a detailed LST analysis of construction generated emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to assess the impact at nearby sensitive receptors. The LST analysis shall be performed in accordance with applicable SCAQMD guidance that is in place at the time the analysis is performed. The project-level analysis shall incorporate detailed parameters of the construction equipment and activities, including the year during which construction would be performed, as well as the proximity of potentially affected receptors, including receptors proposed by the project that exist at the time the construction activity would occur.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) does not provide mitigation for construction generated diesel particulate matter because the proposed LST analysis addresses only criteria pollutants, and not toxic air contaminants like diesel particulate matter. The Measure also constitutes impermissibly deferred analysis of the Project’s air quality impacts. The Planning Commission’s reliance on Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) to mitigate the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts resulting from the Project’s air emissions was contrary to CEQA and not supported by substantial evidence. The City Council should vacate the Commission’s decision 47 Id. at 518–520; Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184.
48 Bakersfield at 1220.
49 (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 517
50 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 519.

Comment Letter
10 (cont.)
January 27, 2023

6266-004acp
printed on recycled paper
and circulate an EIR which adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s impacts associated with construction-related diesel particulate matter emissions, before the Project can be approved.

III. CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission failed to proceed in the manner required by law by approving the Addendum and the Project’s underlying entitlements in reliance on a legally deficient CEQA document which does not fully analyze or mitigate the Project’s significant environmental and public health impacts. As a result, the Planning Commission also lacked substantial evidence to support the findings necessary to approve the Project,
For these reasons, and as will be presented to the City Council at the appeal hearing, we urge the City Council to uphold this appeal, vacate the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project and remand the Project to staff to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR for the Project before the City considers approval of the Project.

Sincerely,
Kelilah D. Federman
Attachment
KDF:acp
Comment Letter
10 (cont.)
11 Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 18 ESA / D201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2023
Response to Comment 1
This comment states the commenter’s desire to appeal the City of Long Beach Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Mosaic Project (project) and provides a description of the project. This comment also states that this appeal letter and CREED LA’s oral comments at the Planning Commission hearing demonstrate that the project may result in significant environmental impacts, particularly for air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), and public health impacts, that were not previously analyzed or mitigated in the Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (Certified PEIR), or are more severe than previously analyzed and as such, require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report (EIR), rather than the Mosaic Project Addendum ("Mosaic Addendum" or "Addendum").

Refer to Responses to Comments 2 and 5 through 10 below, which demonstrate that the project would not result in significant environmental impacts, including for air quality, GHG, and public health, that were not analyzed or mitigated in the Certified PEIR or Land Use Equivalency Program (LUEP) Addendum, or that are more severe than previously analyzed. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR for the project would not be required.

Response to Comment 2
This comment provides background information on CREED LA and states that members of CREED LA as well as other member organizations would be directly affected by the project’s environmental health and safety impacts as the project has inadequate mitigation for air quality emissions. The comment provides an example of inadequate air quality mitigation by stating that Tier 4 emissions standards are included in the project’s air quality calculations but are not required in the project’s mitigation measures. The comment also states that continued environmental degradation can cause construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that reduce future employment opportunities and that the Planning Commission can use a statement of overriding considerations to require local hire.

As discussed in Section XVIII, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the Addendum, generally, impacts to human beings are specifically focused on impacts associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. As demonstrated throughout the Addendum, compliance with applicable rules and regulations along with implementation of the identified mitigation measures from the Certified PEIR would ensure that the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts, or a substantial increase in severity of air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts than those identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Therefore, the Addendum determined that the proposed project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in adverse hazards to human beings related to impacts associated with air quality, hazardous materials, or noise.

In response to the example provided by the comment that the Mosaic Addendum uses inadequate mitigation, refer to Response to Comment 8 below which addresses Tier 4 emissions standards and the adequacy of Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c).

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 19 ESA / D201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2023
The comment regarding the need for the Planning Commission to issue a statement of overriding considerations to require local hire is inaccurate since the project would not result in new significant environmental impacts, would not increase the severity of any environmental effects disclosed in the PEIR and the LUEP Addendum, and thus, there is no need for the Planning Commission to adopt a statement of overriding considerations for the project. As discussed in the Mosaic Addendum, the project is consistent with the Downtown Plan as modified by the LEUP and complies with the City’s General Plan and applicable zoning regulations.

In addition, the comment does not provide substantive evidence to support the claim that environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that reduce future employment opportunities. As such, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 3
The comment summarizes the purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the process of determining the appropriate type of environmental document in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Since the comment does not raise an environmental issue regarding the adequacy of the Addendum, no further response is required.

Response to Comment 4
The comment lists the conditions established by Public Resources section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15163) that require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental document. The comment also states that a subsequent or supplemental EIR should be prepared for the project, instead of an Addendum, as the project may have new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed in the Certified PEIR and would result in site-specific impacts that were not previously analyzed in the Certified PEIR thus would require project-level review. The comment also states that the Addendum’s site-specific analysis is flawed in several ways and that the Planning Commission’s reliance on the Addendum for project approval was an abuse of discretion and contrary to law.

Sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines state that when an EIR or negative declaration has been adopted for a project, an agency should not prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR unless the agency determines that substantial changes to the project, substantial new circumstances, or substantial new information will result in new or more adverse significant effects that require major revisions to the prior EIR. The comment incorrectly states that an Addendum was an inappropriate CEQA document for the proposed project as none of the conditions listed in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines were triggered. Instead, an Addendum may be prepared to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but these changes or additions do not trigger the conditions set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, an Addendum is an appropriate CEQA document to be used by an agency to make the determinations under Section 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164, subd. (a). Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 937, 946.) Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the decision-making body shall consider an Addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. The proposed project includes a refined design and layout of Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 20 ESA / D201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2023
commercial/retail, residential, and open space uses planned for in the Downtown Plan and analyzed in the Certified PEIR and the LUEP Addendum. Furthermore, the Addendum incorporates all applicable mitigation measures established in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Since the discussion provides project-level details of the uses planned for in the Downtown Plan and evaluated in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, an Addendum was the appropriate CEQA document to analyze the project’s changes and/or additions and to demonstrate that the project is within the development envelope previously analyzed in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

In addition, refer to Responses to Comments 2 and 5 through 10 which further demonstrate that the project would not result in significant environmental impacts that were not analyzed or mitigated in the Certified PEIR or LUEP Addendum, or that are more severe than previously analyzed.

Therefore, preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required for the proposed project.

In regard to the comment’s statement that the Addendum’s site-specific analysis is flawed, the commenter does not provide specific examples or substantive evidence to support this claim. As demonstrated above and in Responses to Comments 5 through 10, the analysis presented in the Addendum is technically accurate and considered adequate in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. As such, no further response is warranted.

Response to Comment 5
The comment argues that construction of the project may cause the City to exceed the 5,000 housing units contemplated in the Certified PEIR since more than 3,596 housing units have already been approved. The commenter argues that the Addendum does not analyze the impacts of this exceedance.

As discussed on pages 1 and 2 of the Addendum, in January 2022, the City approved an Addendum to the Certified PEIR, which included approval of a Land Use Equivalency Program (LUEP) to characterize the extent of additional residential development that could occur within the Downtown Plan area which could be exchanged with the assumed buildout of restaurant, retail, office, and hotel uses such that applicable regulations are satisfied. The LUEP allows for the reallocation of permitted land uses within the Downtown Plan area on a project-by-project basis so long as the limitation of the LUEP are satisfied, no additional significant environmental impacts would occur, substantially greater impacts beyond those previously identified in the Certified PEIR would not occur, and exceedances of the average maximum Floor Area Ratios (FAR) contemplated by the Downtown Plan, including FAR incentives, would not occur. The LUEP provides development flexibility so that the planned land uses under the Downtown Plan can respond to market conditions over the buildout duration of the Downtown Plan. As a part of the LUEP, a LUEP Memorandum and Downtown Plan Equivalency Calculator were developed to allow the City to easily track approved projects in the Downtown Plan area and to reduce commensurate levels of available commercial, office, and/or hotel space to accommodate increased demand for residential housing units. The Downtown Plan Calculator developed a conservative exchange rate to allow for the reallocation of commercial, office, and/or hotel space as residential units such that applicable regulations are satisfied, and no additional significant environmental impacts or substantially greater impacts would occur than previously identified in the Certified PEIR.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 21 ESA / D201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2023
The Downtown Plan Equivalency Calculator provides for the initial reallocation of non-residential land uses to account for an additional 3,260 housing units to be developed within the downtown.

The 3,260 additionally approved residential units can be accommodated by reducing office by 417,060 square feet, commercial uses by 135,320 square feet, and hotel uses by 177 rooms. Taking into account the development pending approval and/or already approved, this leaves a balance of 3,008 dwelling units, 592,950 square feet of office space, 140,970 square feet of commercial space, and 400 hotel rooms. Given that the Mosaic Project proposes to develop 900 residential units, 38,405 square feet of commercial space, and 2,405 square feet of retail space, the proposed project is within the development envelope of the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of residential housing units and no additional significant environmental impacts or substantially greater impacts would occur than those previously identified in the Certified PEIR.

Response to Comment 6
The commenter argues that the project exceeds the CAAP screening threshold for annual GHG emissions, but the Mosaic Addendum concludes that the project impacts to GHG emissions would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, AQ-2, and GHG-1(a) and GHG-2(b). The commenter also argues that the Addendum does not provide substantial evidence to support this conclusion.

As discussed on page 85 of the Addendum, the proposed project would exceed the CAAP screening threshold of 1.4 MTCO2e per service population as outlined in the SEIP for the CAAP. However, as explained in the footnote, the 1.4 MTCO2e per service population is the CAAP screening threshold but the CAAP GHG reduction goal for 2030 is 3.04 MTCO2e per service population.

Since the proposed project is estimated to result in GHG emissions of 1.5 MTCO2e per service population, which is below the CAAP reduction goal for 2030, the proposed project is subject to the CAAP Review Checklist to prove conformity with the CAAP. The 3.04 MTCO2e per service population is the adopted CAAP GHG reduction goal, but at the time the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis report was prepared (August 2022) the CAAP was still in draft form and was not adopted until August 26, 2022. The technical report served as the basis of the GHG section within the Addendum.

Additionally, as further stated on pages 83 and 84 of the Addendum, the proposed project would be required to fill out the CAAP Review Checklist to show that it conforms to the City’s General Plan and CAAP GHG Emission Reduction Actions. Furthermore, implementation of Regulatory Control Measure GHG-1 (refer to page 84 of the Addendum) would ensure that the proposed project complies with all CAAP Action Consistency Requirements. As such, the proposed project would implement CAAP Mitigation Action T-6: Increase Employment and Residential Development along Primary Transit Corridors. Support and incentivizing infill residential and commercial development along major transit corridors is a key strategy of the CAAP to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed project would develop a new mixed-use residential and commercial building on an infill location, which would locate residents and employees near existing residential and commercial uses and alternative modes of transportation including the Metro A Line (Blue) and other nearby public transit lines; thus, it would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the demand for travel by single-occupancy vehicles. Therefore, the Addendum provides substantial Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 22 ESA / D201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2023
evidence to support the conclusion of a less than significant impact, and that a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required.

Response to Comment 7
The comment states the Addendum fails to accurately disclose whether a backup generator would be used during project operation. The comment states that Table M of the Addendum lists the assumed hours of operation for the generator sets utilized for building construction but asserts that backup generators may also be used for project operation due to the project’s size and scope. The comment also states a back-up generator would operate during unscheduled events like Public Safety Power Shutoff (“PSPS”) events and extreme heat events (“EHEs”).

The Addendum discloses all the anticipated project features on pages 2 and 5. Additionally, page 1 of Appendix B states that the proposed project is not anticipated to include any emergency generators and further, are not required by applicable regulations or are considered reasonably foreseeable. Emergency generators are not required by the local jurisdiction. The commenter’s assertion that the project would include a back-up generator is not supported by substantial evidence, is speculative, and does not require further evaluation per CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 (“If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.”). However, for informational purposes, if the project were to include an emergency generator, the generator would be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1470 Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines. Under Rule 1470, the project would produce additional emissions related to the occasional maintenance and testing for a maximum of 50 hours per year and these emissions would not cause the operating emissions provided in Table 4 Unmitigated Maximum Regional Operational Emissions, found on page 63 of the Addendum, to exceed the stated significance thresholds because the projected operational emissions are well below the significance threshold.

In regard to the comment concerning unscheduled events such as PSPS or EHEs, the exact number of events and hours of operation of the generators cannot be reliably estimated, and thus analysis of the potential use of backup generators and associated emissions is speculative and not required per CEQA 15145. Therefore, emissions are not considered to be underestimated, and a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required.

Response to Comment 8
The comment states that Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) provides that “[a]ll offroad diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available.” However, the comment states that the “Where available” is not binding and is insufficient mitigation because it is not enforceable.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) is an enforceable measure because the construction equipment is available to meet the Tier 4 emissions standards. The Applicant has confirmed that the construction equipment on the project will comply with Tier 4 emissions standards. The phrase, “where Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 23 ESA / D201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2023
available” was added when the Certified PEIR was prepared in 2010 and Tier 4 was a relatively new technology and thus not as widely available. As discussed on page 59 of the Addendum, the proposed project would utilize a low-emissions construction fleet meeting the current emission standards of CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 13, Section 2449. This regulation aims to reduce emissions through the installation of diesel soot filters and encouraging the retirement, replacement, or repower of older, dirtier engines with newer emission-controlled models. All contractors using off-road diesel equipment are subject to these Regulations and are responsible for compliance with their requirements. Implementation of these standards was staggered based on fleet size (which is the total of all off-road horsepower under common ownership or control), with large fleets beginning compliance in 2014, medium fleets in 2017, and small fleets in 2019. The compliance schedule requires that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) turn overs or retrofits (Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies [VDECS] installation) be fully implemented by 2023 in all equipment large fleets (fleets with more than 5,000 hp) and medium fleets (fleets with 2,501 to 5,000 hp) and by 2028 for small fleets (fleets with less than or equal to 2,500 hp). Regardless of the project construction contractor’s fleet size, construction equipment greater than 50 hp used for the proposed project will comply with the enforceable Tier 4 emission standards and CARB Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy via Certified PEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c).

Additional evidence of the availability of cleaner construction equipment meeting the Tier 4 standard is provided in the CARB OFFROAD model, which is CARB’s inventory tool for off-road diesel equipment that provides the population, emissions, fuel, and equipment information for offroad diesel vehicles. Any heavy-duty diesel equipment manufactured in 2015 or later is required to meet the Tier 4 Final emission standards. The OFFROAD2017 was used to estimate the amount of Tier 4 Final equipment that would be available in 2023. Project construction may begin at a later date (and is anticipated to begin in 2024), in which case the supply of Tier 4 Final equipment would be higher compared to year 2023. Based on CARB OFFROAD2021 model, which utilizes empirical data regarding the adoption rate of previous engine Tiers after their introduction to forecast future year adoption rates, the 2023 statewide construction fleet (50 hp and greater) is estimated to include 75,652 Model Year 2015+ pieces of diesel equipment meeting Tier 4 Final emission standards out of 150,575 aggregate (50 hp and greater) pieces of diesel equipment, representing approximately 50 percent of the statewide construction fleet. The Applicant has confirmed that construction equipment to comply with the Tier 4 emissions standard is available.

Additionally, as discussed on page 12 of the Addendum, Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) specifically says “prior to issuance of grading permit” which is an enforceable condition. As outlined on page 12, “a copy of each unit’s certification tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment”, which is also an enforceable condition. Under Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) the requirement of all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp to meet Tier 4 emissions standards, where available, is both enforceable, as it is required that a copy of each unit’s tier certification be provided at the time of equipment mobilization prior to issuance of a grading permit, and effective, as Tier 4 equipment will reduce air quality and GHG emissions over Tier 1 through 3 equipment. Therefore, since Tier 4 construction equipment is available, Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) is enforceable.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 24 ESA / D201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2023
Response to Comment 9
The comment states that Mitigation Measure AQ-4(b) provides that Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) technology will be utilized then suggests that the requirement to use MERV 13 filters is not binding. The comment also asserts that if MERV 13 filters are not used, indoor air quality may be worse than analyzed. The comment asserts that the City must revise MM AQ-4(b) to require the most protective MERV filter available to ensure the safest indoor air quality.

As discussed on page 14 of the Addendum, Mitigation Measure AQ-4(b) states that “the City shall verify that the following measures are implemented by new developments”; thus, the measure is enforceable by permit requirements. The Applicant is required to use MERV 13 filters per California Title 24, Part 6 (Building Energy Efficiency Standards), Section 120.1. Therefore, MERV 13 filters are included in the project, required by State building standards, and will be recommended for inclusion as a Condition of Approval. The Mitigation Measure states that all proposed residences in the Downtown Plan area shall be equipped with filter systems with high MERV ratings for removal of small particles (such as 0.3 micron) at all air intake points to the residence. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1, MERV 13 filters have reduction efficiencies of 50, 85, and 90 percent for particles with diameter ranges of 0.3 to 1.0 microns, 1.0 to 3.0 microns, and 3.0 to 10.0 microns, respectively. Mitigation Measure AQ-2, on page 59 of the Addendum, also states the project would be required to meet the Title 24 standards in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The most recent version of the Title 24 standards requires the installation of filters that meet MERV 13. Furthermore, page 1 of Appendix D of the Addendum documents that the project will be using high efficiency HVAC equipment (15 SEER minimum) with MERV 13 filters. As shown in Tables 4 and 6, pages 63 and 65 of the Addendum, respectively, the project’s regional and localized operational emissions are less than significant.

Additionally, page 67 of the Addendum specifies that mitigation measures would reduce concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs) to which sensitive receptors would be exposed for time spent indoors and would disclose to those considering residing in the Downtown Plan area the potential risk involved. Therefore, since Mitigation Measure AQ-4(b) is enforceable, and as such is binding, the measure does not need to be revised.

Response to Comment 10
The comment asserts that the Addendum does not evaluate whether the project will have new or more severe significant health effects of exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). The comment asserts that Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) does not mitigate construction-generated diesel particulate matter because the proposed Local Significant Threshold (LST) analysis addresses only criteria pollutants. The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum evaluated exposure to TAC from land uses in the Downtown Plan (Addendum, p. 56). The Mosaic Addendum also evaluated exposure to TACs (Addendum, p. 66). Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) was included as mitigation for the certified Downtown Plan PEIR. It required that projects proposed within the Downtown Plan area conduct a project-level CEQA analysis that includes a detailed SCAQMD LST analysis of construction generated emissions if the project is located within 1,500 feet of sensitive receptors. The Addendum 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. What is a MERV rating? https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-qualityiaq/what-merv-rating. Accessed February 8, 2023.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 25 ESA / D201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2023
included all mitigation measures from the Certified PEIR’s adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), including Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b).

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) does not impermissibly defer analysis of project TAC emissions.

First, the Certified PEIR provided a programmatic-level analysis of environmental impacts and required proposed projects to prepare a project-level analysis of LST impacts. In accordance with Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b), the proposed project conducted a detailed LST analysis of construction generated emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, as shown in Table 5, Unmitigated Localized Construction Emissions, on page 65 of the Addendum. As presented in Table 5, the project does not exceed the SCAQMD LST significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

Of note, PM2.5 emissions include heavy-duty diesel equipment and vehicle exhaust emissions, otherwise referred to as diesel particulate matter, which is a State of California identified TAC. The SCAQMD LST procedure was developed to specifically to reduce health risks and provide and indicator of CEQA significance.2 Thus, the project’s compliance with the applicable LSTs would reduce health risks from criteria pollutant emissions and TAC emissions. Furthermore, as discussed Response to Comment 8, Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) requires the use of construction equipment that meet the Tier 4 emission standards and CARB Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy, which are the most stringent standards for reducing heavy-duty equipment exhaust emissions including diesel particulate matter. Based on the above, the proposed project complied with Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) by performing the project-level LST analysis in the Addendum and Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) does not constitute impermissibly deferred mitigation.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) does not provide additional mitigation for construction diesel particulate matter (DPM) because PM10 and PM2.5 emissions do not exceed the LST significance thresholds as presented in Table 5 of the Addendum. DPM is represented by the equipment exhaust emissions which produce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions as discussed on page 65 of the Addendum.

Therefore, the LST analysis accounts for DPM in the PM10 and PM2.5 emission values used in the analysis. As shown in Table 5, both PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are below the significance thresholds and therefore, do not result in significant impacts requiring mitigation. Furthermore, project construction would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a), which includes enhanced exhaust control practices on off-road vehicles and off-road construction equipment. As shown in Table 5, project construction emissions, including PM10 and PM2.5 exhaust emissions, would be below the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds and within the overall construction emissions identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. As a result, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe significant construction LST impacts and would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Thus, the proposed project complies with Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) and adequately 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, p. 1-4, June 2003, Revised July 2008. The Methodology states: “Category I: Further-Reduced Health Risk, Enhancement I-4 included a proposal to ‘continue to develop localized significance thresholds for subregions of the air district, as another indicator of CEQA significance.’ Enhancement I-4 also directed staff to continue developing localized significance thresholds through a stakeholder working group. Staff has since met with the stakeholder working group two times and, with input from the stakeholder working group, developed a proposal to implement Enhancement I-4.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 26 ESA / D201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2023
analyzes and mitigates the project’s construction-related impacts, including impacts associated with DPM emissions, and does not fail to disclose potentially significant health risks.

Response to Comment 11
The comment argues that the Planning Commission failed to proceed in the manner required by law by approving the Addendum. The comment requests that the City Council uphold the appeal and require the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR for the project and arguing that the Addendum does not fully analyze or mitigate the project’s significant environmental and public health impacts.

Refer to Responses to Comments 2 and 5 through 10, above, which demonstrate that the project would not result in significant environmental impacts that were not analyzed or mitigated in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum or impacts that are more severe than previously analyzed.

Therefore, preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR would not be required, and an Addendum is the appropriate level of CEQA documentation for the project.

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
2565 Alluvial Avenue, Suite 172, Clovis, California 93611 559.490.1210 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 7, 2023
TO: Oren Hillel, Long Beach Center Loan LLC
FROM: Amy Fischer, President
Cara Cunningham, Associate
SUBJECT: Mosaic Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis - Response to Comments LSA has reviewed comments from Kelilah Federman of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on the Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) Addendum for The Mosaic Project prepared by ESA dated December 2022. LSA prepared the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the proposed project dated October 2022 (Appendix B of the Addendum). The findings from the report were used as the basis for the findings in the Addendum. LSA reviewed the comments related to backup generator emissions, air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation measures, and construction health risk analysis (pages 8 through 13 of the comment letter).

BACKUP GENERATOR EMISSIONS
The comment letter asserts that emergency backup generators may be used during project construction and operation and that the analysis should consider air quality, GHG, and public health impacts associated with emergency backup generators.

The comment letter also states that Table M of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix B of the Addendum) identifies that generator sets may be used for up to 8 hours per day and that the analysis should analyze emissions associated with emergency backup generators. As discussed on Page 50 of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, the California Emission Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod) computer program was used to calculate emissions from on-site construction equipment and emissions from worker and vehicle trips to the site. The analysis utilizes CalEEMod default assumptions for construction equipment, which are identified in Table M of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis. As shown in Table M of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, one generator set would be used for up to 8 hours per day during the building construction phase, which is estimated to occur from April 29, 2024 to May 21, 2027. The use of the generator set during construction is included in the construction-related air quality emissions shown in Table 3 of the Addendum, maximum localized construction emissions shown in Table 5 of the Addendum, and amortized construction GHG emissions shown in Table 7 of the Addendum. The health effects associated with the use of the generator set during construction is included in the localized analysis for the project. As such, use of the generator set is included in the construction-related air quality and GHG analyses, and no additional analysis is required. 4/7/23 (P:\LBL2201\Air Quality\Appeal Letter\Mosaic LB Appeal Letter RTC - 04072023.docx) 2 As discussed on Page 1 of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, once operational, the proposed project would not include any emergency backup generators. The proposed project would provide emergency lighting and egress/path lighting on a centralized battery invertor, which would be electric. Because backup generators would not be used during project operations, there would be no new significant or more severe air quality or health effect. As such, no additional analysis is required.

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS MITIGATION MEASURES
The comment letter asserts that Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) provides that “[a]ll offroad dieselpowered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available” and that “where available” is not enforceable. As such, the comment letter claims that Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is insufficient mitigation to reduce the proposed project’s air quality, public health, and GHG emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) is an enforceable measure because construction equipment is available to meet the Tier 4 emissions standards, and the air quality regulations requiring Tier 4 engines are enforceable. The Applicant has confirmed that the construction equipment on the project is available and would comply with Tier 4 emissions standards.

As outlined on page 12 of the Addendum, Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) states that post-January 1, 2015, all offroad diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) states that all construction equipment shall be outfitted with best available control technology (BACT) devices certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and that any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) requires that a copy of each unit’s certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. All contractors using off-road diesel equipment are subject to these regulations and are responsible for compliance with their requirements. Implementation of the CARB standards was staggered based on fleet size (which is the total of all off-road horsepower under common ownership or control), with large fleets beginning compliance in 2014, medium fleets in 2017, and small fleets in 2019. The compliance schedule requires that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) turn overs or retrofits (Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies [VDECS] installation) be fully implemented by 2023 in all equipment for large fleets (fleets with more than 5,000 total horsepower) and medium fleets (fleets with 2,501 to 5,000 total horsepower) and by 2028 for small fleets (fleets with less than or equal to 2,500 horsepower). Any heavy-duty diesel equipment manufactured in 2015 or later is required to meet the Tier 4 Final emission standards.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) is an enforceable measure because the construction equipment is available to meet the Tier 4 emissions standards. The Applicant has confirmed that the construction equipment on the project would comply with Tier 4 emissions standards. Therefore, Measure AQ1(c) is enforceable and complies with CEQA mitigation standards. The proposed project’s 4/7/23 (P:\LBL2201\Air Quality\Appeal Letter\Mosaic LB Appeal Letter RTC - 04072023.docx) 3 construction equipment would consist of a medium fleet and would comply with CARB’s compliance schedule for BACT.

Table 3 and Table 4 of the Addendum demonstrate that project construction emissions, including exhaust PM10 and PM2.5, would be below the SCAQMD regional and localized significance thresholds and within the construction emissions identified in the PEIR. Therefore, additional mitigation is not required.

The comment letter also states that Mitigation Measure AQ-4(b) provides that Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) technology will be utilized and that the Addendum states that MERV-13 filters will be utilized. The comment letter states that if the air quality emissions calculations were conducted based on MERV-13 specifications, but MERV-13 filters are not legally required under the MMRP, then the indoor air quality may be worse than estimated in the Addendum. The comment letter goes on to assert that absent the use of the most protective MERV filter, indoor air quality impacts may be significant and unmitigated and that the City must revise MM AQ-4(b) to require the most protective MERV filter available to ensure the safest indoor air quality in binding mitigation before the project can be approved. Mitigation Measure AQ-2, on page 59 of the Addendum, also states the project would be required to meet the Title 24 standards in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The most recent version of the Title 24 standards requires the installation of MERV13 filters.

As identified in the Mosaic Project Energy Memorandum (Appendix D of the Addendum), the proposed project would utilize high efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment with MERV-13 filters. As such, the use of MERV-13 filters is considered part of the project, and is an enforceable requirement.

CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISKS
The comment letter asserts that Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) does not provide mitigation for construction-generated diesel particulate matter (DPM) because the proposed localized significance thresholds (LST) analysis addresses only criteria pollutants, and not toxic air contaminants (TACs) like DPM. The comment letter also asserts that Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) also constitutes impermissibly deferred analysis of the project’s air quality impacts.

As discussed on page 56 of the Addendum, the PEIR and Land Use Equivalency Program (LUEP) Addendum evaluated exposure to TAC from land uses in the Downtown Plan. As discussed on pages 66 and 67 of the Addendum, the Addendum also evaluated exposure to TAC. Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) was included as mitigation for the certified Downtown Plan PEIR. As such, it required that projects proposed within the Downtown Plan area conduct a project-level CEQA analysis that includes a detailed SCAQMD LST analysis of construction generated emissions if the project is located within 1,500 feet of sensitive receptors. The Addendum included all mitigation measures from the Certified PEIR’s adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), including Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b).

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) does not impermissibly defer analysis of TAC emissions. First, the Certified PEIR provided a programmatic-level analysis of environmental impacts and required 4/7/23 (P:\LBL2201\Air Quality\Appeal Letter\Mosaic LB Appeal Letter RTC - 04072023.docx) 4 proposed projects to prepare a project-level analysis of LST impacts. In accordance with Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b), the Addendum conducted a detailed LST analysis of construction-generated emissions of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, as shown in Table 5, Unmitigated Localized Construction Emissions. As discussed on page 56 of the Addendum, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 from the PEIR. Mitigation Measures AQ-1(a) and AQ-1(b), require implementation of the City’s Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) requires that prior to construction of each development phase of onsite land uses that are proposed within 1,500 feet of sensitive receptors, each project applicant shall perform a project-level CEQA analysis that includes a detailed LST analysis of construction-generated emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to assess the impact at nearby sensitive receptors. As discussed on pages 64 and 65 of the Addendum, an LST analysis was prepared for the proposed project, consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b). Based on the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology1
, SCAQMD staff developed LSTs similar to the
regional significance thresholds, that is based on the pounds of emissions per day generated by a proposed project that would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts. Emissions were assumed to be uniformly distributed across a flat proposed project site over an eight-hour workday. Receptors distances are measured in meters from the proposed project boundary. The same emissions estimated for regional significant thresholds should be compared to allowable emissions presented the LST lookup tables for the source/receptor area closest to the proposed project. Based on the SCAQMD’s Methodology, screening procedures are by design conservative, that is, the predicted impacts tend to overestimate the actual impacts. If the predicted impacts are acceptable using the LST approach presented, then a more detailed evaluation is not necessary. As identified in Table 5 of the Addendum, the proposed project’s on-site maximum localized construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds. As such, the proposed project complies with the requirements of Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b). As discussed on pages 66 and 67 of the Addendum, the PEIR and LUEP Addendum found that implementation of the Downtown Plan would result in short-term emissions of DPM exhaust from heavy-duty construction equipment. As discussed on page 66 of the Addendum, project construction activities would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for demolition, site grading and excavation, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The Addendum found that, as stated in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, because the use of offroad heavy-duty diesel equipment during construction of the project would be temporary, that DPM is highly dispersive, and that United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CARB regulations that minimize exhaust emissions are mandated to be implemented by construction contractors, construction-related TAC emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. As discussed in the Addendum, project construction would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a), which includes enhanced exhaust control practices on offroad vehicle and off-road construction equipment. In addition, as shown in Table 3 and Table 5 of the Addendum, project construction emissions, including exhaust PM10 and PM2.5, would be below the SCAQMD regional and localized significance thresholds and within the construction emissions 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed March 2023) 4/7/23 (P:\LBL2201\Air Quality\Appeal Letter\Mosaic LB Appeal Letter RTC - 04072023.docx) 5 identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. As a result, it was determined that the proposed project would not result in new significant construction TAC impacts and would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook1 states that emissions of TACs are considered significant if a health risk assessment (HRA) shows an increased risk of greater than 10 in 1 million. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines2 has determined that long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particulates poses the highest cancer risk of any TAC it has evaluated. In addition, CARB has also identified DPM emitted by off-road, diesel-fueled engines emit DPM as a TAC.3 As such, the TAC of concern would be DPM associated with the use of diesel engines during project construction. For risk assessment procedures, the OEHHA specifies that the surrogate for whole diesel exhaust is DPM.4 HRA analyses typically use PM10 emissions to represent DPM emissions, consistent with OEHHA guidance. As shown in Table 3 of the Addendum, PM10 emissions, which are a surrogate for TAC emissions during construction, would be 4.7 pounds per day, which is well below the SCAQMD threshold of 150 pounds per day, indicating that a significant mass emissions of PM10 would not occur and a significant health risk would also not occur. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a) requires enhanced exhaust control practices that would further reduce emissions. Also, Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) requires that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards. The use of Tier 4 equipment substantially reduces emissions of PM.
5 As such, all health risk levels to nearby residents from construction-related emissions of TACs are expected to be below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds. Once the proposed project is constructed, the proposed project would not be a source of substantial emissions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new sources of TACs. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs.

This concludes our response to comments. Please contact Cara Cunningham at [email protected] if you have any additional questions. 1 SCAQMD. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook (currently under revision). 2 California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. March.

Website: https://oehha.ca.gov/air/air-toxics-hot-spots (accessed April 2023). 3 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. Proposed Amendments to the In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. November 17. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/res/2022/res22-19.pdf (accessed April 2023). 4 OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

Appendix D: Risk Assessment Procedures to Evaluate Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines.

February. Website: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015gmappendicesaf.pdf (accessed April 2023). 5
Ibid.
1 Scott Kinsey
From: Leanna Noble <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 2:07 PM
To: Scott Kinsey
Cc: Carole Sergy; Bernd Brydges; Darnaur Don; Hollis Stewart; Alex Cherin Subject: North Pine Neighborhood Alliance (NPNA) comments for Jan.19 Planning Commission Agenda Item 2205-32 (SPR22-060, TPM22-002)
-EXTERNALDear Mr. Kinsey,
I write as Secretary of the NPNA to ask that you share with the Planning Commission these neighborhood comments concerning the 450 The Promenade North and 502-599 Long Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Project, 2205-32 (SPR22-060, TPM22-002 which I understand is on the Planning Commission January 19, 2023 Meeting Agenda.

The NPNA does not endorse this specific project because the current City of Long Beach inclusionary housing and Downtown Plan regulations do not adequately meet the critical needs for low income affordable rental housing in our downtown neighborhoods. NPNA urges the Planning Commission and City Council to quickly adopt any and all possible ordinances and rules to address the critical need for low income affordable rental housing in Long Beach. The economic impacts of COVID have only gotten worse so that too many neighbors are facing evictions, rent increases, lack of property safety and health maintenance, etc.

NPNA does see significant improvements in the months of communication and work with the current Mosaic project development team of Turnbridge and Waterford.

Specifically, NPNA Is positive about:

1. Significant improvement by the current Mosaic team of communication and coordination with NPNA and other neighborhood groups.

2. Inclusion of neighborhood design priority of less density and smaller scale buildings.

3. Inclusion of neighborhood design priority of free, community-accessible pedestrian space.

4. Inclusion of neighborhood design priority of physical, accessible linkage of development to surrounding residential neighborhoods.

NPNA looks forward to continued communications and work with the Mosaic developers.

NPNA, again, urges the Planning Commission and City Council to aggressively work to adopt ordinances and regulations as well as work with Mosaic and other developers to significantly increase the creation of low income affordable rent housing -- now.

Leanna Noble
NPNA Secretary
Attachment J

MEMORANDUM
01/09/2023
Mr. Christopher Koontz
Director of Development Services
City of Long Beach
(Via email to [email protected])
Dear Mr. Koontz:

I have learned that the Mosaic owners intend to tear down two approximately 20 year-old, largely vacant strongly retail-oriented buildings located between 6th and 4th Streets from North to South, and between Long Beach Blvd and The Promenade from East to West. In sum, I strongly support their proposed project.

I have served in a lead/supervisory security capacity at the shopping center formerly known as City Place Mall for nearly twelve years, and am currently serving the third set of property owners since Developers Diversified Realty (DDR) first erected City Place Mall over the demolished former Long Beach Plaza Mall in 2000. Over the years, I have seen the property experience the full spectrum of highs and lows, from achieving nearly 100% occupancy in 2006 to the desolation of the COVID-19 pandemic and the wanton destruction associated with the civil unrest sparked by the George Floyd incident in Minnesota. During this entire period, frankly it has seemed as though the property were a 14-acre square peg being hammered down into a round hole, drawing the very traffic it would more profitably eschew or redirect, and conversely repelling the type of traffic it would need in order to prosper.

Since the most recent changeover of ownership in early 2021, however, I have been privileged to witness a sea change in development approach, specifically one in which configuration and orientation are purposely aligned with expectation. For once, structures and venues, dynamics of engagement, and flows of people and traffic are being designed to effectively optimize the demographics and associated logistics which are actually present and/or impending, as opposed to those for which certain community stakeholders might merely pine.

Beyond the machinations of strategy and process flow however, what mostly impresses me about the plans of Turnbridge, Waterford et. al is the courage that these plans require. The path of least resistance and effort would dictate that the two buildings in question, despite whatever degradation, depreciation, demand or lack thereof or utility, simply be face-lifted and commercially repackaged and allowed to stand, even if only as monuments to ego. These owners have instead embraced the far more thoughtful and reasonable “triage’ approach: save and preserve and bolster that which you can, and transform that which cannot be sustained, as is, into something which is sustainable under actual prevailing realities, as opposed to wishful perceptions.

Indeed, who could reasonably ask for anything more than what Mosaic’s project proposes to provide:
removal of blight, mixed-use development which incorporates a continuum of needs in this community without the attendant concentration of contagious organized retail crime often associated with reliance on “big box” stores, a self-contained system which offsets its own impact upon the environment with embedded parking structures, etc.

Win-Win-Win.

I salute and applaud Turnbridge, Waterford, et. al on their approach and vision, and wish them the best of luck in their endeavors. I firmly believe that the City of Long Beach Planning Commission should do so as well.

Sincerely,
William M. Bailey III
Carole Sergy
115 W. 4th St. PH1
Long Beach, CA 90802
RE: Beautify Pine comments for Jan. 19 Planning Commission Agenda Item 2203-32 (SPR22-060, TPM22-002)
January 12, 2023
I write as a supporter of Mosaic’s proposed development at 450 The Promenade North and 502-599 Long Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Project, 2205-32 (SPR22-060, TPM22-002) which is on the Planning Commission January 19, 2023 meeting agenda.

I represent Beautify Pine, also called Pine Beautification Posse, a non-profit organization in downtown Long Beach. We are an all volunteer group of neighbors and other community members working to improve our downtown streetscape. We have committed to weekly work sessions that require tools, equipment, and teamwork. We have grown our project from a small number of neighbors to a network of talented individuals who bring expertise in various fields such as gardening, social media, community organizing and building.

More importantly, Beautify Pine has a vision to improve the visual appeal of our streetscapes all over Downtown, not just along Pine. We have found not only a shared vision but an enthusiastic partner in the Mosiac developers. Mosaic has acted as a neighbor, donating money, resources and good will. Probably the most unusual outcome has been the agreement to work on the West side planters opposite their area of responsibility.

We have been working with Michael Gazzano, a managing partner in the development. Working with Mr. Gazzano has helped us:
● Identify obstacles and create cooperative solutions
● Address irrigation problems
● Fill in the planters along Pine with additional low-water-use plants ● Coordinate with their Studio 1:11 landscape designer and their landscaper, Andre Landscaping.
● Address tasks requiring significant manual labor
We consider the Mosaic developers a breath of fresh air among developers. They have demonstrated their interest in working with their Downtown neighbors and backed that interest by donating money, resources and goodwill. We urge the Planning Commission to approve the proposed development at 450 The Promenade North and 502-599 Long Beach Blvd.

Redevelopment project, 2205-32 (SPR22-060, TPM22-002)
Carole Sergy, Founding partner, Beautify Pine
Building a better Long Beach through community engagement Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.

Capital Markets
2029 Century Park East, 30th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
tel +1 310 595 3836
1/13/2023
Mr. Christopher Koontz
Director of Development Services
City of Long Beach
(Via email to [email protected])
Dear Mr. Koontz:

I am writing this email to express my strong support for the proposed Mosaic project in downtown Long Beach. The project will provide much needed enhancements to the downtown area, revitalize the commercial footprint of the prior City Place development and create necessary housing for area residents.

In addition, the project is consistent with current design, zoning and area plan requirements and will offer much needed security enhancements for the safety of downtown residents and visitors.

Thank you in advance for your continued support of the project.

Regards,
Maya Saraf
Associate
JLL Capital Markets
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.

Capital Markets
2029 Century Park East, 30th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
tel +1 310 595 3836
1/13/2023
Mr. Christopher Koontz
Director of Development Services
City of Long Beach
(Via email to [email protected])
Dear Mr. Koontz:

I am writing this email to express my strong support for the proposed Mosaic project in downtown Long Beach. The project will provide much needed enhancements to the downtown area, revitalize the commercial footprint of the prior City Place development and create necessary housing for area residents.

In addition, the project is consistent with current design, zoning and area plan requirements and will offer much needed security enhancements for the safety of downtown residents and visitors.

Thank you in advance for your continued support of the project.

Regards,
Rob McRitchie
Senior Director
JLL Capital Markets

1 Scott Kinsey
From: Christopher Koontz
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 12:11 PM
To: Scott Kinsey; Heather Flores
Subject: Fw: Letter of support for the Mosaic project
From: lbcityplace <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 11:56 AM
To: Christopher Koontz <[email protected]> Subject: Letter of support for the Mosaic project

-EXTERNAL1/14/23
Mr. Christopher Koontz
Director of Development Services
City of Long Beach
Mr. Koontz:

I am writing to express my support for the new Mosaic multipurpose project at thr former City Place Mall in the Downtown Edge region of the City of Long Beach.

I am the janitorial services vendor for Mosaic at this site, where I have worked since the year 2002. Over the years, this area has been plagued with crime and vandalism and neglect, and honestly for a long time there seemed to be no new hope on the horizon.

Mosaic's new project gives the people who work here and conduct business operations here and live here, good reason to look forward rather than always looking back, good reason to believe that the Center's best days lie still ahead. Even as I clean the streets and sidewalks and gutters of the Center, I can feel a new vibe in the people who come here to visit, see a new spring in the step of people who conduct business here, a new purpose in the people who happen to work here.

People here are resilient; they have seen it all throughout the years. I can tell that they believe that Mosaic's project is for the best of all involved, and as the owner of a young business myself, I feel the same way.

I hope that the City of Long Beach will give Mosaic an opportunity to build something new and wonderful here at the former City Place!
Damaris Peredia
Janitorial Services Vendor
Mosaic.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone 1 Scott Kinsey
From: Nick Grasu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 1:05 PM
To: Christopher Koontz; Scott Kinsey; PlanningCommissioners Subject: [Letter of Support] Mosaic Mixed-Use Project
-EXTERNALDear Mr. Koontz & Long Beach Planning Commission, First and foremost, I'd like to thank you for your public service. It's a thankless job you do, and we owe the vibrancy of our community to the good folks like you who make it all possible.

In short, I fully endorse the proposed Mosaic Project.

I find the project to be thoughtfully designed and I’m convinced it will bring concrete benefits to the neighborhood. The project exemplifies the smart growth policies that Long Beach has developed so diligently.

It is a true transit-oriented development, replacing inefficient old retail with much needed housing exactly where it’s needed.

My major reasons for supporting the project are:

1. Housing Affordability – Ultimately, we are amid an existential housing affordability crisis in California, and Los Angeles is one of the worst-hit. While I understand that this project provides some affordable housing units, the more significant driver of housing cost increase is a simple lack of supply. I regularly hear horror stories from my neighbors who either get rents jacked up by double-digit percentages or have their leases terminated because their landlords have decided to sell their homes for record prices to outside investors. I for one will never forget how stressful the fear of not being able to make rent can be.

2. Crime/nuisance – Residential units provide "eyes on the street," an effective and inexpensive deterrent for criminal activity. People will be there 24 hours a day to report suspicious activities.

3. Sustainability – There is a lot of discussion about solar uses and other sustainable measures, but the more significant contributor to sustainable living is building homes closer to job centers. This reduces the amount of energy, whether fossil fuel or not, consumed commuting to and from work. Proudly, the Long Beach Port area is quickly becoming one of the biggest job centers in Los Angeles. Smart growth projects like this one are why Long Beach is also quickly becoming one of the most sustainable communities in Los Angeles.

Again, thank you for your public service. Despite what it might feel like at times, it is very much appreciated.

Respectfully,
Nick Grasu

January 18, 2023
Mr. Christopher Koontz
Director of Development Services
City of Long Beach
(Via email to [email protected])
Dear Mr. Koontz:

On behalf of the President and CEO of Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce Jeremy Harris, Chair of the Apartment Association, California Southern Cities board Elaine Hutchison and the President and CEO Downtown Long Beach Alliance Austin Metoyer, we are writing this email to express our strong support for the proposed Mosaic project in downtown Long Beach. The project will provide much needed enhancements to the downtown area, revitalize the commercial footprint of the prior City Place development and create necessary housing for area residents.

In addition, the project is consistent with current design, zoning and area plan requirements and will offer much needed security enhancements for the safety of downtown residents and visitors.

Thank you in advance for your continued support of the project.

Regards,
Via Email
January 18, 2023
City of Long Beach Planning Commission
Erick Verduzco-Vega, Chair
Jane Templin, Vice Chair
Alvaro Castillo, Commissioner
Mark Christoffels, Commissioner
Josh LaFarga, Commissioner
Richard Lewis, Commissioner
Civic Chambers
411 W. Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802
[email protected]
Scott Kinsey, AICP
Project Planner
City of Long Beach Planning Bureau
411 W. Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802
[email protected]
Re: Comment on The Mosaic Project (Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum) Planning Commission Hearing, January 19, 2023, Agenda Item 1 Dear Chair Verduzco-Vega, Vice Chair Templin, Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, and Mr. Kinsey:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the proposed Addendum to the 2012 Downtown Plan Program EIR, prepared for the Mosaic Project (Project No. 23-009PL) (“Project”).

The proposed Project includes all actions related or referring to the proposed construction of three, eight-story buildings with a total of 900 dwelling units and 38,405 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 1,383 parking stalls in at-grade parking garages, located at 450 The Promenade North/501-599 Long Beach Blvd. in the Downtown Planned Development District in the City of Long Beach.

After reviewing the 2012 Downtown Plan Program EIR (“2012 PEIR”), and the Addendum for the proposed Project (“December 2022 Addendum”) we conclude that the Project is not within the scope of the 2012 PEIR and was not analyzed in the 2012 PEIR. Also, the Project will have significant environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the 2012 PEIR and could not have been analyzed in the 2012 PEIR because the Project was not proposed or even contemplated at that time. Therefore, we request that the City of Long Beach (“City”) prepare an EIR for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq.

January 18, 2023
Proposed Addendum for the Mosaic Project

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing the construction of three eight-story buildings and a 38,405 square foot retail building on an approximately 5.5-acre site. The Project will include 900 residential units, and each building will contain three levels of above-grade parking. The Project will also include 2,405 square feet of retail space.

The December 2022 Addendum for the Project is based on the City’s 2012 Program Environmental Impact Report for the adoption and implementation of the Long Beach Downtown Plan. The 2012 PEIR evaluated impacts for the construction and operation of 5,000 residential units, 1.5 million square feet of office space, 480,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, and 800 hotel rooms. The Project site is zoned as a Downtown Plan Planned Development District (PD-30) and is surrounded by a mix of commercial, retail and residential uses.

The December 2022 Addendum also relies on another Addendum to the 2012 EIR prepared by the City in January 2022 for a project known as the 7th & Locust Mixed-Use Project (“January 2022 Addendum”). The January 2022 Addendum included a “Land Use Equivalency Program” (“LUEP”), which was a response to the exceedance of allowed residential units within the Downtown Plan area as analyzed in the 2012 PEIR. At the time the January 2022 Addendum was proposed, the Downtown Plan area had 5,252 residential units. The LUEP relied on something called a Downtown Plan Equivalency Calculator, which purported to create a mechanism by which the City could re-allocate use designations within the Downtown Plan area from office/commercial/hotel uses to residential uses without exceeding the environmental impacts analyzed in the 2012 PEIR. Under the LUEP, the City was able to continue to approve residential development within the Downtown Plan by making corresponding reductions in commercial/office/hotel development. Under the LUEP, an additional 3,260 residential units (for a total of 8,260 units) could be approved by reducing office uses by 417,060 square feet, commercial uses by 135,320 square feet, and hotel uses by 177 rooms.

II. LEGAL STANDARD
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) The City relies on CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and 15164 to claim that no CEQA review is required. The court of appeal recently stated, “The addendum is the other side of the coin from the supplement to an EIR. This section provides an interpretation with a label and an January 18, 2023
Proposed Addendum for the Mosaic Project

explanation of the kind of document that does not need additional public review.” “It must be remembered that an addendum is prepared where ‘(2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment.’ ( [Guideline] 15164, subd. (a).)” (Save Our Heritage Organization v. City of San Diego, 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 664–65 (2018) (emphasis added). Even a 15-foot increase in height for a residential building (increasing height from 75 feet to 90 feet) requires a supplemental EIR, not an addendum. “Accordingly, the appropriate protocol is to have the county draft and recirculate a focused supplemental EIR, limited solely to analysis of height and profile-related impacts of the medical clinic, as built and where built to a height of ninety feet.” (Ventura Foothills Neighbors v. Cty. of Ventura, 232 Cal.App.4th 429, 434 (2014).)
Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is only required when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

January 18, 2023
Proposed Addendum for the Mosaic Project

III. DISCUSSION
A. The Project was not Analyzed in the 2012 PEIR. Therefore, an Addendum is Improper.

The 2012 EIR did not analyze this Project. The 2012 PEIR evaluated impacts for the construction and operation of 5,000 residential units, but the City has already exceeded that amount of construction. A prior CEQA document may only be used for a later project that is “essentially the same project” as was analyzed in the prior document. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1320; American Canyon Community v. American Canyon, 145 Cal.App.4th 1062.) The 2012 EIR did not analyze the Project at all. Therefore, the addendum provision does not apply by its own terms.

B. The December 2022 Addendum’s Conclusions Regarding the Project’s Impacts Relative to the 2012 PEIR Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.

The significant proposed changes presented cannot plausibly be described as “minor technical changes” to the 2012 PEIR. To the contrary, the December 2022 Addendum proposes the addition of 900 residential units, when the 5,000 residential units originally contemplated by the 2012 EIR have already been constructed, and additional residential units beyond the 5,000 residential units have also been constructed. The December 2022 Addendum fails to explain how the significance of these impacts compares to the severity identified in the 2012 PEIR. By increasing residential uses in the Downtown Plan area, the December 2022 Addendum’s impacts to population and displacement will certainly be greater than the impacts analyzed in the 2012 EIR. The Addendum must address whether the impacts will be more severe.

These proposed changes make clear that the Project involves new significant environmental effects and new information of substantial importance that make the use of Addendum here entirely inappropriate.

C. The City’s Reliance on the January 2022 Addendum to Conclude that the Project’s Impacts are Less-Than-Significant is Improper.

The City attempts to get around the fact that the proposed Project far exceeds the scope of what was considered in the 2012 PEIR by relying on the LUEP introduced in the January 2022 Addendum. However, the CEQA statute on Addendums refers to a situation when “an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project,” not when a previous Addendum has been adopted for a Project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)). Similarly, the sections that follow refer to “major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration” (§ 15162(a)(1), (2)), “at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted” ((§ 15162(a)(3)), and so on. The CEQA Guidelines do not contemplate a situation in which an Addendum is based on another Addendum.

Therefore, the impacts of the proposed Project and the December 2022 Addendum must be analyzed as compared to the 2012 PEIR. When compared to the 2012 PEIR, the proposed Project – which includes an additional 900 residential units that go beyond what was January 18, 2023
Proposed Addendum for the Mosaic Project

contemplated in the 2012 PEIR – requires major revisions and will involve a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

IV.CONCLUSION
The December 2022 Addendum for the Mosaic Project fails as an informational document. The Project is not within the scope of the 2012 PEIR and was not analyzed in the 2012 PEIR. The Project will have significant environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the 2012 PEIR and could not have been analyzed in the 2012 PEIR because the Project was not proposed or even contemplated at that time. Therefore, we request that the City of Long Beach (“City”) prepare an EIR for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Sincerely,
Amalia Bowley Fuentes

LOZEAU DRURY LLP
111 W. Ocean Boulevard
Suite 1025
Long Beach, CA 90802
Tel: (562) 257-1200
Fax:(562) 257-1346
www.MarcusMillichap.com
1/9/23
Mr. Christopher Koontz
Director of Development Services
City of Long Beach
(Via email to [email protected])
Dear Mr. Koontz:

I am writing this email to express my strong support for the proposed Mosaic project in downtown Long Beach. The project will provide much needed enhancements to the downtown area, revitalize the commercial footprint of the prior City Place development and create necessary housing for area residents.

In addition, the project is consistent with current design, zoning and area plan requirements and will offer much needed security enhancements for the safety of downtown residents and visitors.

Thank you in advance for your continued support of the project.

Regards,
Kevin King
111 W. Ocean Boulevard
Suite 1025
Long Beach, CA 90802
Tel: (562) 257-1200
Fax:(562) 257-1346
www.MarcusMillichap.com
1/9/23
Mr. Christopher Koontz
Director of Development Services
City of Long Beach
(Via email to [email protected])
Dear Mr. Koontz:

I am writing this email to express my strong support for the proposed Mosaic project in downtown Long Beach. The project will provide much needed enhancements to the downtown area, revitalize the commercial footprint of the prior City Place development and create necessary housing for area residents.

In addition, the project is consistent with current design, zoning and area plan requirements and will offer much needed security enhancements for the safety of downtown residents and visitors.

Thank you in advance for your continued support of the project.

Regards,
Kyle Blair
1/17/23
Mr. Christopher Koontz
Director of Development Services
City of Long Beach
(Via email to [email protected])
Dear Mr. Koontz:

I am writing this email to express my strong support for the proposed Mosaic project in downtown Long Beach. Small businesses like mine depend on the growth and development of the downtown area.

This project will revitalize and provide much needed enhancements to the prior City Place development and create necessary housing for area residents. We need more residents living downtown to retain existing businesses and attract new ones.

I’ve had my shop on Pine Avenue for almost seven years. I’ve watched many small businesses close simply because there is not enough foot traffic to keep them in business. We do well because we draw people from Orange County and all of Los Angeles County in addition to our local residents. The future growth and development of the downtown area will determine if I renew my lease in three years or move my business out of the area.

I’m excited for this project and the opportunities it will bring to make Long Beach one of the best cities on the coast.

Thank you in advance for your continued support of the project.

Regards,
Laurie Gray
Owner
The Pie Bar
111 W. Ocean Boulevard
Suite 1025
Long Beach, CA 90802
Tel: (562) 257-1200
Fax:(562) 257-1346
www.MarcusMillichap.com
1/9/23
Mr. Christopher Koontz
Director of Development Services
City of Long Beach
(Via email to [email protected])
Dear Mr. Koontz:

I am writing this email to express my strong support for the proposed Mosaic project in downtown Long Beach. The project will provide much needed enhancements to the downtown area, revitalize the commercial footprint of the prior City Place development and create necessary housing for area residents.

In addition, the project is consistent with current design, zoning and area plan requirements and will offer much needed security enhancements for the safety of downtown residents and visitors.

Thank you in advance for your continued support of the project.

Regards,
Martin Porter
January 19, 2023
Long Beach Planning Commission
Civic Center Plaza
411 West Ocean Blvd.

Long Beach, CA 90802
RE: Support for the 450 The Promenade North and 501-599 Long Beach Blvd Project., Agenda Item #1
Dear Members of the Long Beach Planning Commission,
Please accept this correspondence on behalf of the Downtown Long Beach Alliance (DLBA) Board of Directors and enter into the public record for the Planning Commission meeting scheduled on Thursday, January 19, 2023, our support of the proposed mixed-used development located at 450 The Promenade North and 501-599 Long Beach Blvd., and to approve the Addendum to the Downtown Plan EIR, Site Plan Review and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the proposed project.

DLBA is a non-profit organization that represents more than 1,600 businesses and 4,000 commercial and residential property owners within the two Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) in Downtown Long Beach. As one of the leading voices for the Downtown community, we want to express our support for this project and urge the Planning Commission to uphold the previously approved Site Plan Review. The project aligns with DLBA’s goal of supporting increased density near High-Quality Transit Areas as outlined in our DLBA’s Roadmap to Recovery, Resilience and Inclusion Strategic Plan, and the design standards outlined in the City’s Downtown Plan (PD-30).

The Downtown Plan, the guiding planning document for Downtown, was created to encourage impactful, community-oriented mixed-use developments in the area. The proposed development at 450 The Promenade North and 501-599 Long Beach Blvd. has both high-density housing and ground-floor commercial space, offering the highest and best use for the property, transforming what has been two prominent vacant big box retail locations into an active and vibrant residential community. Including residential development on the ground floor facing both 6th Street and Long Beach Blvd will help create a new level of energy and activation on empty corridors. This will help to improve the overall streetscape, safety and security, and pedestrian walking experience.

Furthermore, the project team has actively engaged with the business and residential community to discuss their vision for the project. Community organizations residents have sited the positive benefits impacts of the project which included neighborhood design priority of less density and smaller scale buildings, free and accessible community pedestrian spaces, and accessible linkage of the project with surrounding residential neighborhoods.

We appreciate the opportunity to share our support for the continued implementation of the Downtown Plan, and we encourage the Planning Commission to support this proposed investment in our developing and diverse Downtown.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Austin Metoyer
President & CEO
cc: Mayor Rex Richardson
Councilwoman Mary Zendejas, 1st District
Tom Modica, City Manager
Christopher Koontz, Director of Development Services
DLBA Board of Directors
Mosaic Project Team

1 Scott Kinsey
From: PlanningCommissioners
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:07 PM
To: Scott Kinsey; Alexis Oropeza; Alison Spindler-Ruiz
Subject: FW: Approve the Addendum (EIRA-02-22) to the Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.2009071006), et al
Thank you,
Heather Flores
Secretary
Long Beach Development Services
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl. | Long Beach, CA 90802
Office: 562.570.7170

From: Jamie Parker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:26 PM
To: PlanningCommissioners <[email protected]> Subject: Approve the Addendum (EIRA-02-22) to the Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.2009071006), et al
-EXTERNALRe:

Recommendation to Approve the Addendum (EIRA-02-22) to the Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.2009071006), approve Site Plan Review for the construction of three (3) eight (8)-story apartment buildings with a total of 900 dwelling units and 38,405 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 1,383 parking stalls in at-grade parking garages (SPR22- 060), and approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 83693 to subdivide one 170,736-square-foot lot into two lots of 101,724 and 68,712 square feet (TPM22-002), located at 450 The Promenade North/501-599 Long Beach Blvd. in the Downtown Plan Planned Development District (PD-30). (District1)
Thank you for your decision to require this project to use electric appliances instead of natural gas.

This is the only sensible choice due to safety concerns over natural gas appliances which could be a liability issue and the ongoing transition to electrification that will make such appliances obsolete; any new purchase of such appliances is an unnecessary burden on homeowners and other taxpayers. 2 Perhaps more importantly, we must speed electrification at all levels of government in order to minimize the worsening and increasingly expensive damage from climate change due to the burning of fossil fuel.

Voters, especially the younger voters who will be forced to live with disastrous climate change, will remember elected and appointed leaders who choose to fight climate change -- or those who deny the crisis or delay taking action.

Edwin J. Parker
(homeowner and voter)
3121 Volk Ave.

Long Beach, CA 90808
562-673-2395
1 Scott Kinsey
From: PlanningCommissioners
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:34 AM
To: Scott Kinsey; Alison Spindler-Ruiz; Alexis Oropeza
Subject: FW: Public Comment for Planning Commission Meeting 1/19/23 Thank you,
Heather Flores
Secretary
Long Beach Development Services
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl. | Long Beach, CA 90802
Office: 562.570.7170

From: Kurt Canfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:07 AM
To: PlanningCommissioners <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment for Planning Commission Meeting 1/19/23 -EXTERNALGood morning,
I am writing to discuss the following items on the Agenda posted as of 1/19/23 @ 10:19 AM PST:

Agenda Item 1 - Promenade North Redevelopment
This project is a vast improvement over the existing land use. City Place was a failure because it had no housing component and attempted to make suburban style big-box stores work in the city's downtown. I am glad to see that this development will not only create 900 new housing units but will also be mixed-use and be a great opportunity to reduce VMT through its walkable environment and proximity to the A-line. My concerns are in regard to the amount of parking packaged with the development plans as it is over the city's required minimum by 257 spaces, to say nothing of the exemption from parking minimums through AB2097. I think that incentivizing drivers to bring their cars into our downtown does a disservice to the walkable environment that Long Beach is trying to create. This will also significantly raise the per-unit cost of the housing. I think that an option with reduced vehicle parking and increased bicycle parking and retail floorspace would be preferable.

Agenda Item 3 - West Long Beach Study Session
2 I am in support of mixed-use development throughout Long Beach. I think that the Santa Fe and Willow St corridors not only need more, denser housing stock, but will also benefit from commercial options that are not tailored to being inside a vehicle. To that end, I suggest another amendment to the changes proposed in the MU1-A and MU1-B zones to include raising the minimum FAR of the MU1-A and MU1-B zones to 0.5 to limit the proliferation of drive thru commercial uses or large parking lots.

Thank you,
Kurt Canfield
90814
1 Scott Kinsey
From: PlanningCommissioners
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 12:08 PM
To: Scott Kinsey; Alexis Oropeza; Alison Spindler-Ruiz
Subject: FW: Promenade Dwelling Units-LB Planning Commission Thank you,
Heather Flores
Secretary
Long Beach Development Services
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl. | Long Beach, CA 90802
Office: 562.570.7170

From: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 12:02 PM
To: PlanningCommissioners <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Promenade Dwelling Units-LB Planning Commission From: Marianne Buchanan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:51 AM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Promenade Dwelling Units-LB Planning Commission -EXTERNALI am appalled that the City cannot seem to coordinate its building projects with its Climate Action Plan.

Putting 2,700 methane-leaking natural gas appliances into the proposed Promenade complex is bad for the environment and worse for the unsuspecting occupants.
2 Natural gas appliances are directly linked to causes of childhood asthma especially in children of lower-income and BIPOC communities.

I urge the Planning Commission to look at the specs and the details of this proposal with more forward-looking eyes. Knowing what you know today, it seems to me that installing 2,700 natural gas appliances in the Promenade units would be not just outmoded but inhumane.

Have the courage to be on the side of a great movement toward electrification for the health of our children and all future generations.

Marianne Buchanan D3
701 Pine Ave. #528, Long Beach, CA, 90813 • [email protected] • 562.606.0649 1/19/23
Mr. Christopher Koontz
Director of Development Services
City of Long Beach
(Via email to [email protected])
Dear Chris:

We apologize for the last-minute support for the proposed Mosaic project in downtown Long Beach. We cannot think of a more ideal project to provide activation, enhanced commercial storefronts, and appropriately developed & impactful housing.

As you may know, we took over the project at 6th & Pine in 2008, adding 200k sq ft of office space and most of all workers, dwellers, and shoppers to the north Pine Avenue area. Even though we sold the project with a long-term lease in late 2015, we remain an active participant in the downtown economy.

As a seven-year member of the BOD of the DLBA, I am proud of the decisions of our elected officials, commission members, and city staff have made to allow downtown to become a place of balanced downtown living.

Our entire Made by Millworks, Ephemeral Gallery, 6th & Pine Development team are pleased to provide our support for the project and the team at Mosaic and hope you will approve the plan as submitted.

Best Regards,
Michelle Molina
Manager, 6th & Pine Development
Dba Millworks
1 Scott Kinsey
From: PlanningCommissioners
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:07 PM
To: Scott Kinsey; Alexis Oropeza; Alison Spindler-Ruiz
Subject: FW: Approve the Addendum (EIRA-02-22) to the Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.2009071006), et al
Thank you,
Heather Flores
Secretary
Long Beach Development Services
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl. | Long Beach, CA 90802
Office: 562.570.7170

From: Pete Marsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:56 PM
To: Jamie Parker <[email protected]>
Cc: PlanningCommissioners <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Approve the Addendum (EIRA-02-22) to the Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.2009071006), et al
-EXTERNALThanks for the bcc, Jamie! Awesome letter!
Pete Marsh
530-636-3994 | [email protected]
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 1:26 PM Jamie Parker <[email protected]> wrote:

Re:

Recommendation to Approve the Addendum (EIRA-02-22) to the Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.2009071006), approve Site Plan Review for the construction of three (3) eight (8)-story apartment buildings with a total of 900 dwelling units and 38,405 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 1,383 parking stalls in at-grade parking garages (SPR22- 060), and approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 83693 to subdivide one 170,736-square-foot lot into two lots of 101,724 and 68,712 square feet (TPM22-002), located at 450 The Promenade North/501-599 Long Beach Blvd. in the Downtown Plan Planned Development District (PD-30). (District1)
2 Thank you for your decision to require this project to use electric appliances instead of natural gas.

This is the only sensible choice due to safety concerns over natural gas appliances which could be a liability issue and the ongoing transition to electrification that will make such appliances obsolete; any new purchase of such appliances is an unnecessary burden on homeowners and other taxpayers.

Perhaps more importantly, we must speed electrification at all levels of government in order to minimize the worsening and increasingly expensive damage from climate change due to the burning of fossil fuel.

Voters, especially the younger voters who will be forced to live with disastrous climate change, will remember elected and appointed leaders who choose to fight climate change -- or those who deny the crisis or delay taking action.

Edwin J. Parker
(homeowner and voter)
3121 Volk Ave.

Long Beach, CA 90808
562-673-2395
1 Scott Kinsey
From: Richard Drury <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:26 PM
To: Scott Kinsey; PlanningCommissioners
Subject: The Mosaic Project (Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum) Planning Commission Hearing, January 19, 2023, Agenda Item 1
-EXTERNALDear Mr. Kinsey and Planning Commission:

I am writing on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), who submitted a comment letter on the Mosaic Project. I am pleased to report that SAFER has been in communication with the developer of the project and we are very close to reaching an agreement that will address our environmental concerns. While the agreement is not finalized, we believe that the discussions are likely to resolve favorably in the near future. Thank you.

Richard Drury
--
Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 836-4200
[email protected]

VIA EMAIL
February 7, 2023
City of Long Beach Planning Commission
Erick Verduzco-Vega, Chair
Jane Templin, Vice Chair
Alvaro Castillo, Commissioner
Mark Christoffels, Commissioner
Josh LaFarga, Commissioner
Richard Lewis, Commissioner
Civic Chambers
411 W. Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802
[email protected]
Scott Kinsey, AICP
Project Planner
City of Long Beach Planning Bureau
411 W. Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802
[email protected]
Re: Withdrawal of Comments – Mosaic Project (Project No. 23-009PL) Dear Chair Verduzco-Vega, Vice Chair Templin, Honorable Planning Commissioners, and Mr. Kinsey:

On January 18, 2023, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) submitted comments to the City of Long Beach Planning Commission opposing the City’s use of an Addendum for the Mosaic Project (Project No. 23-009PL) (“Project”) proposed by Waterford Property Company (“Developer”).

SAFER is pleased to announce that they have reached an agreement with the Developer to address the issues raised in SAFER’s comments. Pursuant to our agreement, the Developer has agreed to additional measures to address the issues raised in SAFER’s letter and to render Project environmental impacts less than significant.

In consideration of these additional measures, SAFER hereby withdraws its January 18, 2023 comments opposing the Project approval. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Amalia Bowley Fuentes

LOZEAU DRURY LLP
Final

THE MOSAIC PROJECT
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
Prepared for December 2022
City of Long Beach
Attachment K

Final

THE MOSAIC PROJECT
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
Prepared for December 2022
City of Long Beach

550 West C Street
Suite 750
San Diego, CA 92101
619.719.4200
esassoc.com
Atlanta
Bend
Camarillo
Irvine
Los Angeles
Mobile
Oakland
Orlando
Palm Beach County
Pasadena
Pensacola
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Sarasota
Seattle
Tampa

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

The Mosaic Project i ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Mosaic Project
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
Page
Introduction/Background ..................................................................................................... 1 CEQA Authority for an Addendum ...................................................................................... 5 Project Details and Background.......................................................................................... 7

1. Project Title........................................................................................................... 7

2. Lead Agency Name and Address ......................................................................... 7

3. Contact Person and Phone Number..................................................................... 7

4. Project Location and Existing Site Conditions ...................................................... 7

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address .................................................................. 7

6. General Plan Designation..................................................................................... 7

7. Zoning................................................................................................................... 7

8. Project Description and Background..................................................................... 8

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting................................................................... 41

10. Required Approvals ............................................................................................ 42 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected..................................................................... 43 Determination...................................................................................................................... 43 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................... 44 I. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................... 44 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................... 54 III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 55 IV. Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 69 V. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 71 VI. Geology and Soils............................................................................................... 74 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 80 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials...................................................................... 88 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality.............................................................................. 94 X. Land Use and Planning .................................................................................... 100 XI. Mineral Resources............................................................................................ 103 XII. Noise ................................................................................................................ 104 XIII. Population and Housing.................................................................................... 111 XIV. Public Services ................................................................................................. 114 XV. Recreation ........................................................................................................ 119 XVI. Transportation/Traffic........................................................................................ 120 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................... 125 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance.................................................................. 129 References......................................................................................................................... 131 Table of Contents
Page
The Mosaic Project ii ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Location.................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Project Site Plan ................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3a North and South Building Elevations .................................................................. 30 Figure 3b East and West Building Elevations ..................................................................... 31 Figure 4a Floor Plan for Ground Level................................................................................ 33 Figure 4b Floor Plans for Level 2 and Level 3 .................................................................... 34 Figure 4c Floor Plans for Level 4 and Level 5 .................................................................... 35 Figure 4d Floor Plans for Level 6 and Level 7 .................................................................... 36 Figure 4e Floor Plans for Level 8 and Roof Level............................................................... 37 Figure 5 Summer Solstice................................................................................................. 50 Figure 6 Winter Solstice.................................................................................................... 51 Figure 7 Spring Equinox ................................................................................................... 52 Figure 8 Fall Equinox........................................................................................................ 53 List of Tables
Table 1 Certified PEIR Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................ 10 Table 2 Proposed Project Development .......................................................................... 29 Table 3 Unmitigated Maximum Regional Construction Emissions (pounds per day)....... 61 Table 4 Unmitigated Maximum Regional Operational Emissions (pounds per day) ........ 63 Table 5 Unmitigated Maximum Localized Construction Emissions (pounds per day)...... 65 Table 6 Unmitigated Maximum Localized Operational Emissions (pounds per day) ....... 65 Table 7 Net Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)........................ 82 Table 8 Existing On-Site Drainage Conditions................................................................. 97 Table 9 Proposed On-Site Drainage Conditions.............................................................. 98 Table 10 Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment ................................ 107 Appendices
A. Downtown Plan Land Use Equivalency Program Calculator B. Air Quality and Greenhous Gas Analysis
C. Geotechnical Subsurface Due Diligence Evaluation
D. Mosaic Project Energy Memorandum
E. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
F. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report
G. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
H. Traffic Impact Analysis
I. Utilities Will Serve Letters
The Mosaic Project 1 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022

THE MOSAIC PROJECT
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
Introduction/Background
This document is an addendum to the Certified City of Long Beach Downtown Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (Certified PEIR) (SCH #2009071006) prepared for the City of Long Beach (City), which was approved by City Council in November 2011 and formally adopted January 2012. The Certified PEIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts that may result from the implementation of the Downtown Plan Planned Development District (PD-30), which covers an area of approximately 719 acres, including the project site for the proposed Mosaic Project (proposed project) located at 151 East 5th Street and 450 The Promenade North in the City of Long Beach. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Addendum analyzes the proposed project for the City to determine whether the project would result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Certified PEIR.

The Certified PEIR analyzed the adoption and implementation of the Long Beach Downtown Plan that would replace the existing land use, zoning, and planned development districts as the land use and design document for all future development in the Downtown Plan area. The Certified PEIR assumed that full implementation of the Downtown Plan could increase the density and intensity of existing Downtown land uses by allowing up to (1) approximately 5,000 new residential units; (2) 1.5 million square feet of new office, civic, cultural, and similar uses; (3) 384,000 square feet of new retail; (4) 96,000 square feet of restaurants; and (5) 800 new hotel rooms. The additional development assumed in the Downtown Plan could occur over a 25-year time period, ending in 2035. The approved Downtown Plan and Certified PEIR are also referred to hereafter as the “Approved Project.” In January 2022, the City approved an Addendum to the Certified PEIR, which included approval of a Land Use Equivalency Program (LUEP) to characterize the extent of additional residential development that could occur within the Downtown Plan area and that would be exchanged with the assumed restaurant, retail, office, and hotel uses buildout such that applicable regulations are satisfied.

The LUEP allows for the reallocation of these permitted land uses within the Downtown Plan area on a project-by-project basis so long as the limitation of the Equivalency Program are satisfied, and no additional significant environmental impacts would occur nor would there be substantially greater impacts beyond those previously identified in the Certified PEIR or exceed average maximum Floor Area Ratios (FAR) contemplated by the Downtown Plan, including FAR incentives. As a part of the LUEP, an Equivalency Program Memorandum and Downtown Plan Equivalency Calculator were developed to allow the city to easily track approved projects in the Downtown Plan area and to reduce commensurate levels of available commercial, office, and/or hotel space to accommodate increased Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 2 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
demand for residential housing units. The Downtown Plan Equivalency Calculator developed a conservative exchange rate to allow for the reallocation of commercial, office, and/or hotel space as residential units such that applicable regulations are satisfied, and no additional significant environmental impacts or substantially greater impacts would occur than previously identified in the Certified PEIR.

The Downtown Plan Equivalency Calculator provides for the initial reallocation of non-residential land use to account for an additional 3,260 housing units to be developed within the downtown. The 3,260 additionally approved residential units can be accommodated by reducing office by 417,060 square feet, commercial uses by 135,320 square feet, and hotel uses by 177 rooms. Taking into account the development pending approval and/or already approved, this leaves a balance of 3,008 dwelling units, 592,950 square feet of office space, 140,970 square feet of commercial space, and 400 hotel rooms.

As described above and as provided in more detail below, the proposed project would be developed within the Downtown Plan area on an approximately 5.5-acre site (project site), which is bisected by East 5th Street and currently developed with two existing low-rise commercial buildings, as shown in Figure 1, Project Location. The proposed project would include the demolition of 197,513 square feet of existing commercial and retail uses that are currently on site. The proposed project would construct 900 residential apartment units, 38,405 square feet of leasable commercial space, including 2,405 square feet of commercial use within a 1-story standalone pavilion (pavilion), 1,383 vehicle parking spaces, and 187 bicycle spaces within three 8-story podium buildings (Buildings B, C1, and C2). Figure 2, Project Site Plan, shows the various components of the proposed project. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases: construction of the first phase would occur in 2024 with completion in 2026, and construction of the second phase would occur in 2025 with completion in 2027.

Building B would be developed on the portion of the project site south of East 5th Street while Buildings C1 and C2 and the pavilion would be developed adjacent to each other on the northern portion of the project site. Buildings B and C1 would be mixed-used, with leasable commercial uses located on the first floors and residential units located on the remaining seven floors. Building C2 would be solely residential, with resident amenities and a leasing lobby located on the first floor and the residential units located on the remaining seven floors. All three 8-story buildings would have a maximum building height of 95 feet. Each of the three buildings would include a residential garage with three levels of above-grade parking as well as bicycle storage areas located on the ground floor and would site AC units, boiler rooms, and space for future solar panels on each of the roofs. The three 8-story buildings would also include 62,027 square feet of residential common outdoor open space, 31,195 square feet of residential indoor common open space, and 29,747 square feet of residential private open space.

The project would include street improvements on The Promenade North, Long Beach Boulevard, the north side of 4th Street from The Promenade North to Long Beach Boulevard, and 5th and 6th Street from The Promenade North to Long Beach Boulevard. In addition, as a part of the project, the existing private 4th Street, 5th Street, and The Promenade North would be dedicated to the City.

However, the sidewalks, parkways, and street landscaping would remain private. A more detailed summary of the off-site improvements and street dedication is provided below under the “Off-Site Improvements and Street Dedication” subheading.

Park Ct
Pine Ave
Cedar A
ve
E 4th St
Locust Ave
Solana Ct Solana Ct
E 5th St
E 7th St
Pacific Ave
E 3rd St
E 6th St
Metro-Pacific Av
Alamo Ct
E 4th St
Liberty Ct
Frontenac
Ct
Elm Ave
E La Reina Way
Melrose Way
Linden Ave
E 5th St
E Cereza Way
E Cobre Way
E Roble Way
E 7th St
Long Beach
Blvd
Long Beach Blvd
E 3rd St
E 6th St
Atlantic Ave
International
Elementary
School
Metro-5th Street
City Place Long
Beach
East Village
Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\18xxxx\D201801165.12_MosaicProjectAddendum\03_MXDs_Projects\Mosaic_Addendum.aprx Fig 1 - Project Location, RTeitel 9/6/2022 SOURCE: ESA, 2022 The Mosaic Project Addendum
Figure 1
Project Location
N
0 500
Feet
Project
Site
Project
Location
T
GARAGE
ENTRY
GARAGE
ENTRY
GARAGE
ENTRY
EXISTING HALF R.O.W.
62' - 0"
EXISTING HALF R.O.W.
39' - 8"
EXISTING HALF R.O.W.
62' - 0"
EXISTING HALF R.O.W.
44' - 2"
EXISTING R.O.W.
77' - 7"
EXISTING HALF R.O.W.
27' - 0"
38' - 0"
36' - 0"
22' - 6"
4' - 6"
38' - 5"
19' - 4"
74' - 6"
24' - 1"
15' - 3" 22' - 9"
20' - 9" 15' - 3"
FIGURE 2
The Mosaic Project Addendum
Figure 2
Project Site Plan
SOURCE: MVE + Partners, 2022
D181165.12 - Mosaic Addendum\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator N

PROPOSED
RETAIL

PAVILION
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 5 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Specifically, Building B would total 306,501 square feet of FAR gross floor area and would include 19,782 square feet of leasable commercial spaces, and a lobby with a leasing office, on the ground level; a residential garage with three levels of above-grade parking as well as bicycle storage areas on levels 1 through 3; residential storage units on levels 2 and 3; residential units on levels 3 through 8; amenity spaces on levels 4 and 8, including a courtyard and pool and spa area on level 4; and a roof deck on level 8. Building C1 would total 393,685 square feet of FAR gross floor area and would include 16,218 square feet of leasable commercial spaces, residential units, and a lobby with a leasing office on the ground level; a residential garage with three levels of above-grade parking as well as bicycle storage areas on levels 1 through 3; residential storage units on levels 2 and 3; residential units on levels 2 through 8; amenity spaces on levels 4 and 8, including courtyards and a pool and spa area on level 4; and a roof deck on level 8. Building C2 would total 285,929 square feet of FAR gross floor area and would include a lobby with a leasing office, amenity space, residential units on the ground level; a residential garage with three levels of above-grade parking as well as bicycle storage areas on levels 1 through 3; residential storage units on levels 2 and 3; residential units on levels 2 through 8; amenity spaces on levels 4 and 8, including a pool and spa area, courtyard, and club room on level 4; and a roof deck on level 8.

Each of the three 8-story buildings would include a residential garage with three levels of abovegrade parking as well as bicycle storage areas located on the ground floor. Specifically, Building B would provide 373 parking spaces, with a surplus of 33 spaces more than required by code; Building C1 would provide 576 parking spaces, with a surplus of 127 spaces more than required by code; and Building C2 would provide 434 parking spaces, with a surplus of 97 spaces more than required by code. The proposed project would provide a total of 1,383 parking spaces, which exceeds the parking requirements by 257 spaces.

The pavilion would provide approximately 2,405 square feet of retail space and would be constructed to the west of Building C1 along East 5th Street. The pavilion would be 1-story with a mezzanine. In regard to parking, 39 parking spaces would be provided for the project’s commercial uses and pavilion in an adjacent City-owned parking structures pursuant to the Parking Rights Agreement 01-1799119, which was signed and recorded in 2005 and allows employees and customers of the commercial tenants to use up to approximately 1,901 parking spaces located in nearby facilities owned and operated by the City (Appendix H).

CEQA Authority for an Addendum
The Certified PEIR includes all statutory sections required by CEQA, comments received on the Draft PEIR, responses to comments on the Draft PEIR, Errata in the Final EIR, and supporting technical appendices. CEQA establishes the type of environmental documentation required when changes to a project occur after an EIR is certified. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) states that:

The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 6 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requires a Subsequent EIR when an MND has already been adopted or an EIR has been certified and one or more of the following circumstances exist:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Likewise, California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21166 states that unless one or more of the following events occur, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report; or

3. New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.

As demonstrated by the analysis herein, the proposed project would not result in any additional significant impacts, nor would it substantially increase the severity of previously anticipated significant impacts. Rather, all of the impacts associated with the proposed project would be within the envelope of impacts addressed in the Certified PEIR, including the LUEP Addendum and would not constitute a new or substantially increased significant impact. Based on this determination, the proposed project does not meet the requirements for preparation of a Subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. 1
1 In accordance with Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum tiers off of the analysis and conclusions found in the Certified PEIR. Thus, this Addendum relies on the thresholds published at the time of the Certified PEIR’s adoption in January 2012.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 7 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Project Details and Background

1. Project Title
The Mosaic Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Long Beach
Development Services, Planning Bureau
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Long Beach, California 90802

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Scott Kinsey, Planner V, 562.570.6461

4. Project Location and Existing Site Conditions
The approximately 5.5-acres project site is located at 151 East 5th Street and 450 The Promenade North in the City of Long Beach. As shown in Figure 1, the project site is bisected by East 5th Street and is bound by East 6th Street to the north, with commercial and restaurant uses beyond; Long Beach Boulevard and the 5th Street Metro A Line (formerly the Blue Line) rail station to the east, with commercial uses and mixed-use residential beyond; East 4th Street to the south, with retail/commercial and restaurant uses beyond; and an above-grade public parking structure and The Promenade North to the west, with mixed-use residential, commercial and restaurant uses, and an above-grade public parking structure beyond. The project site currently contains various retail and restaurant operations within two large one-story commercial buildings.

Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 710 (I-710), which travels north-south, approximately 1 mile to the west of the project site, and Pacific Coast Highway [State Route (SR) 1], which travels east-west approximately 1 mile north of the project site. Additional regional access is provided by the Metro A Line, which provides access from downtown Los Angeles via the 5th Street Station on Long Beach Boulevard, approximately 50 feet east of the project site.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Long Beach Center Loan, LLC
4 Bryant Park, Suite 200
New York, NY 10173

6. General Plan Designation
Downtown (DT)

7. Zoning
Downtown Plan (PD-30)
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 8 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022

8. Project Description and Background
Downtown Plan and Certified PEIR (Approved Project)
The Downtown Plan was adopted in January 2012 and outlines the development and design standards for Downtown Long Beach. The Downtown Plan covers an area of approximately 719 acres and adopts zone reclassifications and design guidelines, replacing existing land use plans and zoning regulations for the Downtown Plan area. The Downtown Plan includes a series of guiding principles such as: developing a distinctive downtown skyline; promoting Downtown Long Beach as the heart of the city; encouraging infrastructure focused on walking, bicycling, and public transit; diversifying the economy, promoting job growth, and tourism; promoting bold architecture, planning, and construction that utilizes green building technology, sustainable energy, and quality building practices; and incorporating aspects of a global city.

The Downtown Plan is divided into six unique Character Areas: North Pine, Civic Center, Business and Entertainment Area, Willmore Historic District, West End, and East Village. The Downtown Plan’s Figure 2-1, Character Areas and Surrounding Neighborhoods, identifies the project site within the Business and Entertainment Area. The Business and Entertainment Area is the commercial core of Downtown Long Beach generally located between Pacific Avenue and Elm Avenue, extending from Ocean Boulevard north to 10th Street, and contains modern office buildings, hotels, restaurants, shopping, and night spots, and includes Long Beach City Place, a mixed-use district of high-density residential, shopping, and entertainment venues. Downtown Long Beach is the business, retail, and tourism hub of the city, and also the home of many of the City’s historic and cultural treasures. The Metro A Line fixed rail transit service loops through this area, as do several Long Beach Transit and Metro bus routes.

The Downtown Plan also includes specific development standards and guidelines required for all new developments in the Downtown Plan area, such as: zoning, permitted land uses, intensity and height standards, development incentives, parking standards, transportation management, and open space and design standards. Full implementation of the Downtown Plan would increase the density and intensity of existing Downtown land uses by allowing up to (1) approximately 5,000 new residential units; (2) 1.5 million square feet of new office, civic, cultural, and similar uses; (3) 384,000 square feet of new retail; (4) 96,000 square feet of restaurants; and (5) 800 new hotel rooms, over a 25-year time period. As mentioned above, the City approved an Addendum to the Certified PEIR in January 2022, which included the approval of a LUEP. As a part of the LUEP, a Downtown Plan Equivalency Calculator was developed that provides for the initial reallocation of non-residential land use to account for an additional 3,260 housing units to be developed within the downtown. The 3,260 additionally approved residential units can be accommodated by reducing office by 417,060 square feet, commercial uses by 135,320 square feet, and hotel uses by 177 rooms. Taking into account the development pending approval and/or already approved, this leaves a balance of 3,008 dwelling units, 592,950 square feet of office space, 140,970 square feet of commercial space, and 400 hotel rooms.

The Certified PEIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts that may result from the adoption and implementation of the Downtown Plan. The Certified PEIR provides a programmatic level of environmental impact analysis for a broad array of environmental topics for the entire Downtown Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 9 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Plan area. The Certified PEIR analyzes the impacts of an estimated buildout scenario of residential units, offices, retail uses, restaurants, and hotel rooms. The Certified PEIR determined the Downtown Plan would cause significant and unavoidable impacts to the following resource areas:
aesthetics (shade and shadow), air quality (construction and operation), cultural resources (historic), greenhouse gases, noise (construction vibration), population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems (solid waste). All other resources areas were determined to have impacts that were either less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. Table 1, Certified PEIR Impacts and Mitigation Measures, includes a column summarizing the impacts identified in the Certified PEIR and a column noting the corresponding required mitigation identified to avoid, minimize, or reduce potential impacts.

Proposed Project
As shown in Table 3-1, Land Uses and Permit Requirements, of the Downtown Plan, residential and retail uses are permitted within the Downtown Plan area. Restaurant uses are also permitted within the Plan area as an accessory use (City of Long Beach, 2012). In accordance with the allowable uses established in the Downtown Plan and analyzed in the Certified PEIR (including the LUEP Addendum), the proposed project would develop three 8-story buildings and a standalone pavilion (retail pavilion) on an approximately 5.5-acre site (project site) within the Downtown Plan area in the city of Long Beach. The project site is bisected by East 5th Street, resulting in northern and southern portions of the project site. The proposed project would include the demolition of 197,513 square feet of existing commercial and retail uses that are currently on site. The proposed project would develop one 8-story mixed-use building (Building B) on the southern portion of the site and two 8-story buildings, one mixed-use building (Building C1) and one residential building (Building C2), and a standalone pavilion on the northern portion of the site. As shown in Table 2, Proposed Project Development, below, the proposed project would include a total of 900 residential units, including 102 studio units, 476 one- bedroom units, 313 two-bedroom units, and 9 threebedroom units. Additionally, the proposed project would provide 38,405 square feet of leasable commercial uses, including a 2,405 square-foot pavilion, and 181 residential storage units.

Also depicted in Table 2, the proposed project would provide 31,195 square feet of common indoor open space, 62,027 square feet of common outdoor open space, and 29,747 square feet of private open space, including 451 units with private balconies. The podium buildings would be 8 stories and up to 95 feet in height. Figure 3a, North and South Building Elevations and Figure 3b, East and West Building Elevations, illustrate the elevations for the proposed project. Each of the three buildings would include a residential garage with three levels of above-grade parking as well as bicycle storage areas located on the ground floor. In addition, the site would include AC units, boiler rooms, and space for future solar panels on the roof of each of the buildings. A detailed description of each project component is provided below in Table 2.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 10 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
TABLE 1

CERTIFIED PEIR IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Mitigation Measures
Aesthetics
Impact AES-2 Development of future projects
within the Downtown Plan Project area would
result in new sources of light and glare due to
the increased height and scale of future
development, as well as from the increased
proportion of glazing on building façades and
potential use of reflective materials such as
aluminum and glass typical of contemporary
design in comparison to existing styles of
development from previous eras. This is, in
part, a desired outcome in creating a vibrant
urban environment, a key objective of the
proposed project. This is considered a Class II,
significant but mitigable impact. The mitigation
comes in the form of existing Site Plan review
and design review procedures.

Mitigation Measure AES-2(a) Lighting Plans and Specifications. Prior to the issuance of building permits for new large development projects, the applicant shall submit lighting plans and specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures and light standards to the Development Services Department for review and approval. The plans shall include a photometric design study demonstrating that all outdoor light fixtures to be installed are designed or located in a manner as to contain the direct rays from the lights onsite and to minimize spillover of light onto surrounding properties or roadways. All parking structure lighting shall be shielded and directed away from residential uses. Rooftop decks and other similar amenities are encouraged in the Plan. Lighting for such features shall be designed so that light is directed so as to provide adequate security and minimal spill-over or nuisance lighting.

Mitigation Measure AES-2(b) Building Material Specifications. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for development projects, applicants shall submit plans and specifications for all building materials to the Development Services Department for review and approval. The Plan provides measures to ensure that the highest quality materials are used for new development projects. This is an important consideration, since high-quality materials last longer. Quality development provides an impression of permanence and can encourage additional private investment in Downtown Long Beach.

Mitigation Measure AES-2(c) Light Fixture Shielding. Prior to the issuance of building permits for development projects within the Downtown Plan Project area, applicants shall demonstrate to the Development Services Department that all night lighting installed on private property within the project site shall be shielded, directed away from residential and other light-sensitive uses, and confined to the project site. Rooftop lighting, including rooftop decks, security lighting, or aviation warning lights, shall be in accordance with Airport/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. Additionally, all lighting shall comply with all applicable Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) Safety Policies and FAA regulations.

Mitigation Measure AES-2(d) Window Tinting. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit plans and specifications showing that building windows are manufactured or tinted to minimize glare from interior lighting and to minimize heat gain in accordance with energy conservation measures.

Impact AES-3 Development projects that
include high-rise structures as encouraged by
the Downtown Plan would cast shadows onto
adjacent properties, particularly in the
wintertime when shadows extend the farthest
from a tall structure and are the most extreme.

Because shadows from these development
projects would fall on sensitive residential,
public gathering, and school uses within the
Downtown Plan Project area for more than 3
hours during the winter months, shadow
impacts would be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure AES-3 Shadow Impacts. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any structure exceeding 75 feet in height or any structure that is adjacent to a light sensitive use and exceeds 45 feet in height, the applicant shall submit a shading study that includes calculations of the extent of shadowing arches for winter and equinox conditions. If feasible, projects shall be designed to avoid shading of light sensitive uses in excess of the significance thresholds outlined in this EIR. If avoidance of shadows exceeding significance thresholds is determined to be infeasible, the shadow impact will be disclosed as part of a project environmental impact report (EIR).

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 11 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1 Construction activities associated
with development envisioned under the
proposed Downtown Plan would generate
emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone
precursors. Because of the large size of the
Plan area, construction-generated emissions of
VOCs and NOX, both ozone precursors, and
PM10 and PM2.5 would exceed SCAQMDrecommended thresholds and would substantially contribute to emissions
concentrations that exceed the NAAQS and
CAAQS. Thus, construction-related emissions
of criteria air pollutants and precursors could
violate or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation, expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations, and/or conflict with air quality
planning efforts. This would result in a
significant adverse impact on air quality.

Impacts would be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a) To reduce short-term construction emissions, the City shall require that all construction projects that would require use of heavy-duty (50 horsepower [hp] or more), off-road vehicles to be used during construction shall require their contractors to implement the Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices (listed below) or whatever mitigation measures are recommended by SCAQMD at the time individual portions of the site undergo construction, including those specified in the mitigation recommendations in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook or SCAQMD’s Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies recommendations located at the following url: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/mitigation/MM_intro.html.

Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices
• The project applicant shall provide a plan for approval by the City, demonstrating that the heavy-duty (50 hp or more) offroad vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project-wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction, 20 percent VOC reduction, and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the 2011 ARB fleet average, as contained in the URBEMIS output sheets in Appendix C. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late-model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. SCAQMD, which is the resource agency for air quality in the project area, can be used in an advisory role to demonstrate fleet-wide reductions. SCAQMD’s mitigation measures for off-road engines can be used to identify an equipment fleet that achieves this reduction (SCAQMD 2007b).
• The project applicant shall submit to the City a comprehensive inventory of all off-road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 hp, that would be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project. The inventory shall include the hp rating, engine production year, and projected hours of use for each piece of equipment. The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. At least 48 hours prior to the use of heavy-duty off-road equipment, the project representative shall provide the City with the anticipated construction timeline including start date and name and phone number of the project manager and onsite foreman. A visual survey of all in-operation equipment shall be made at least weekly, and a monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed and the dates of each survey. SCAQMD staff and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine compliance.
• If, at the time of construction, SCAQMD, CARB, or the EPA has adopted a regulation or new guidance applicable to construction emissions, compliance with the regulation or new guidance may completely or partially replace this mitigation if it is equal to or more effective than the mitigation contained herein, and if the City so permits. Such a determination must be supported by a project-level analysis and be approved by the City.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) Prior to construction of each development phase of onsite land uses that are proposed within 1,500 feet of sensitive receptors, each project applicant shall perform a project-level CEQA analysis that includes a detailed LST analysis of construction-generated emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to assess the impact at nearby sensitive receptors.

The LST analysis shall be performed in accordance with applicable SCAQMD guidance that is in place at the time the analysis is performed. The project-level analysis shall incorporate detailed parameters of the construction equipment and activities, including the year during which construction would be performed, as well as the proximity of potentially affected receptors, including receptors proposed by the project that exist at the time the construction activity would occur.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 12 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-1(c) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project plans shall include the following provisions to reduce construction-related air quality impacts:
• Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow; • Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off-site; • Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas; • Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning onsite construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation;
• Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization, and ensure that all vehicles and equipment will be properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturers’ specifications;
• Use coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than that required under AQMD Rule 1113; • Construct or build with materials that do not require painting; • Require the use of pre-painted construction materials if available; • Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export); • During project construction, all internal combustion engines/construction equipment operating on the project site shall meet EPA-Certified Tier 2 emissions standards, or higher according to the following:
o Project Start, to December 31, 2011: All offroad diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 2 offroad emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with the BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 2 or Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
o January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014: All offroad diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 offroad emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
o Post-January 1, 2015: All offroad diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
• A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. • Encourage construction contractors to apply for AQMD “SOON” funds. Incentives could be provided for those construction contractors who apply for AQMD “SOON” funds. The “SOON” program provides funds to accelerate clean up of off-road diesel vehicles, such as heavy duty construction equipment. More information on this program can be found at the following website: http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/Implementation/SOONProgram.htm Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 13 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
Impact AQ-2 Operational area- and mobilesource emissions from implementation of the proposed Downtown Plan would exceed all
applicable SCAQMD-recommended thresholds,
and would result in or substantially contribute to
emissions concentrations that exceed the
NAAQS or CAAQS. This would result in a
significant adverse impact on air quality.

Impacts would be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2 Mitigation to reduce mobile source emissions due to implementation of the Plan addresses reducing the number of motor vehicle trips and reducing the emissions of individual vehicles under the control of the project applicant(s).

The following measures shall be implemented by project applicant(s) unless it can be demonstrated to the City that the measures would not be feasible.
• The project applicant(s) for all project phases shall require the commercial development operator(s) to operate, maintain, and promote a ride-share program for employees of the various businesses. • The project applicant(s) for all project phases shall include one or more secure bicycle parking areas within the property and encourage bicycle riding for both employees and customers. • The proposed structures shall be designed to meet current Title 24 + 20 percent energy efficiency standards and shall include such measures as photovoltaic cells on the rooftops to achieve an additional 25 percent reduction in electricity use on an average sunny day.
• The City shall ensure that all new commercial developments include or have access to convenient shower and locker facilities for employees to encourage bicycle, walking, and jogging as options for commuting. • The project applicant(s) for all project phases shall require that all equipment operated by the businesses within the facility be electric or use non-diesel engines.
• All truck loading and unloading docks shall be equipped with one 110/208-volt power outlet for every two-dock door.

Diesel trucks shall be prohibited from idling more than 5 minutes and must be required to connect to the 110/208-volt power to run any auxiliary equipment. Signs outlining the idling restrictions shall be provided. • If, at the time of construction, SCAQMD, CARB, or EPA has adopted a regulation or new guidance applicable to mobileand area-source emissions, compliance with the regulation or new guidance may completely or partially replace this mitigation if it is equal to or more effective than the mitigation contained herein, and if the City so permits. Such a determination shall be supported by a project-level analysis that is approved by the City.

Impact AQ-4 Implementation of the proposed
Downtown Plan would result in exposure of
receptors to short- and long-term emissions of
TACs from onsite and offsite stationary and
mobile sources. Impacts from short-term
construction, long-term onsite stationary
sources, and offsite mobile-sources would be
Class III, less than significant. Impacts from
Port of Long Beach and offsite stationary
sources, and onsite mobile sources would be
Class I, significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4(a) The following measures shall be implemented to reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to operational emissions of TACs:
• Proposed commercial land uses that have the potential to emit TACs or host TAC-generating activity (e.g., loading docks) shall be located away from existing and proposed onsite sensitive receptors such that they do not expose sensitive receptors to TAC emissions that exceed an incremental increase of 10 in 1 million for the cancer risk and/or a noncarcinogenic Hazard Index of 1.0.
• Where necessary to reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to an incremental increase of 10 in 1 million for the cancer risk and/or a noncarcinogenic Hazard Index of 1.0, proposed commercial and industrial land uses that would host diesel trucks shall incorporate idle-reduction strategies that reduce the main propulsion engine idling time through alternative technologies such as IdleAire, electrification of truck parking, and alternative energy sources for TRUs to allow diesel engines to be completely turned off.
• Signs shall be posted in at all loading docks and truck loading areas to indicate that diesel-powered delivery trucks must be shut off when not in use for longer than 5 minutes on the premises. This measure is consistent with the ATCM to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, which was approved by the California Office of Administrative Law in January 2005.
• Proposed facilities that would require the long-term use of diesel equipment and heavy-duty trucks shall develop a plan to reduce emissions, which may include such measures as scheduling activities when the residential uses are the least occupied, requiring equipment to be shut off when not in use, and prohibiting heavy trucks from idling. • When determining the exact type of facility that would occupy the proposed commercial space, the City shall take into consideration its toxic-producing potential.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 14 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
• Commercial land uses that accommodate more than 100 trucks per day, or 40 trucks equipped with TRUs, within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences or schools) shall perform a site-specific project-level HRA in accordance with SCAQMD guidance for projects generating or attracting vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles (SCAQMD 2003b). If the incremental increase in cancer risk determined by the HRA exceeds the threshold of significance recommended by SCAQMD or ARB at the time (if any), then all feasible mitigation measures shall be employed to minimize the impact.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4(b) The City shall verify that the following measures are implemented by new developments to reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions of TACs from POLB and stationary sources in the vicinity of the Downtown Plan Project area:
• All proposed residences in the Downtown Plan Project area shall be equipped with filter systems with high Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) for removal of small particles (such as 0.3 micron) at all air intake points to the home.

All proposed residences shall be constructed with mechanical ventilation systems that would allow occupants to keep windows and doors closed and allow for the introduction of fresh outside air without the requirement of open windows. • The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems shall be used to maintain all residential units under positive pressure at all times.
• An ongoing education and maintenance plan about the filtration systems associated with HVAC shall be developed and implemented for residences.
• To the extent feasible, sensitive receptors shall be located as far away from the POLB as possible.

Mitigation Measure AQ-5 The following additional guidelines, which are recommended in ARB’s Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (ARB 2005) shall be implemented. The guidelines are considered to be advisory and not regulatory:
• Sensitive receptors, such as residential units and daycare centers, shall not be located in the same building as drycleaning operations that use perchloroethylene. Drycleaning operations that use perchloroethylene shall not be located within 300 feet of any sensitive receptor. A setback of 500 feet shall be provided for operations with two or more machines.

Impact AQ-6 Temporary, short-term
construction and long-term operation of the
Project could result in the frequent exposure of
sensitive receptors to substantial objectionable
odor emissions. Impacts from short-term
construction would be Class III, less than
significant. Impacts from long-term operation
would be Class II, significant and mitigable.

Mitigation Measure AQ-6 The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to control exposure of sensitive receptors to operational odorous emissions. The City shall ensure that all project applicant(s) implement the following measures:
• The City shall consider the odor-producing potential of land uses when reviewing future development proposals and when the exact type of facility that would occupy areas zoned for commercial, industrial, or mixed-use land uses is determined. Facilities that have the potential to emit objectionable odors shall be located as far away as feasible from existing and proposed sensitive receptors.
• Before the approval of building permits, odor-control devices shall be identified to mitigate the exposure of receptors to objectionable odors if a potential odor producing source is to occupy an area zoned for commercial land use. The identified odor-control devices shall be installed before the issuance of certificates of occupancy for the potentially odorproducing use. The odor-producing potential of a source and control devices shall be determined in coordination with SCAQMD and based on the number of complaints associated with existing sources of the same nature. • Truck loading docks and delivery areas shall be located as far away as feasible from existing and proposed sensitive receptors.
• Signs shall be posted at all loading docks and truck loading areas to indicate that diesel-powered delivery trucks must be shut off when not in use for longer than 5 minutes on the premises in order to reduce idling emissions. This measure is consistent with the ATCM to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling, which was approved by California’s Office of Administrative Law in January 2005. (This measure is also required by Mitigation Measure AQ-4 to limit TAC emissions.)
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 15 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
• Proposed commercial and industrial land uses that have the potential to host diesel trucks shall incorporate idlereduction strategies that reduce the main propulsion engine idling time through alternative technologies such as, IdleAire, electrification of truck parking, and alternative energy sources for TRUs to allow diesel engines to be completely turned off. (This measure is also required by Mitigation Measure AQ-4 to limit TAC emissions.) In addition, mitigation measures identified under AQ-4(b) to reduce indoor exposure to TACs would also result in a reduction in the intensity of offensive odors from the surrounding odor sources.

Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1 Adoption of the proposed
Downtown Plan may result in redevelopment of
properties considered to be eligible for listing
on the National Register or the California
Register, or that is determined eligible for listing
as a City Landmark or Landmark District.

Compliance with mitigation measures identified
herein would provide an opportunity to avoid or
reduce impacts to historic properties. However,
it may not be feasible to fully implement the
Downtown Plan without impacting historic
resources. Therefore, the impact would be
Class I, significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) The City shall encourage the designation as local landmarks of 20 properties identified in Table

4.3-3 with the “Desired Outcome” of “Pursue Local Designation.” The City will encourage the on-going maintenance and appropriate adaptive reuse of all properties in Table 4.3-2 (existing landmarks), and Table 4.3-3 as historic resources.

Mitigation Measure CR-1(b) The following procedures shall be followed prior to issuance of a demolition permit or a building permit for alteration of any property listed in the Historic Survey Report (ICF Jones & Stokes 2009) by Status Code 3S, 3CS, 5S1, or 5S3; designated as a Historic Landmark (City of Long Beach 2010a); listed in Tables 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 of this PEIR, or other property 45 years of age or older that was not previously determined by the Historic Survey Report to be ineligible for National Register, California Register, or Local Landmark (Status Code 6L and 6Z):

Notification of Historic Preservation Staff
Historic Preservation staff in the City Development Services Department shall be notified upon receipt of any demolition permit or building permit for alteration of any property listed in the Historic Survey Report or other property 45 years of age or older that was not previously determined by the Historic Survey Report to be ineligible for National Register, California Register, or Local Landmark (Status Code 6L and 6Z)
Determination of Need for Historic Property Survey
In consultation with Historic Preservation staff, the City Development Services Department shall determine whether a formal historic property survey is needed and may require that the owner or applicant provide photographs of the property, including each building façade, with details of windows, siding, eaves, and streetscape views, and copies of the County Assessor and City building records, in order to make this determination.

Determination of Eligibility
If City Development Services Department staff determines that the property may be eligible for designation, the property shall be referred to the Cultural Heritage Commission, whose determination of eligibility shall be considered as part of the environmental determination for the project in accordance with CEQA.

Documentation Program
If the Cultural Heritage Commission determines that the property is eligible for historic listing, the City Development Services Department shall, in lieu of preservation, require that prior to demolition or alteration a Documentation Program be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Development Services Department, which shall include the following:

A. Photo Documentation
Documentation shall include professional quality photographs of the structure prior to demolition with 35 mm black and white photographs, 4" x 6" standard format, taken of all four elevations and with close-ups of select architectural elements, such as but not limited to, roof/wall junctions, window treatments, decorative hardware, any other elements of the building’s exterior or interior, or other property features identified by the City Development Services Department to be documented. Photographs shall be of archival quality and easily reproducible.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 16 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
B. Required Drawings
Measured drawings of the building’s exterior elevations depicting existing conditions or other relevant features shall be produced from recorded, accurate measurements. If portions of the building are not accessible for measurement or cannot be reproduced from historic sources, they should not be drawn, but clearly labeled as not accessible. Drawings shall be produced in ink on translucent material or archivally stable material (blueline drawings are acceptable). Standard drawing sizes are 19" x 24" or 24" x 36" and standard scale is ¼" = 1 foot.

C. Archival Storage
Xerox copies or CD of the photographs and one set of the measured drawings shall be submitted for archival storage with the City Development Services Department; and one set of original photographs, negatives, and measured drawings shall be submitted for archival storage with such other historical repository identified by the City Development Services Department.

Impact CR-2 Due to the lack of natural ground
surfaces in the Project area, no surveys can be
conducted prior to onset of demolition or other
ground-disturbing activities. The potential exists
for such activities to encounter and damage
archaeological resources. This impact would be
Class II, significant and mitigable.

Mitigation Measure CR-2(a) A qualified project archaeologist or archaeological monitor approved by the City in advance of any ground-disturbing activities shall be present during excavation into native sediments and shall have the authority to halt excavation for inspection and protection of cultural resources. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities to allow the find to be evaluated. If the archaeological monitor determines the find to be significant, the project applicant and the City shall be notified and an appropriate treatment plan for the resources shall be prepared. The treatment plan shall include notification of a Native American representative and shall consider whether the resource should be preserved in place or removed to an appropriate repository as identified by the City.

Mitigation Measure CR-2(b) The project archaeologist shall prepare a final report of the find for review and approval by the City and shall include a description of the resources unearthed, if any, treatment of the resources, and evaluation of the resources with respect to the California Register of Historic Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. The report shall be filed with the California Historic Resources Information System South Central Coastal Information Center. If the resources are found to be significant, a separate report including the results of the recovery and evaluation process shall be prepared.

Mitigation Measure CR-2(c) If human remains are encountered during excavation and grading activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the corner is to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC will then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent, who will help determine what course of action should be taken in dealing with the remains. Preservation in place and project design alternatives shall be considered as possible courses of action by the project applicant, the City, and the Most Likely Descendent.

Impact CR-3 Due to the lack of natural ground
surfaces in the Project area, no surveys can be
conducted prior to onset of demolition or other
ground-disturbing activities. The potential exists
for such activities to encounter and damage
paleontological resources. This impact would
be Class II, significant and mitigable.

Mitigation Measure CR-3(a) A qualified paleontologist approved by the City in advance of any ground-disturbing activities shall be present during excavation into native sediments and shall have the authority to halt excavation for inspection and protection of paleontological resources. Monitoring shall consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for fossil remains and, where appropriate, collection of sediment samples for further analysis. The frequency of inspections shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials being excavated, the depth of excavation, and, if found, the abundance and type of fossils encountered.

Mitigation Measure CR-3(b) If a potential fossil is found, the paleontologist shall be allowed to temporarily divert or redirect excavation and grading in the area of the exposed fossil to evaluate and, if necessary, salvage the find. All fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and catalogued before they are donated to their final repository. Any fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and shall be accompanied by a report on the fossils collected and their significance, and notes, maps, and photographs of the salvage effort.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 17 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
Geology and Seismicity
Impact Geo-1 Seismically induced ground
shaking could damage existing and proposed
structures in the Plan area and could expose
people or structures to potential substantial risk
of loss, injury, or death. Compliance with
mitigation measures identified herein would
reduce impacts to a Class II, significant and
mitigable impact.

Mitigation Measure Geo-1 New construction or structural remodeling of buildings proposed within the Project area shall be engineered to withstand the expected ground acceleration that may occur at the project site. The calculated design base ground motion for each project site shall take into consideration the soil type, potential for liquefaction, and the most current and applicable seismic attenuation methods that are available. All onsite structures shall comply with applicable provisions of the most recent UBC adopted by the City of Long Beach.

Impact Geo-2 Seismic activity could induce
ground shaking that results in liquefaction that
could cause structural failure and potential
substantial risk of loss, injury, or death.

Compliance with mitigation measures identified
herein would reduce impacts to a Class II,
significant and mitigable impact.

Mitigation Measure Geo-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for new structures, the City Department of Development Services shall determine, based on building height, depth, and location, whether a comprehensive geotechnical investigation and geo-engineering study shall be completed to adequately assess the liquefaction potential and compaction design of the soils underlying the proposed bottom grade of the structure. If a geotechnical investigation is required, borings shall be completed to at least 50 feet below the lowest proposed finished grade of the structure or 20 feet below the lowest caisson or footing (whichever is deeper). If these soils are confirmed to be prone to seismically induced liquefaction, appropriate techniques to minimize liquefaction potential shall be prescribed and implemented. All onsite structures shall comply with applicable methods of the UBC and California Building Code. Suitable measures to reduce liquefaction impacts could include specialized design of foundations by a structural engineer, removal or treatment of liquefiable soils to reduce the potential for liquefaction, drainage to lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable soils, in-situ densification of soils, or other alterations to the sub-grade characteristics.

Impact Geo-3 The potential exists within the
Plan area to encounter expansive soils or soils
that are unstable or would become unstable as
a result of new development. These conditions
could result in onsite or offsite lateral spreading
or subsidence. Compliance with mitigation
measures identified herein would reduce
impacts to a Class II, significant and mitigable
impact.

Mitigation Measure Geo-3 Prior to issuance of a building permit for new structures, the City Department of Development Services shall determine the need for soil samples of final sub-grade areas and excavation sidewalls to be collected and analyzed for their expansion index. For areas where the expansion index is found to be greater than 20, grading and foundation designs shall be engineered to withstand the existing conditions. The expansion testing may be omitted if the grading and foundations are engineered to withstand the presence of highly expansive soils.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1 Construction activities
associated with implementation of the proposed
Downtown Plan would result in increased
generation of GHG emissions. These
emissions would be temporary and short-term
and would decline over time as new regulations
are developed that address medium- and
heavy-duty on-road vehicles and off-road
equipment under the mandate of AB 32.

Impacts would be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1(a) Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Implementation of the mitigation measures described in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this PEIR, which would reduce construction emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, would also act to reduce GHG emissions associated with implementation of the Project. The construction mitigation measures for exhaust emissions are relevant to the global climate change impact because both criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions are frequently associated with combustion byproducts.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1(b) Implement Additional Measures to Control Construction-Generated GHG Emissions. To further reduce construction-generated GHG emissions, the project applicant(s) of all public and private developments shall implement all feasible measures for reducing GHG emissions associated with construction that are recommended by the City and/or SCAQMD at the time individual portions of the site undergo construction, including those specified in the mitigation recommendations in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook or SCAQMD’s Mitigation Measures and Control Efficiencies recommendations located at the following url: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/mitigation/MM_intro.html. Such measures may reduce GHG exhaust emissions from the use of onsite equipment, worker commute trips, and truck trips carrying materials and equipment to and from the project site, as well as GHG emissions embodied in the materials selected for construction (e.g., Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 18 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
concrete). Other measures may pertain to the materials used in construction. Prior to the construction of each development phase, the project applicant(s) shall obtain the most current list of GHG-reduction measures that are recommended by the City and/or SCAQMD and stipulate that these measures be implemented during the appropriate construction phase. The project applicant(s) for any particular development phase may submit to the City a report that substantiates why specific measures are considered infeasible for construction of that particular development phase and/or at that point in time. The report, including the substantiation for not implementing particular GHG-reduction measures, shall be approved by the City.

The City’s recommended measures for reducing construction-related GHG emissions at the time of writing this PEIR are listed below and the project applicant(s) shall, at a minimum, be required to implement the following:
• Improve fuel efficiency from construction equipment:
o reduce unnecessary idling (modify work practices, install auxiliary power for driver comfort), o perform equipment maintenance (inspections, detect failures early, corrections), o train equipment operators in proper use of equipment, o use the proper size of equipment for the job, and
o use equipment with new technologies (repowered engines, electric drive trains). • Use alternative fuels for electricity generators and welders at construction sites such as propane or solar, or use electrical power.
• Use an ARB-approved low-carbon fuel, such as biodiesel or renewable diesel for construction equipment (emissions of NOX from the use of low carbon fuel must be reviewed and increases mitigated). Additional information about low-carbon fuels is available from ARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program (ARB 2010a). • Encourage and provide carpools, shuttle vans, transit passes and/or secure bicycle parking for construction worker commutes.
• Reduce electricity use in the construction office by using compact fluorescent bulbs, powering off computers every day, and replacing heating and cooling units with more efficient ones. • Recycle or salvage non-hazardous construction and demolition debris (goal of at least 75 percent by weight). • Use locally sourced or recycled materials for construction materials (goal of at least 20 percent based on costs for building materials, and based on volume for roadway, parking lot, sidewalk, and curb materials). • Minimize the amount of concrete used for paved surfaces or use a low carbon concrete option. • Produce concrete onsite if determined to be less emissive than transporting ready mix. • Use EPA-certified SmartWay trucks for deliveries and equipment transport. Additional information about the SmartWay Transport Partnership Program is available from ARB’s Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG Measure (ARB 2010b) and EPA (EPA 2010).
• Develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control. This may consist of the use of non-potable water from a local source.

Impact GHG-2 Implementation of the proposed
Downtown Plan over the long term would result
in increased generation of GHGs, which would
contribute considerably to cumulative GHG
emissions. Impacts would be Class I, significant
and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure GHG-2(a) Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-3. Implementation of the mitigation measures described in Section 4.2, which would reduce operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, would also act to reduce GHG emissions associated with implementation of the Project. The operational mitigation measures for exhaust emissions are relevant to the global climate change impact because both criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions are frequently associated with combustion byproducts.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 19 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GHG-2(b) Implement Additional Measures to Reduce Operational GHG Emissions. For each increment of new development within the Project area requiring a discretionary approval (e.g., tentative subdivision map, conditional use permit, improvement plan), measures that reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible and to the extent appropriate with respect to the state’s progress at the time toward meeting GHG emissions reductions required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) shall be imposed, as follows:
• The project applicant shall incorporate feasible GHG reduction measures that, in combination with existing and future regulatory measures developed under AB 32, will reduce GHG emissions associated with the operation of future project development phases and supporting roadway and infrastructure improvements by an amount sufficient to achieve the goal of 6.6 CO2e/SP/year, if it is feasible to do so. The feasibility of potential GHG reduction measures shall be evaluated by the City at the time each phase of development is proposed to allow for ongoing innovations in GHG reduction technologies and incentives created in the regulatory environment. • For each increment of new development, the project applicant shall obtain a list of potentially feasible GHG reduction measures to be considered in the development design from the City. The City’s list of potentially feasible GHG reduction measures shall reflect the current state of the regulatory environment, which will continuously evolve under the mandate of AB 32. The project applicant(s) shall then submit to the City a mitigation report that contains an analysis demonstrating which GHG reduction measures are feasible for the associated reduction in GHG emissions, and the resulting CO2e/SP/year metric. The report shall also demonstrate why measures not selected are considered infeasible. The mitigation report must be reviewed and approved by the City for the project applicant(s) to receive the City’s discretionary approval for the applicable increment of development. In determining what measures should appropriately be imposed by a local government under the circumstances, the following factors shall be considered:
o The extent to which rates of GHG emissions generated by motor vehicles traveling to, from, and within the Project site are projected to decrease over time as a result of regulations, policies, and/or plans that have already been adopted or may be adopted in the future by ARB or other public agency pursuant to AB 32, or by EPA; o The extent to which mobile-source GHG emissions, which at the time of writing this PEIR comprise a substantial portion of the state’s GHG inventory, can also be reduced through design measures that result in trip reductions and reductions in trip length;
o The extent to which GHG emissions emitted by the mix of power generation operated by SCE, the electrical utility that will serve the Project site, are projected to decrease pursuant to the Renewables Portfolio Standard required by SB 1078 and SB 107, as well as any future regulations, policies, and/or plans adopted by the federal and state governments that reduce GHG emissions from power generation; o The extent to which replacement of CCR Title 24 with the California Green Building Standards Code or other similar requirements will result in new buildings being more energy efficient and consequently more GHG efficient; o The extent to which any stationary sources of GHG emissions that would be operated on a proposed land use (e.g., industrial) are already subject to regulations, policies, and/or plans that reduce GHG emissions, particularly any future regulations that will be developed as part of ARB’s implementation of AB 32, or other pertinent regulations on stationary sources that have the indirect effect of reducing GHG emissions; o The extent to which the feasibility of existing GHG reduction technologies may change in the future, and to which innovation in GHG reduction technologies will continue, effecting cost-benefit analyses that determine economic feasibility; and
o Whether the total costs of proposed mitigation for GHG emissions, together with other mitigation measures required for the proposed development, are so great that a reasonably prudent property owner would not proceed with the project in the face of such costs.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 20 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
• In considering how much, and what kind of, mitigation is necessary in light of these factors, the following list of options shall be considered, though the list is not intended to be exhaustive, as GHG-emission reduction strategies and their respective feasibility are likely to evolve over time. These measures are derived from multiple sources including the Mitigation Measure Summary in Appendix B of the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) white paper, CEQA & Climate Change (CAPCOA 2008); CAPCOA’s Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans (CAPCOA 2009); and the California Attorney General’s Office publication, The California Environmental Quality Act:

Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level (California Attorney General’s Office 2010).

Energy Efficiency
o Include clean alternative energy features to promote energy self-sufficiency (e.g., photovoltaic cells, solar thermal electricity systems, small wind turbines).
o Design buildings to meet CEC Tier II requirements (e.g., exceeding the requirements of Title 24 [as of 2007] by 20 percent).
o Site buildings to take advantage of shade and prevailing winds and design landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use.
o Install efficient lighting in all buildings (including residential). Also install lighting control systems, where practical. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in all buildings. o Install light-colored “cool” pavements, and strategically located shade trees along all bicycle and pedestrian routes.

Water Conservation and Efficiency
o With the exception of ornamental shade trees, use water-efficient landscapes with native, drought-resistant species in all public area and commercial landscaping. Use water-efficient turf in parks and other turf-dependent spaces. o Install the infrastructure to use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation and/or washing cars. o Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls. o Design buildings and lots to be water efficient. Only install water-efficient fixtures and appliances. o Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff.

Prohibit businesses from using pressure washers for cleaning driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, and street surfaces. These restrictions should be included in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of the community. o Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives. o To reduce storm water runoff, which typically bogs down wastewater treatment systems and increases their energy consumption, construct driveways to single-family detached residences and parking lots and driveways of multifamily residential uses, with pervious surfaces. Possible designs include Hollywood drives (two concrete strips with vegetation or aggregate in between) and/or the use of porous concrete, porous asphalt, turf blocks, or pervious pavers.

Solid Waste Measures
o Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard).
o Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste at all buildings. o Provide adequate recycling containers in public areas, including parks, school grounds, golf courses, and pedestrian zones in areas of mixed-use development.
o Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 21 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
o Promote ride-sharing programs and employment centers (e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading zones and waiting areas for ride-share vehicles, and providing a website or message board for coordinating ride-sharing). o Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure in all land use types to encourage the use of low- or zero-emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations). o At industrial and commercial land uses, all forklifts, “yard trucks,” or vehicles that are predominately used onsite at non-residential land uses shall be electric-powered or powered by biofuels (such as biodiesel [B100]) that are produced from waste products, or shall use other technologies that do not rely on direct fossil fuel consumption.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact Haz-1 The types of commercial and
residential land uses envisioned for the Project
area would not typically contain businesses
involved in the transport, use, or disposal of
substantial quantities of hazardous materials.

Therefore, hazardous materials impacts to
residences, schools, or other properties would
not be expected to result from transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials from
businesses anticipated to locate within the
Downtown Plan Project area. However, many
future construction projects would involve full or
partial demolition of existing structures, some of
which, due to their age, may contain asbestos
and lead-based paints and materials.

Compliance with mitigation measures identified
herein would reduce impacts to Class II,
significant and mitigable.

Mitigation Measure Haz-1(a) Prior to issuance of a demolition or renovation permit, a lead-based paint and asbestos survey shall be performed by a licensed sampling company. The lead-based paint survey shall be prepared for any structures pre-dating 1982; an asbestos survey shall be performed for asbestos-containing insulation for any structure pre-dating 1986; and an asbestos survey shall be performed for asbestos-containing drywall for all structures for which drywall is to be removed. All testing procedures shall follow California and federal protocol. The lead-based paint and asbestos survey report shall quantify the areas of lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials pursuant to California and federal standards.

Mitigation Measure Haz-1(b) Prior to any demolition or renovation, onsite structures that contain asbestos must have the asbestos-containing material removed according to proper abatement procedures recommended by the asbestos consultant. All abatement activities shall be in compliance with California and federal OSHA and SCAQMD requirements. Only asbestos trained and certified abatement personnel shall be allowed to perform asbestos abatement. All asbestos-containing material removed from onsite structures shall be hauled to a licensed receiving facility and disposed of under proper manifest by a transportation company certified to handle asbestos. Following completion of the asbestos abatement, the asbestos consultant shall provide a report documenting the abatement procedures used, the volume of asbestos-containing material removed, where the material was moved to, and transportation and disposal manifests or dump tickets. The abatement report shall be prepared for the property owner or other responsible party and a copy shall be submitted to the City of Long Beach prior to issuance of a demolition or construction permit.

Mitigation Measure Haz-1(c) Prior to the issuance of a permit for the renovation or demolition of any structure, a licensed leadbased paint consultant shall be contracted to evaluate the structure for lead-based paint. If lead-based paint is discovered, it shall be removed according to proper abatement procedures recommended by the consultant. All abatement activities shall be in compliance with California and federal OSHA and SCAQMD requirements. Only lead-based paint trained and certified abatement personnel shall be allowed to perform abatement activities. All lead-based paint removed from these structures shall be hauled and disposed of by a transportation company licensed to transport this type of material. In addition, the material shall be taken to a landfill or receiving facility licensed to accept the waste. Following completion of the lead-based paint abatement, the leadbased paint consultant shall provide a report documenting the abatement procedures used, the volume of lead-based paint removed, where the material was moved to, and transportation and disposal manifests or dump tickets. The abatement report shall be prepared for the property owner or other responsible party, with a copy submitted to the City of Long Beach prior to issuance of a demolition or construction permit.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 22 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
Impact Haz-3 Historic activity involving
industrial uses and storage of hydrocarbons,
heavy metals, and acids on properties within
the Project area may have contaminated onsite
soils and/or groundwater quality. Impacts
relating to potential contamination are
considered Class II, significant and mitigable.

Mitigation Measure Haz-3(a) All excavation and demolition projects conducted within the Project area shall be required to prepare a contingency plan to identify appropriate measures to be followed if contaminants are found or suspected or if structural features that could be associated with contaminants or hazardous materials are suspected or discovered. The contingency plan shall identify personnel to be notified, emergency contacts, and a sampling protocol to be implemented. The excavation and demolition contractors shall be made aware of the possibility of encountering unknown hazardous materials and shall be provided with appropriate contact and notification information. The contingency plan shall include a provision stating under what circumstances it would be safe to continue with the excavation or demolition and shall identify the person authorized to make that determination.

Mitigation Measure Haz-3(b) If contaminants are detected, the results of the soil sampling shall be forwarded to the appropriate local regulatory agency (Long Beach/Signal Hill Certified Unified Program Agency [CUPA], LARWQCB, or the state DTSC). Prior to any other ground disturbing activities at the site, the regulatory agency shall have reviewed the data and signed off on the property or such additional investigation or remedial activities that are deemed necessary have been completed and regulatory agency approval has been received.

Groundwater is subject to pre-treatment during de-watering activities to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Dewatering permit limits. The construction activities shall conform to the NPDES requirements. The RWQCB requires the water to be tested for possible pollutants. The developer shall collect groundwater samples from existing site wells to determine pre-treatment system requirements for extracted groundwater. A water treatment system shall be designed and installed for treatment of extracted groundwater removed during dewatering activities so that such water complies with the applicable RWQCB and NPDES permit standards before disposal.

Mitigation Measure Haz-3(c) If concentrations of contaminants warrant site remediation, contaminated materials shall be remediated either prior to construction of structures or concurrent with construction. The contaminated materials shall be remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed to oversee such remediation. The remediation program shall also be approved by a regulatory oversight agency (Long Beach/Signal Hill CUPA, LARWQCB, or the state DTSC). All proper waste handling and disposal procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the environmental consultant shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the remediation approach implemented, the analytical results after completion of the remediation, and all waste disposal or treatment manifests.

Mitigation Measure Haz-3(d) If during the soil sampling, groundwater contamination is suspected or soil contamination is detected at depths at which groundwater could be encountered during demolition or construction, a groundwater sampling assessment shall be performed. If contaminants are detected in groundwater at levels that exceed maximum contaminant levels for those constituents in drinking water, or if the contaminants exceed health risk standards such as Preliminary Remediation Goals, 1 in 1 million cancer risk, or a health risk index above 1, the results of the groundwater sampling shall be forwarded to the appropriate regulatory agency (Long Beach/Signal Hill CUPA, LARWQCB, or the State DTSC). Prior to any other grounddisturbing activities at the site, the regulatory agency shall have reviewed the data and signed off on the property or such additional investigation or remedial activities that are deemed necessary have been completed and regulatory agency approval has been received.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 23 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact Hydro-1 Construction activities
associated with future development of
residential, hotels, offices, and other uses could
result in discharges of urban pollutants into the
City drainage system. This would include runoff
from grading and excavation; fuel, lubricants,
and solvents from construction vehicles and
machinery; and trash and other debris. This
would result in a significant adverse impact on
water quality. Impacts would be Class II,
significant and mitigable.

Mitigation Measure Hydro-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City Department of Development Services shall determine the need for the developer to prepare a SWPPP for the site. If required, the SWPPP shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. The SWPPP shall fully comply with City and LARWQCB requirements and shall contain specific BMPs to be implemented during project construction to reduce erosion and sedimentation to the maximum extent practicable. The following BMPs or equivalent measures to control pollutant runoff shall be included within the project’s grading and construction plans, if applicable:

Pollutant Escape: Deterrence
• Cover all storage areas, including soil piles, fuel and chemical depots. Protect from rain and wind with plastic sheets and temporary roofs.
• Implement tracking controls to reduce the tracking of sediment and debris from the construction site. At a minimum, entrances and exits shall be inspected daily and controls implemented as needed. • Implement street sweeping and vacuuming as needed and as required.

Pollutant Containment Areas
• Locate all construction-related equipment and related processes that contain or generate pollutants (i.e., fuel, lubricants, solvents, cement dust, and slurry) in isolated areas with proper protection from escape. • Locate construction-related equipment and processes that contain or generate pollutants in secure areas, away from storm drains and gutters.
• Place construction-related equipment and processes that contain or generate pollutants in bermed and plastic-lined depressions to contain all materials within that site in the event of accidental release or spill. • Park, fuel, and clean all vehicles and equipment in one designated, contained area.

Pollutant Detainment Methods
• Protect downstream drainages from escaping pollutants by capturing materials carried in runoff and preventing transport from the site. Examples of detainment methods that retard movement of water and separate sediment and other contaminants are silt fences, hay bales, sandbags, berms, and silt and debris basins.

Recycling/Disposal
• Develop a protocol for maintaining a clean site. This includes proper recycling of construction-related materials and equipment fluids (i.e., concrete dust, cutting slurry, motor oil, and lubricants). • Provide disposal facilities. Develop a protocol for cleanup and disposal of small construction wastes (i.e., dry concrete).

Hazardous Materials Identification and Response
• Develop a protocol for identifying risk operations and materials. Include protocol for identifying source and distribution of spilled materials.
• Provide a protocol for proper clean-up of equipment and construction materials, and disposal of spilled substances and associated cleanup materials.
• Provide an emergency response plan that includes contingencies for assembling response teams and immediately notifying appropriate agencies.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 24 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
Impact Hydro-2 Future development would
generate various urban pollutants such as soil,
herbicides, and pesticides that could adversely
affect surface water and groundwater quality in
the Project area watershed. This would result in
a significant adverse impact on water quality.

Impacts would be Class II, significant and
mitigable.

Mitigation Measure Hydro-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Department of Development Services shall determine the need for the developer to prepare a SUSMP for the site. If required, the SUSMP shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Development Services prior to the issuance of any building permits. The City’s review shall include a determination of whether installation of pollutant removal technology in existing or proposed storm drains adjacent to the project site should be required. The City’s review is required to confirm that the SUSMP is consistent with the City’s NPDES Permit No.

CAS 004003 or a subsequently issued NPDES permit applicable at the time of project construction. A SUSMP consistent with the City’s NPDES permit shall be incorporated into the project design plans prior to issuance of any building permits.

Impact Hydro-3 The increased land use
intensity of future residential and commercial
uses allowed by the proposed Downtown Plan
could increase pervious surfaces and result in
an increased volume of stormwater discharges
into the existing storm drain infrastructure. This
would result in a significant adverse impact on
the local hydrologic system. Impacts would be
Class II, significant and mitigable.

Mitigation Measure Hydro-3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City Stormwater Management Division shall determine the need for the developer to conduct an analysis of the existing stormwater drainage system and to identify improvements needed to accommodate any projected increased runoff that would result from the proposed Project. The evaluation conducted by the developer shall include a determination of whether Low Impact Development (LID) practices and strategies should be incorporated into the project to reduce post-development peak stormwater runoff discharge rates to not exceed the estimated pre-development discharge rates.

Noise
Impact Noise-1 Implementation of the
proposed Downtown Plan would create noise
from construction activities that would expose
sensitive land uses to temporary or periodic
substantial noise level increases. While there is
a potential for a significant adverse noise
impact, compliance with mitigation measures
identified herein would reduce impacts to Class
II, significant and mitigable.

Mitigation Measure Noise-1(a) The following measures shall be applied to proposed construction projects that are determined to have potential noise impacts from removal of existing pavement and structures, site grading and excavation, pile driving, building framing, and concrete pours and paving:
• All internal combustion-engine-driven equipment shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good operating condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• “Quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary construction equipment shall be employed where such technology exists.
• Stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as reasonable from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are within 150 feet of a construction site. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., in excess of 5 minutes) shall be prohibited. • Foundation pile holes shall be predrilled, as feasible based on geologic conditions, to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.
• Construction-related traffic shall be routed along major roadways and away from noise-sensitive receptors. • Construction activities, including the loading and unloading of materials and truck movements, shall be limited to the hours specified in the City Noise Ordinance (Section 8.80.202). • Businesses, residences, and noise-sensitive land uses within 150 feet of construction sites shall be notified of the construction. The notification shall describe the activities anticipated, provide dates and hours, and provide contact information with a description of the complaint and response procedure. • Each project implemented as part of the Plan shall designate a “construction liaison” that would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The liaison would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. A telephone number for the liaison shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 25 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
• If two or more noise complaints are registered, the liaison, or project representative, shall retain a City-approved noise consultant to conduct noise measurements at the locations that registered the complaints. The noise measurements shall be conducted for a minimum of 1 hour and shall include 1-minute intervals. The consultant shall prepare a letter report summarizing the measurements and potential measures to reduce noise levels to the maximum extent feasible.

The letter report shall include all measurement and calculation data used in determining impacts and resolutions. The letter report shall be provided to code enforcement for determining the adequacy and if the recommendations are adequate.

Mitigation Measure Noise-1(b) The City will require the following measures, where applicable based on noise level of source, proximity of receptors, and presence of intervening structures, to be incorporated into contract specifications for construction projects within 300 feet of existing noise-sensitive land uses (including, but not limited to residences, schools, hospitals/nursing homes, churches, and parks) implemented under the proposed Plan:
• Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed around construction sites adjacent to, or within 150 feet of, operational business, residences, or other noise-sensitive land uses. Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed of material with a minimum weight of 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps or perforations. Noise barriers may be constructed of, but are not limited to, 5/8-inch plywood, 5/8-inch oriented strand board, or hay bales. • If a project-specific noise analysis determines that the barriers described above would not be sufficient to avoid a significant construction noise impact, a temporary sound control blanket barrier, shall be erected along building façades facing construction sites. This mitigation would only be necessary if conflicts occurred that were irresolvable by proper scheduling and other means of noise control were unavailable. The sound blankets are required to have a minimum breaking and tear strength of 120 pounds and 30 pounds, respectively. The sound blankets shall have a minimum sound transmission classification of 27 and noise reduction coefficient of 0.70. The sound blankets shall be of sufficient length to extend from the top of the building and drape on the ground or be sealed at the ground. The sound blankets shall have a minimum overlap of 2 inches.

Impact Noise-2 Implementation of the
proposed Downtown Plan would include
construction activities that would include
vibrations sources, including pile driving. This
would result in a significant adverse impact on
vibration. Impacts would be Class I, significant
and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure Noise-2(a) The City shall review all construction projects for potential vibration-generating activities from demolition, excavation, pile– driving, and construction within 100 feet of existing structures and shall require site-specific vibration studies to be conducted to determine the area of impact and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. The studies shall, at a minimum, include the following:
• Identification of the project’s vibration compaction activities, pile driving, and other vibration-generating activities that have the potential to generate ground-borne vibration; and the sensitivity of nearby structures to ground-borne vibration.

This task should be conducted by a qualified structural engineer. • A vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring would be conducted; establish a vibration monitoring schedule; define structure-specific vibration limits; and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions. Construction contingencies shall be identified for actions to be taken when vibration levels approached the defined vibration limits. • Maintain a monitoring log of vibrations during initial demolition activities and during pile driving activities. Monitoring results may indicate the need for a more or less intensive measurement schedule. • Vibration levels limits for suspension of construction activities and implementation of contingencies to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures.
• Post-construction survey on structures where either monitoring has indicated high vibration levels or complaints of damage have been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities.

Mitigation Measure Noise-2(b) Any construction activity that generates vibration exceeding the “vibration perception threshold” as specified in Municipal Code Section 8.80.200 at any school shall be scheduled at a time when school is not in session.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 26 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
Impact Noise-5 The proposed Downtown Plan
would allow the location of sensitive receptors
in areas that would exceed the standards
identified for the applicable land use by the
Noise Element of the Long Beach General
Plan. While there is a potential for a significant
adverse impact related to noise compatibility,
compliance with mitigation measures identified
herein would reduce impacts to Class II,
significant and mitigable.

Mitigation Measure Noise-5 In areas where new residential development would be exposed than Ldn of greater than 65 dBA, the City will require site-specific noise studies prior to issuance of building permits to determine the area of impact and to present appropriate mitigation measures, which may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Utilize site planning to minimize noise in shared residential outdoor activity areas by locating the areas behind the buildings or in courtyards, or orienting the terraces to alleyways rather than streets, whenever possible. • Provide mechanical ventilation in all residential units proposed along roadways or in areas where noise levels could exceed 65 dBA Ldn so that windows can remain closed at the choice of the occupants to maintain interior noise levels below 45 dBA Ldn.
• Install sound-rated windows and construction methods to provide the requisite noise control for residential units proposed along roadways or in areas where noise levels could exceed 70 dBA Ldn.

Impact Noise-6 The Plan would allow the
development of new residential uses adjacent
to existing commercial and retail uses. In
addition, new residential uses may be proposed
adjacent to or sometimes within the same
building as noise-generating commercial uses.

Noise levels resulting from existing and
proposed noise-generating uses (i.e., office and
retail uses) could expose such noise-sensitive
uses to noise levels in excess of the City’s or
Noise Ordinance limits. This would be a
potentially significant impact and mitigation
measures have been identified that would
reduce this impact to Class II, significant and
mitigable.

Mitigation Measure Noise-6 In areas where new residential development would be located adjacent to commercial uses, the City will require site-specific noise studies prior to issuance of building permits to determine the area of impact and to present appropriate mitigation measures, which may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Require the placement of loading and unloading areas so that commercial buildings shield nearby residential land uses from noise generated by loading dock and delivery activities. If necessary, additional sound barriers shall be constructed on the commercial sites to protect nearby noise sensitive uses. • Require the placement of all commercial HVAC machinery to be placed within mechanical equipment rooms wherever possible.
• Require the provision of localized noise barriers or rooftop parapets around HVAC, cooling towers, and mechanical equipment so that line-of-sight to the noise source from the property line of the noise sensitive receptors is blocked.

Transportation and Traffic
Impact Traf-1 The proposed Downtown Plan,
in combination with cumulative traffic growth,
would result in a significant impact at 16
intersections. Partial mitigation is available for
that impact, but physical constraints make
expansion of the roadway cross-sections
difficult. This would result in a significant
adverse impact to traffic and transportation.

Impacts would be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure Traf-1(a) As the system’s capacity is reached, it will become important to manage the street system in a more efficient and coordinated manner. Improvements to the Project area transportation system are proposed as part of the overall Downtown development, including improvements that have been required of other area projects previously approved by the City. Therefore, the mitigation focuses on improvements that would not require significant additional rights-of-way and are achievable within the life of the Plan. There are five proposed mitigation measures for the Downtown Plan, as follows:

1. Implement traffic control system improvements in Downtown on selected arterials.

2. Improve the Alamitos Avenue corridor via removal of selected parking spaces and the implementation of additional travel lanes plus bike lanes in each direction.

3. Reconfigure the 6th Street and 7th Street intersections with Martin Luther King Avenue and Alamitos Avenue for safety and traffic flow enhancements.

4. Enhance freeway access to I-710 to and from Downtown Long Beach.

5. Implement transit facilities and programs to encourage public transit usage and Transportation Demand Management Policies.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 27 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Mitigation Measure Traf-1(b) A series of traffic signal system improvements are recommended in Downtown to accommodate the anticipated growth in travel. The following traffic signal system improvements are recommended as part of this mitigation measure:

1. Implement Adaptive Traffic Signal Control System (ATCS) improvements throughout Downtown consistent with currently planned improvements on Ocean Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue. Streets that are proposed to be included in the ATCS as a mitigation measure for the Downtown Long Beach Strategic Plan include the following:
o Alamitos Avenue north of Ocean Boulevard
o Pine Avenue north of Ocean Boulevard
o Pacific Avenue north of Ocean Boulevard
o 7th Street from I-710 to Alamitos Avenue
o 6th Street from I-710 to Alamitos Avenue
o Broadway from I-710 to Alamitos Avenue
o Ocean Boulevard from Shoreline to Alamitos Avenue (to join the proposed system starting at Alamitos Avenue) o Others as needed, to be determined by the City Traffic Engineer and Public Works Director

2. Implement pan/tilt/zoom Closed Circuit Television Camera (CCTV) surveillance and communications with power and control capability to the Department of Public Works to monitor real-time traffic operations from rooftops of selected new buildings as needed and to be determined based on the location of appropriate new high-rise structures along the Alamitos Avenue, Shoreline Drive, and Ocean Boulevard corridors.

3. Implement transit signal priority for Long Beach Boulevard and upgrade traffic signal system equipment and operations along the Blue Line light rail route.

4. Upgrade and improve traffic signal equipment throughout Downtown for safety and operational enhancements.

Mitigation Measure Traf-1(c) As part of this mitigation measure, a number of intersections would receive major or minor signal modifications, depending on their current status. In addition to the enhancements listed, other potential improvements that can be included are:
• Bicycle improvements (detection, signalization, etc.) • In-pavement LED crosswalk lights
• Automatic pedestrian detection (i.e., infrared, microwave, or video detection) • Illuminated push buttons
• Countdown pedestrian signals
• Adaptive pedestrian clearance (increasing the flashing DON’T WALK time based on location of pedestrians in the crosswalk)
• Enhanced signal equipment including mast arms, poles, signal heads, and other necessary enhancements for safety and operations
• Communications enhancements as needed to tie the system together with the Traffic Control Center in City Hall Mitigation Measure Traf-1(d) Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Amenities. Appropriate traffic calming and pedestrian amenities shall be provided in conjunction with development projects. Potential improvements include corner curb extensions, enhanced paving of crosswalks, and pedestrian-activated signals at mid-block crossings to make it easier for pedestrians to cross the street and to make them more visible to motorists. Other potential improvements include wider sidewalks in locations where the existing sidewalks are less than 10 feet wide, pedestrian-scale streetlights, and street furniture (City of Long Beach 2005).

Mitigation Measure Traf-1(e) Currently, due to on-street parking, there is only one lane of travel on Alamitos Avenue in the southbound direction between 3rd Street and Broadway. Parking spaces on the west side of Alamitos Avenue will be removed, the street will be restriped and reconstructed, a bike lane will be added in each direction of travel, and the street will provide for Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 28 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Impact Mitigation Measures
two travel lanes in each direction plus exclusive left turn lanes from 7th Street to Ocean Boulevard. Traffic signal enhancements to implement the Alamitos Avenue improvements shall also be implemented as needed.

Mitigation Measure Traf-1(f) Developments in the project area will be required to coordinate with area transit providers to accommodate and encourage transit use by residents and patrons. For non-residential sites, appropriate programs and facilities will be included to encourage car and van pooling, provide information on transportation alternatives, and encourage trip reduction strategies in accordance with the City’s TDM policies for non-residential development.

Utilities and System Services
Impact Utilities-3 Buildout of the proposed
project would incrementally increase solid
waste disposal treatment demand in the City.

Based on LACSD’s operation of the Mesquite
Regional Landfill, which is permitted for up to
20,000 tons per day for approximately 100
years, adequate landfill capacity exists to
accommodate solid waste disposal needs of
the proposed Project. In addition, mitigation
measures are identified that would reduce the
Project’s solid waste impacts. Therefore, the
impact on solid waste disposal systems would
be considered a Class II, significant but
mitigable impact.

Mitigation Measure Utilities-3(a) All construction related to Project implementation shall include verification by the construction contractor that all companies providing waste disposal services recycle all demolition and construction-related wastes. The contract specifying recycled waste service shall be submitted to the City Building Official prior to approval of the certificate of occupancy.

Mitigation Measure Utilities-3(b) In order to facilitate onsite separation and recycling of construction related wastes, all construction contractors shall provide temporary waste separation bins onsite during demolition and construction.

Mitigation Measure Utilities-3(c) All future developments in the Project area shall include recycling bins at appropriate locations to promote recycling of paper, metal, glass, and all other recyclable materials. Materials from these bins shall be collected on a regular basis consistent with the City’s refuse disposal program.

Mitigation Measure Utilities-3(d) All Project area residents and commercial tenants shall be provided with educational materials on the proper management and disposal of household hazardous waste, in accordance with educational materials made available by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 29 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
TABLE 2

PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Type of Use Proposed Project
Residential
Building B 272 dwelling units
218,603 sf
Building C1 359 dwelling units
275,190 sf
Building C2 269 dwelling units
207,201 sf
Total 900 dwelling units
700,994 sf
Commercial
Building B 19,782 sf
Building C1 16,218 sf
Standalone Pavilion (Retail Pavilion) 2,405 sf
Building C2 0 sf
Total 38,405 sf
Parking
Building B
Vehicle Parking Spaces 373 parking spaces
Bicycle Park Spaces 58 spaces
Building C1
Vehicle Parking 576 parking spaces
Bicycle Park Spaces 75 spaces
Building C2
Vehicle Parking 434 parking spaces
Bicycle Park Spaces 54 spaces
Total 1,383 vehicle parking spaces
187 bicycle spaces
Open Space
Common Indoor Open Space 31,195 sf
Common Outdoor Open Space 62,027 sf
Private Open Space 451 units (50% of total) or 29,747 sf Total Open Space Provided 122,969 sf
Building Area (includes parking garages)
Building B 413,760 gross sf
Building C1 550,432 gross sf
Building C2 406,574 gross sf
Total Building Area 1,370,766 gross sf
SOURCE: MVE+Partners, Inc. 2022.

The Mosaic Project Addendum
Figure 3a
North and South Building Elevations
SOURCE: MVE + Partners, 2022
D181165.12 - Mosaic Addendum\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator The Mosaic Project Addendum
Figure 3b
East and West Building Elevations
SOURCE: MVE + Partners, 2022
D181165.12 - Mosaic Addendum\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 32 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Building B
Building B would be located on a 68,733 square-foot parcel in the southern portion of the project site between East 5th Street and East 4th Street. As shown in Table 2 above, Building B would include 218,603 square feet of residential use and 19,782 square feet of commercial use and would have a total building area of 413,760 gross square feet, including the parking garages, with a FAR of 4.5:1. Specifically, Building B would total 306,501 square feet of FAR gross floor area and would include 19,782 square feet of leasable commercial uses, lobby/leasing spaces, on the ground level; a residential garage with three levels of above-grade parking as well as bicycle storage areas on levels 1 through 3; 55 storage units on levels 2 and 3; residential units on levels 3 through 8; amenity spaces on levels 4 and 8, including a courtyard and pool and spa area on level 4; and a roof deck on level 8. The proposed project’s floor plans are included in Figure 4a, Floor Plan for Ground Level, Figure 4b, Floor Plans for Level 2 and Level 3, Figure, 4c, Floor Plans for Level 4 and Level 5, Figure 4d, Floor Plans for Level 6 and Level 7, and Figure 4e, Floor Plans for Level 8 and Roof Level. A total of 272 residential units and 373 vehicle and 58 bicycle parking spaces would also be provided in Building B.

Building C1
Building C1 would be located on a 101,724 square-foot parcel in the northern portion of the project site between Building C2 and East 5th Street. As shown in Table 2 above, Building C1 would include 275,190 square feet of residential use and 16,218 sf square feet of commercial use and would have a total building area of 550,432 gross square feet, including parking garages, with a FAR of 3.9:1. Building C1 would total 393,685 square feet of FAR gross floor area and would include 16,218 sf square feet of leasable commercial spaces, residential units, and a lobby with a leasing office the ground level; a residential garage with three levels of above-grade parking as well as bicycle storage areas on levels 1 through 3; 72 storage units on levels 2 and 3; residential units on levels 2 through 8; amenity spaces on levels 4 and 8, including courtyards and a pool and spa area on level 4; and a roof deck on level 8 (refer to Figures 4a through 4e). A total of 359 residential units and 576 vehicle and 75 bicycle parking spaces would also be included in Building C1.

Pavilion (Retail Pavilion)
The pavilion (retail pavilion) would be located to the west of Building C1 along East 5th Street and would be a single-story, standalone building with a mezzanine. The pavilion would provide approximately 2,405 square feet of retail space. The 39 parking spaces required to support the Project’s commercial uses, including the pavilion, would be provided in adjacent City-owned parking structures pursuant to the Parking Rights Agreement 01-1799119, which was signed and recorded in 2005 and allows employees and customers of the commercial tenants to use up to approximately 1,901 parking spaces located in nearby facilities owned and operated by the City (Appendix H).




























 
 
 


 



















 








































































 

































 

   
  
   
   
   
    
   

 
   


          

  


   
  
The Mosaic Project Addendum
Figure 4a
Floor Plan for Ground Level
SOURCE: MVE + Partners, 2022
D181165.12 - Mosaic Addendum\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator N





































































 
  









  

























   
  
   
   
   
    
   
 
   

          
  




   
   


























































 


 
































































































   
  
   
   
   
    
   
 
   


          
  




   
  
Level 2 Level 3
The Mosaic Project Addendum
Figure 4b
Floor Plans for Level 2 and Level 3
SOURCE: MVE + Partners, 2022
D181165.12 - Mosaic Addendum\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator N









 






















 












 
















































 






















 




















 




















































































































 




















 

 



















  
































   
   








 






























 












 
















































 






















 


























 








































































































 




















 






























  
 

Level 4 Level 5
The Mosaic Project Addendum
Figure 4c
Floor Plans for Level 4 and Level 5
SOURCE: MVE + Partners, 2022
D181165.12 - Mosaic Addendum\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator N







 






























 












 




















 




































 






















 










 


















 










 


































































































 


















 









































   
   








 






























 












 




















 


































 






















 










 


















 










 




































































































 






























 





























  
  
Level 6 Level 7
The Mosaic Project Addendum
Figure 4d
Floor Plans for Level 6 and Level 7
SOURCE: MVE + Partners, 2022
D181165.12 - Mosaic Addendum\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator N














 






























 












 




















 






























 






















 






 


















 










 
































































































 


























 





























   
   

































   
 


 

 
Level 8 Roof Level
The Mosaic Project Addendum
Figure 4e
Floor Plans for Level 8 and Roof Level
SOURCE: MVE + Partners, 2022
D181165.12 - Mosaic Addendum\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator N
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 38 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Building C2
Building C2 would be located on a 68,712 square-foot parcel in the northern portion of the project site between Building C1 and East 6th Street. As shown in Table 2 above, Building C2 would include 207,201 square feet of residential use and would have a total building area of 406,574 gross square feet, including parking garages, with a FAR of 4.2:1. Building C2 would include a lobby with a leasing office, amenity space and residential units on the ground level; a residential garage with three levels of above-grade parking as well as bicycle storage areas on levels 1 through 3; 54 storage units on levels 2 and 3; residential units on levels 2 through 8; amenity spaces on levels 4 and 8, including a pool and spa area, courtyard, and club room on level 4; and a roof deck on level 8 (refer to Figures 4a through 4e). A total of 269 residential units and 434 vehicle and 54 bicycle parking spaces would also be provided.

Open Space and Landscaping
As depicted above in Table 2, above, the proposed project would provide 31,195 square feet of common indoor open space, 62,027 square feet of common outdoor open space, and 29,747 square feet of private open space, including 451 units with private balconies. The ground level of Building B would include 11,464 square feet of common indoor open space comprised of an amenity and lobby space; the ground level of Building C1 would include 4,765 square feet of common indoor open space comprised of a lobby space and 10,971 square feet of common outdoor open space comprised of a plaza surrounding the proposed standalone pavilion; and Building C2 would include 4,927 square feet of common indoor open space comprised of an amenity and lobby space.

Level 4 of Building B would include 5,636 square feet of common indoor open space comprised of an amenity space and 16,723 square feet of common outdoor open space comprised of a podium deck with a pool and spa area, outdoor seating, fire pit, BBQ area, and turf fitness area; level 4 of Building C1 would include 4,741 of common open space comprised of an amenity space and 17,595 square feet of common outdoor open space comprised of a podium deck with a pool and spa area, outdoor seating, cabanas, fire pit, flex lawn, and BBQ area; and level 4 of Building C2 would include 3,059 square feet of common indoor open space comprised of an amenity space and 13,544 square feet of common outdoor open space comprised of a podium deck including a pool and spa area, outdoor seating, fire pit, BBQ area, flex lawn, dog patch, and landscaping.

Level 8 of Building B would include 1,038 square feet of common indoor open space comprised of an amenity space and 1,068 square feet of common outdoor open space comprised of a roof deck including a fire pit and outdoor seating; level 8 of Building C1 would include 1,020 of common open space comprised of an amenity space and 1,038 square feet of common outdoor open space comprised of a roof deck including a fire pit and outdoor seating; and level 8 of Building C2 would include 1,218 square feet of common indoor open space comprised of an amenity space and 1,088 square feet of common outdoor open space comprised of a roof deck including a fire pit and outdoor seating.

The proposed project would also include landscaping on the ground level consisting of street trees and planters along East 6th Street, Long Beach Boulevard, East 4th Street, and the Promenade North; within the Level 4 courtyard and pool deck areas, as well as within the Level 8 roof deck patio areas, consisting of trees and planters. The Level 4 courtyards would allow for daylight access to more areas of the buildings.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 39 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Ground level landscape elements within The Promenade area, located west of Building B1, would include sidewalk improvements, the addition of new trees and shrubs, a potential pocket park, new art graphics, and street closure for pedestrian access. Ground level landscape elements within the Neighborhood Plaza area, located near the western project boundary, would include the addition of new trees, shrubs, and art. Ground level landscape elements would include the addition of new trees and shrubs, enhanced paving, wayfinding signage, and outdoor seating. Ground level landscape elements within the Paseo area, located west of Buildings C1 and C2, would include patio spaces, a walking trail, dog run, and a potential multi-purpose green space/garden. Ground level landscape elements within the Green Street area, located north of Building C2 along East 6th Street, would include the addition of new trees and shrubs, sidewalk improvements, landscape buffers, and façade infrastructure as art and part of the street experience. Ground level landscape elements within the Long Beach Boulevard, located along the project’s eastern boundary, would include the addition of new trees and shrubs, sidewalk improvements, landscape buffers, street benches, wayfinding signage, improved curbside parking, and a bikeshare program. Of the existing 51 trees/palms on site, 31 trees/palms would be removed during project construction. The project would include a total addition of 215 trees and 47,220 square feet of shrubs, groundcovers, and vines. The ground level would include 132 trees and 23,188 square feet of shrubs, groundcovers, and vines, and levels 4 and 8 of the three buildings would include a total of 83 trees and 24,032 square feet of shrubs, groundcovers, and vines.

Access and Parking
Residential parking would be provided in above-grade parking levels within a 3-story garage within the mixed-use buildings. Access to the parking garages for Building B and Building C1 would be provided from two right-in/right-out driveways on Long Beach Boulevard and access to the parking garage for Building C2 would be provided from one right-in/right-out driveway on 6th Street. The Downtown Plan requires 1.25 vehicle parking spaces per residential unit (1 space per unit plus 1 guest space per 4 units). Thus, the proposed project is required to provide 1,126 vehicle parking spaces for the proposed project’s residential uses. The proposed project would provide 1,383 vehicle parking spaces, including 469 standard spaces, 470 compact spaces, 222 standard front tandem spaces, and 222 compact rear tandem spaces. As noted above, the proposed project would also include a total of 187 bicycle parking spaces. The required 39 parking spaces for the project’s proposed commercial spaces would be provided in adjacent City-owned parking structures pursuant to the Parking Rights Agreement 01-1799119, which was signed and recorded in 2005 and allows employees and customers of the commercial tenants to use up to approximately 1,901 parking spaces located in nearby facilities owned and operated by the City.

Off-Site Improvements and Street Dedication
The project would include off-site improvements on The Promenade North, Long Beach Boulevard, the north side of 4th Street from The Promenade North to Long Beach Boulevard, and 5th and 6th Street from The Promenade North to Long Beach Boulevard. Off-site improvements would include closure of The Promenade North between East 4th Street and East 5th Street for pedestrian access only, outdoor seating areas, crosswalks designed with art graphics, outdoor café dining, outdoor worktables, new street trees and plantings, a fire lane, retractable bollards, sidewalk Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 40 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
improvements, a security gate, street parallel parking spaces, a dog run, gardens, a pedestrian trail, a playscape, a flex lawn, and potential pocket parks/parklets.

The existing 4th Street, 5th Street, and The Promenade North are currently private streets, but would be dedicated to the City as part of the proposed project. However, the dedication would be from back of curb to back of curb, with the sidewalks, parkways, and street landscaping remaining private. The developer’s predecessor made an Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate (IOD) to the City as part of the 1990s approval(s) of CityPlace shopping center, which was not exercised by the City until now.

Comparison of Approved and Proposed Project
For the purposes of this Addendum, the Approved Project is used as a baseline for the analysis. As described above, full implementation of the Downtown Plan would increase the density and intensity of existing Downtown land uses by allowing up to (1) approximately 5,000 new residential units; (2) 1.5 million sf of new office, civic, cultural, and similar uses; (3) 384,000 sf of new retail; (4) 96,000 sf of restaurants; and (5) 800 new hotel rooms, over a 25-year time period.

As discussed above, the LUEP provides development flexibility so that the planned land uses under the Downtown Plan could respond to market conditions over the build-out duration of the Downtown Plan. The Certified PEIR evaluated impacts for the development of 5,000 residential units, construction, and operation of 480,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, and 1,500,000 square feet of office space. As mentioned above, the Downtown Plan Equivalency Calculator provides for the initial reallocation of non-residential land use to account for an additional 3,260 housing units to be developed within the downtown. The 3,260 additionally approved residential units can be accommodated by reducing office by 417,060 square feet, commercial uses by 135,320 square feet, and hotel uses by 177 rooms. Taking into account the development pending approval and/or already approved, this leaves a balance of 3,008 dwelling units, 592,950 square feet of office space, 140,970 square feet of commercial space, and 400 hotel rooms. Given that the Mosaic Project proposes to develop 900 residential units, 38,405 square feet of commercial space, and 2,405 square feet of retail space, it is considered that the proposed project is within the development envelope of the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum (refer to Appendix A).

In addition, the Downtown Plan also included development standards, which established height incentive areas. The Downtown Plan’s Figure 3-2, Height Areas and Minimum Streetwall, identifies the project site within the Height Incentive Area, which allows for a maximum permitted height of 240 feet and FAR of 8.0. In addition, the Height Incentive Area would allow increases in maximum height and FAR up to a maximum height of 500 feet and a FAR of 11.0, if a project met certain criteria, as outlined in Table 3-4, Development Incentives, of the Downtown Plan. The purpose of bonuses is to incentivize the provision of certain project attributes, such as sustainable features, provision of additional open space, and rehabilitation of certain existing buildings. Table 3-4 of the Downton Plan describes the specific incentives available for the Height Inventive Area, such as having a LEED Certification or equivalent process; implementing green or eco roofs which reduce stormwater runoff, lower energy, and provide open space; meeting or exceeding 25 percent of the project’s energy needs with renewable energy; providing public open space in excess of the required standards; and/or rehabilitating historic buildings.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 41 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
The proposed project would provide a total of 900 new residential units within three mixed-use residential buildings up to 95 feet in height. As described above, the proposed project’s FAR would be 4.5:1 for Building B, 3.9:1 for Building C1, and 4.2:1 for Building C2. Therefore, the project would be within the maximum permitted height and FAR allowed within the Height Incentive Area.

The Downtown Plan includes standards for ground-floor pedestrian oriented uses such as “Main” or “Secondary” designated streets. The purpose of such streets is to further encourage active land uses in certain areas such as restaurants, retail stores, entertainment, dining, services, etc. to provide a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented experience throughout much of the day. On Main or Secondarydesignated streets, 100 percent of the ground-floor street fronts should contain active uses. The Downtown Plan’s Figure 3-1, Zoning Standards Map: Downtown Neighborhood Overlay and Areas of Required Pedestrian-Oriented Uses, identifies a majority of the streets surrounding the project site as future “Pedestrian-Oriented Use: Main Streets”, with the northern project boundary along 6th Street identified as future “Pedestrian-Oriented Use: Secondary Streets”. The proposed project complies with the standards for Main and Secondary-designated streets as the Project frontage along 4th Street, 5th Street, 6th Street, Long Beach Boulevard, and The Promenade North would include ground-floor street fronts with active uses including commercial, amenity, and lobby/leasing.

Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Downtown Plan’s objectives of introducing active pedestrian uses on the street-level, such as commercial uses, walking paseos, and street art and pedestrian facilities, to enhance the pedestrian experience of moving through the Downtown area.

The Downtown Plan’s Figure 2-2, Connectivity Network Map, shows the project site as being in close proximity to the Metro A Line, with the 5th Street Station on Long Beach Boulevard approximately 50 feet east of the project site; Long Beach Transit and Metro bus stops, including stops at Long Beach Boulevard/6th Street and Long Beach Boulevard/5th Street West located directly adjacent to the project’s eastern boundary; existing bike routes along The Promenade North; and Long Beach Transit Passport Bus Routes along East 6th Street.

As a part of this Addendum, an analysis of each environmental issue analyzed as a part of the Approved Project will be provided and will focus on the potential changes in environmental impacts due to the proposed project. Specifically, the analysis of each environmental issue provided below will first summarize the findings of the Approved Project and then analyze the potential physical effects of the proposed project. The impacts attributable to the proposed project are then compared to the analysis and findings within the Approved Project to determine if such impacts are within the envelope of impacts documented in the Approved Project. Mitigation measures identified for the Approved Project (identified in Table 1) would apply to the proposed project, as would the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs for that PEIR.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project site is located in the Business and Entertainment Area, as identified in the Downtown Plan of Downtown Long Beach. Surrounding uses to the north, across East 6th Street, consist of one- to two-story commercial and restaurant uses. Immediately to the east, across Long Beach Boulevard, uses consist of the 5th Street Metro A Line station, one-story commercial uses, and a five-story mixed-use apartment complex with ground floor commercial uses. Uses to the west of Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 42 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
the project site consist of two-and three-story parking structures and four- to five-story mixed-use apartment complexes with ground floor commercial and restaurant uses. Immediately to the south of the project site, across East 4th Street, is a one-story retail mall. Other surrounding uses include commercial, restaurant, and retail uses as well as mixed-use residential with ground floor commercial and restaurant uses.

10. Required Approvals
The following approvals are required as a part of this project:

1. Site Plan Review – Planning Commission Approval

2. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map – Planning Commission Approval

3. Street Dedication – City Council Approval (separate Public Works Department processing) The City of Long Beach is the lead agency and the approvals of other public agencies are not required.

The City of Long Beach has coordinated with Metro about potential impacts on the A Line Light Rail alignment, but Metro has no approval authority over the mixed-use development.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 43 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
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 by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☐ Air Quality ☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise
☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation/Traffic ☐Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination
On the basis of this initial study:
☐ 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.

Scott Kinsey, Project Planner Date
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 44 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Environmental Checklist
This section addresses each of the environmental issues discussed in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum to determine if the currently proposed project has the potential to create new significant impacts or a result in a substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact as compared to what was identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Additionally, impacts are compared to existing on-the-ground conditions. As described above, the approved Downtown Plan and Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum are also referred to as the “Approved Project.” Topics that were scoped out in the Certified PEIR’s Initial Study, hereby referred to simply as Certified PEIR, are included in this analysis.2
I. Aesthetics
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant
Impact Not Identified in
the “Approved Project”
Same or Less Impact than
Identified in the
“Approved Project”

1. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
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) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
☐ ☒
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? ☐ ☒
e) Result in shadow impacts? ☐ ☒
Discussion
a) Scenic Vista
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that there are no designated scenic vistas located within or adjacent to the Downtown area. Therefore, implementation of the Downtown Plan would not adversely affect a viewshed from a public viewing area, such as a park, scenic highway, roadways, or other scenic vistas. As such, the Certified PEIR determined that implementation of the Downtown Plan would result in a less-than-significant impacts related to scenic vistas.

Since there are no designated scenic vistas within or adjacent to the Downtown area, there are no designated scenic vista adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would be subject to the Downtown Plan’s design and zoning requirements, including regulations for setbacks, height restrictions, and building design, and would therefore be consistent with the development parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. In addition, the proposed project would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered in the Certified PEIR 2 In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), this Addendum tiers off of the analysis and conclusions found in the Certified PEIR. Thus, this Addendum relies on the thresholds published at the time of the Certified PEIR’s adoption in January 2012.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 45 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
and LUEP Addendum. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact to scenic vista than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant with development of the proposed project. b) Scenic Resources
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that no state scenic highway exists within the project area or within any area where development within the project area would affect views from a designated State scenic highway. Thus, the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum concluded that the Downtown Plan would result in no impact to scenic resources.

Since the project site is located within the Downtown area, there is no potential for development of the proposed project to impact designated scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact to scenic resources than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, there would be no impact to scenic resources with development of the proposed project. c) Visual Character
As described in the Certified PEIR, the visual character of the Downtown Plan area would be altered through the introduction of additional high-rise structures and full-block complexes at locations within the Downtown Plan area. However, with implementation of the Downtown Plan’s Design Guidelines and the City’s Site Plan Review process (a type of design review), future development would be compatible with existing development patterns and enhance the visual environment. Thus, the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that impacts to visual character would be less than significant.

As stated in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, future projects would be required to comply with the Downtown Plan’s Design Guidelines and to implement the City’s Site Plan Review process (a type of design review) in order to contribute to the Plan’s overall goals of promoting the development of a distinctive Downtown skyline while enhancing the visual environment of Downtown. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the standards included in the City’s 2019 Land Use and Urban Design Elements. The proposed project would replace 197,513 square feet of existing commercial and retail uses with 900 residential apartment units, 38,405 square feet of leasable commercial space, 1,383 vehicle parking spaces, and 187 bicycle spaces within three 8-story podium buildings (Buildings B, C1, and C2) and a standalone pavilion within the Downtown Plan area. As discussed above, the 900 residential units and 38,405 square feet of commercial space proposed under the project is within the development envelope of the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 46 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
The Downtown Plan area is a developed, urban environmental with a skyline characterized by tall buildings of various heights and architectural styles. The project’s vicinity is developed with mixeduse commercial and residential uses with historical-period built-environment resources interspersed with more-recent construction. Development of the proposed project would alter the visual character of the Downtown Plan area by adding mid-rise structures on a site previously developed with low-rise commercial and retail uses. Due to the proposed heights of the three 8-story podium buildings, the project has the potential to alter the visual character of the Downtown skyline, which can be seen from multiple directions, including the highlands of Central Long Beach and Signal Hill and the South Waterfront and Port. However, the proposed project is located within the Height Incentive Area of the Downtown Plan, which allows for a maximum permitted height of 240 feet, where the proposed project would allow for maximum building heights of up to 95 feet. Due to the project’s relatively limited building heights compared to the maximum height allowed by the Height Incentive Area, development of the project would not result in new buildings that are inconsistent with surrounding building heights or modern character. Furthermore, the proposed project would blend into the urban setting of the Downtown landscape and would not substantially change the existing skyline of the Downtown Plan area. Therefore, while the project may be visible from longrange views, the project would not create a disruption in the visual setting of the urban skyline or landscape due to inconsistent building heights or character.

Furthermore, the proposed project would be designed in accordance with the applicable Downtown Plan’s Design Guidelines to ensure visual consistency with the Downtown Plan as well as provide compatibility with the surrounding Downtown visual landscape. As indicated above, the proposed project is located within the Height Incentive Area of the Downtown Plan, which allows for a maximum permitted height of 240 feet and FAR of 8.0. The proposed project would allow for maximum building heights of up to 95 feet and would result in a FAR of 4.5:1 for Building B, 3.9:1 for Building C1, and 4.2:1 for Building C2. Based on the design specifications of the various project components the project would result in a development that is within the allowable height and FAR of the Height Incentive Area of the Downtown Plan. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all design and architectural policies applicable to the project to ensure the project’s visual character is compatible with the overall visual goals established in the Downtown Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be in conformance with the Design Guidelines provided within the Downtown Plan.

Lastly, the proposed project would be required to undergo the City’s Site Plan Review process (a type of design review) as part of the overall project entitlement process. The City’s Site Plan Review process (a type of design review) would ensure that the project is designed in accordance with all City goals and policies applicable to the Downtown Plan area. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Downtown Plan’s Design Guidelines and the City’s Site Plan Review process (a type of design review). The proposed project would be within the development parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum and would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact to visual character than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 47 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, impacts to visual character would be less than significant with development of the proposed project. d) Light and Glare
As described in the Certified PEIR, future development within the Downtown Plan area would introduce new sources of light and glare due to the increased height and scale of future development.

Projects would also increase the proportion of glazing on building façades and potential use of reflective materials. Potential sources of lighting include the windows of the residential units and ground-floor commercial/institutional space, and spillover of light onto the street from the illumination of the high-rise structures and podium development during the nighttime hours. Glare sources also include the sun’s reflection from metallic or glass surfaces on vehicles parked in surface parking lots and along the roadways. The introduction of such materials would be a potentially significant impact. However, this impact would be reduced through the implementation of Certified PEIR Mitigation Measures AES-2(a), Lighting Plans and Specifications; AES-2(b), Building Material Specifications; AES-2(c), Light Fixture Shielding; and AES-2(d), Window Tinting, identified above in Table 1.

The proposed project would develop three 8-story podium buildings and a 1-story pavilion, which would introduce new sources of light and glare due to the increased development on the site. The proposed project would feature predominately energy saving LED lighting and minimum foot candles3 would be provided for safety throughout the site. Lighting for the proposed project would be consistent with the Downtown Plan’s Design Guidelines and sign regulations (Long Beach Municipal Code Section 21.44.100). As noted in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, increased light and glare is, in part, a desired outcome in creating a vibrant urban environment, a key objective of the Downtown Plan. While the proposed project would increase light and glare in the Downtown Plan area, it would not allow for development at a greater density or intensity than previously considered in the Certified PEIR. Furthermore, as described above, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures AES-2(a) through AES-2(d) from the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, identified in Table 1. Mitigation Measures AES-2(a) through AES-2(d) require the implementation of various building material specifications, window tinting specifications, and light fixture shielding components to mitigate impacts related to lighting and glare as a result of project development and, thus, any potential impacts from light and glare would be reduced. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact related to light and glare than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, the proposed project’s impacts related to light and glare would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-2(a) through AES-2(d). 3 A foot candle is a unit for measuring illumination that equals one lumen per square foot.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 48 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
e) Shading
As described in the Certified PEIR and the LUEP Addendum, development projects that include high-rise structures, as encouraged by the Downtown Plan, would cast shadows onto adjacent properties, particularly in the wintertime when shadows extend the farthest from a tall structure and are the most extreme. For a project to generate a significant shadow impact, it must increase shadows cast upon shadow-sensitive uses. Shadow-sensitive uses are defined as facilities and operations sensitive to the effects of shading include solar collectors; nurseries; primarily outdoororiented commercial uses (e.g., certain restaurants); or routinely useable outdoor spaces associated with recreational, institutional (e.g., schools), or residential land uses. These uses are considered sensitive because sunlight is important to their function, physical comfort, and/or commerce.

Shadow impacts are considered significant if shadow-sensitive uses would be shaded by proposed structures for more than three hours between late October and early April (including the Winter Solstice, which typically occurs on December 21, and the Spring Equinox, which typically occurs on March 20), or for more than four hours between early April and late October (including the Summer Solstice expected to occur on June 21, and the Fall Equinox expected to occur on September 23).

Since shadows caused by the development of high-rise structures have the potential to fall on sensitive uses within the Downtown Plan area for more than three hours during the winter months, shadow impacts in the Certified PEIR were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Nevertheless, the Certified PEIR requires implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-3, Shadow Impacts, identified in Table 1, which requires a shading study to be completed on a project-byproject basis to assess for project-specific shading impact.

The proposed project would develop three mid-rise (8 stories in height) podium buildings and one low-rise (1 story in height) standalone pavilion. The three 8-story mid-rise buildings would reach up to 95 feet in height. Due to the development of new mid-rise structures, the proposed project would modify shading patterns surrounding the project site and has the potential to create shading impacts.

In accordance with Mitigation Measure AES-3, Shadow Impacts, a Shade/Shadow Study was prepared for the proposed project by MVE + Partners (2022), and results are illustrated in Figures 5 through 8, below. The sensitive receptors that surround the project site include mixed-use residential developments, located approximately 160 feet east and 250 feet west of the site.

Figures 5 through 8 depict four different time periods of the year- the Summer and Winter Solstice and the Fall and Spring Equinox off-site shadow impacts for sensitive receptors. Figure 5, Summer Solstice, depicts off-site shadow impacts for sensitive receptors traveling gradually from west to east during the summer solstice between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. As shown in Figure 5, the proposed project would not cast shadows on any sensitive receptors for three hours or more during the Summer Solstice. Shading during this time would primarily fall on Long Beach Boulevard and the commercial uses across Long Beach Boulevard to the east of the project site, which are not considered sensitive receptors.

Figure 6, Winter Solstice, depicts off-site shadow impacts for sensitive receptorstraveling gradually from west to east during the Winter Solstice between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. As shown in Figure 6, the proposed project would not cast shadows on any sensitive receptors for three hours or Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 49 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
more of daylight during the Winter Solstice. Shading during this time would primarily fall on East 6th Street and the commercial and restaurant uses across East 6th Street to the north of the project site, East 5th Street, the above-grade public parking structures to the west of the project site, and the commercial uses across Long Beach Boulevard to the east of the project site, which are not considered sensitive receptors.

Figure 7, Spring Equinox, and Figure 8, Fall Equinox, similarly depict off-site shadow impacts for sensitive receptors traveling gradually from west to east during the Spring and Fall Equinox between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. As shown in Figures 7 and 8, the proposed project would not cast shadows on any sensitive receptors for three hours or more during the Spring or Fall Equinox. Shading during this time would primarily fall on East 6th Street, Long Beach Boulevard and the commercial uses across Long Beach Boulevard to the east of the project site, East 5th Street, and East 4th, which are not considered sensitive receptors.

As shown in Figures 5 through 8, the proposed project would create new shadows in the immediate vicinity; however, shadows cast by the proposed project would not significantly increase the shaded area or shade duration of sensitive uses as there are no shadow-sensitive uses in the impacted areas.

Thus, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on shadow-sensitive resources surrounding the site. Since the proposed project would be within the development parameters of the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum and would not result in significant impacts related to shade and shadow, the proposed project would not result a new or more severe environmental impact than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Less Impact than “Approved Project.” The proposed project would result in less impacts than the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to shade and shadow; thus, the proposed project’s impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-3.

The Mosaic Project Addendum
Figure 5
Summer Solstice
SOURCE: MVE + Partners, 2022
D181165.12 - Mosaic Addendum\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator The Mosaic Project Addendum
Figure 6
Winter Solstice
SOURCE: MVE + Partners, 2022
D181165.12 - Mosaic Addendum\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator The Mosaic Project Addendum
Figure 7
Spring Equinox
SOURCE: MVE + Partners, 2022
D181165.12 - Mosaic Addendum\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator The Mosaic Project Addendum
Figure 8
Fall Equinox
SOURCE: MVE + Partners, 2022
D181165.12 - Mosaic Addendum\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 54 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant
Impact Not Identified in
the “Approved
Project”
Same or Less Impact than
Identified in the “Approved
Project

2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES—
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 (1997) 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 Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
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?
☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☒
Discussion
a–e) Agricultural and Forest Resources
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that the Downtown Plan would result in no impact to agricultural and forest resources.

As stated in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, the Downtown area is an urban environment that does not contain any designated agricultural or forestry resources or land uses. The proposed project would be within the allowable development envelope of the Downtown Plan through the LUEP and would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Thus, the proposed project would not result in an impact to agricultural and forest resources, similar to the conclusions of the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Therefore, the proposed project would not result a new or more severe environmental impact related to agricultural and forestry resources than was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would occur with development of the proposed project.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 55 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
III. Air Quality
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant
Impact Not Identified in
the “Approved Project”
Same or Less Impact than
Identified in the
“Approved Project

3. AIR QUALITY —
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management 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?
☐ ☒
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
☐ ☒
c) 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 (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
☐ ☒
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☒
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
☐ ☒
Discussion
The Downtown Plan was determined to be consistent with the applicable air quality plan because it would not increase the allowable density in the Downtown area from densities allowed under the General Plan. The Certified PEIR determined that the Downtown Plan is consistent with the growth assumptions contained in the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which was the air quality plan for the region at the time the analysis was conducted for the Certified PEIR (SCAQMD, 2007).

The Certified PEIR determined that buildout of the Downtown Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to construction and operational air quality emissions. As discussed in the Certified PEIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, construction pursuant to the Downtown Plan and resulting emissions would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Even with compliance with applicable SCAQMD rules and Certified PEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6, which require implementation of the City’s Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices as well as a project-level CEQA analysis, emissions would still exceed SCAQMD’s applicable significance thresholds. Therefore, the Certified PEIR found impacts from construction pursuant to the Downtown Plan would be significant and unavoidable. The Certified PEIR found that implementation of the Downtown Plan would result in significant and unavoidable long-term operational impacts from operational emissions due to the total net increase in vehicle trips and associated emissions. However, during operation of the Downtown Plan, traffic generated as the result of full buildout is not predicted to result in the formation of localized CO hotspots at impacted roadway intersections.

The Certified PEIR concluded construction- and operations- related significant and unavoidable emissions attributable to development envisioned under the Downtown Plan, along with other Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 56 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
reasonably foreseeable future projects in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) as a whole, would continue to contribute to long-term increases in emissions that could exacerbate existing and projected exceedances of pollutants classified as non-attainment in the Basin. The Certified PEIR stated that compliance with applicable SCAQMD rules and Mitigation Measures AQ-1(a) and AQ-1(b), which require implementation of the City’s Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices as well as a project-level CEQA analysis, would reduce construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors. However, emissions associated with development under the Downtown Plan would still exceed SCAQMD’s applicable significance thresholds. Thus, the Certified PEIR found implementation of the Downtown Plan would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impact.

With respect to toxic air contaminants (TACs), the land uses analyzed in the Certified PEIR would not include substantial sources of long-term TAC emissions. However, the Certified PEIR identified potential impacts with regard to TAC exposure resulting from the exposure to dry cleaning operations using perchloroethylene, TACs from the Port of Long Beach (POLB) and stationary sources in the vicinity of the Downtown Plan area and proposed commercial land uses that have the potential to emit TACs or host TAC-generating activity (e.g., loading docks).

Mitigation measures would reduce concentrations of TAC that sensitive receptors would be exposed to for time spent indoors and would disclose to those considering residing in the Downtown Plan area the potential risks involved. However, the mitigation would not reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations for time spent outdoors and the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Odors from construction pursuant to the Downtown Plan were found to be less than significant.

Commercial uses such as truck deliveries and development of convenience uses that may include sources of odorous emissions during operation of the Downtown Plan, and the Downtown Plan’s proximity to the diesel sources associated with the POLB were found to be potentially significant.

Mitigation would reduce impacts from odor to a less-than-significant level.

The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6.

Mitigation Measures AQ-1(a) and AQ-1(b), require implementation of the City’s Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices as well as a project-level CEQA analysis; Mitigation Measures AQ-4(a) and AQ-4(b) require the preparation of plans and notification procedures in-relation to TAC emissions, to ensure minimal impacts during project development and operation; Mitigation Measure AQ-5 requires adequate distance be provided between sensitive receptors and any use of perchloroethylene; and Mitigation Measure AQ-6 lists certain procedures and requirements to reduce any impacts related to odors from project construction or operation.

However, because the State has adopted updated building energy efficiency standards that were not known nor could have been known at the time of adoption of the Certified PEIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 has been revised for the project to recognize the updated building energy efficiency standards as follows:

AQ-2: Mitigation to reduce mobile source emissions due to implementation of the Plan addresses reducing the number of motor vehicle trips and reducing the emissions of individual vehicles under Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 57 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
the control of the project applicant(s). The following measures shall be implemented by project applicant(s) unless it can be demonstrated to the City that the measures would not be feasible. a) The project applicant(s) for all project phases shall require the commercial development operator(s) to operate, maintain, and promote a ride-share program for employees of the various businesses.
b) The project applicant(s) for all project phases shall include one or more secure bicycle parking areas within the property and encourage bicycle riding for both employees and customers. c) The proposed structures shall be designed to meet current Title 24 + 20 percent energy efficiency standards and shall include photovoltaic cells on the rooftops to achieve an additional 25 percent reduction in electricity use on an average sunny day. d) The City shall ensure that all commercial developments include shower and locker facilities for employees to encourage bicycle, walking, and jogging as options for commuting. e) The project applicant(s) for all project phases shall require that all equipment operated by the businesses within the facility be electric or use non-diesel engines. f) All truck loading and unloading docks shall be equipped with one 110/208-volt power outlet for every two-dock door. Diesel trucks shall be prohibited from idling more than 5 minutes and must be required to connect to the 110/208-volt power to run any auxiliary equipment. Signs outlining the idling restrictions shall be provided.
g) If, at the time of construction, SCAQMD, CARB, or EPA has adopted a regulation or new guidance applicable to mobile- and area-source emissions, compliance with the regulation or new guidance may completely or partially replace this mitigation if it is equal to or more effective than the mitigation contained herein, and if the City so permits. Such a determination shall be supported by a project-level analysis that is approved by the City.

Clarification for the Mosaic Project: This mitigation measure is intended to reduce energy use. The project would be required to meet the Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect at the time of the entitlement application to meet requirements of this mitigation measure. The Title 24 energy efficiency standards are updated approximately every three years. The current 2019 Title 24 energy efficiency standards were adopted in 2019 and became effective on January 1, 2020 (CEC 2019). The 2022 Title 24 energy efficiency standards will become effective on January 1, 2023 (CEC, 2022) and will be in effect for any entitlement applications submitted after that date. The project shall comply with the energy reduction requirements of this mitigation measure, usually Title 24 +20 percent, using a baseline that was generally the previous building code cycle of Title 24, or provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City that the Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect at the time of the entitlement application result in an equal or more effective reduction in energy.
a) Air Quality Plans
The 2007 Air Quality Management Plan was applicable to the Downtown Plan at the time the analysis was conducted for the Certified PEIR. Since then, the 2012 AQMP and the 2016 AQMP have been adopted by the SCAQMD and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The currently applicable AQMP is the SCAQMD Final 2016 AQMP (SCAQMD, 2007). The 2016 AQMP incorporates local land use assumptions and regional growth projections developed by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in their 2016- Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 58 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to estimate stationary and mobile source emissions associated with projected population and planned land uses (SCAG, 2016). If a new land use is consistent with the local and the regional growth projections adopted in the 2016 AQMP, then the added emissions are considered to have been evaluated, are contained in the 2016 AQMP, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional 2016 AQMP.

SCAG addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community development, and environment in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties.

With regard to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Road to Greater Mobility and Sustainable Growth, Chapter 5, of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS that form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the 2016 AQMP (SCAG, 2016). These documents are used in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. Both the RTP/SCS and the AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with county and city general plans.

A project would achieve consistency with the 2016 AQMP for the Basin if it is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the federal and State air quality standards. Per the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), there are two main indicators of a project’s consistency with the applicable AQMP: (1) whether the project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the 2016 AQMP; and (2) whether the project would exceed the 2016 AQMP’s assumptions for 2040 or yearly increments based on the year of project buildout and phasing. For the proposed project to be consistent with the AQMP, the pollutants emitted from the project should not exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold or cause a significant impact on air quality. Additionally, if feasible mitigation measures are implemented and are shown to reduce the impact level from significant to less than significant, a project may be deemed consistent with the AQMP.

Based on the air quality modeling contained in the air quality analysis (see next section below), the short-term construction impacts would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. The air quality analysis also found that long-term operation impacts would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance.

Consistency with the AQMP for the proposed project is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. For the proposed project, the City’s General Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. The growth projections SCAQMD used to develop the AQMP emissions budgets are based on the population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed in general plans and used by SCAG in the development of the RTP/SCS. As such, a project that proposes development consistent with the growth anticipated by SCAG’s growth projections and/or the General Plan would not conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP. In the event that a project would propose development that is less dense than anticipated by the growth projections, the project would likewise be consistent with the AQMP.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 59 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
According to the City’s Place Types and Land Use Elements (2019), the project site has a land use designation of Downtown (DT) in recognition that the project site is subject to the Downtown Plan.

As described in the Downtown Plan, the project site is within the Downtown Plan Area, which encourages development of mixed-use smaller scale retail and high-density apartment and condominium buildings. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan designation.

As discussed in Section XIII, Population and Housing, SCAG’s projections estimate the City’s population growth to be 6 percent during 2005 to 2015 and increase another 3 percent during 2015 to 2020. This represents an annual growth rate of less than 1 percent per year over the next two decades. According to the 2008 SCAG projections, the City was expected to increase in population to approximately 503,251 residents by 2010 and exceed 572,000 residents by 2035. The Downtown Plan area is expected to increase population to approximately 70,091 residents by 2010 and nearly 80,000 residents by 2035. Thus, projected population increase in Downtown Plan is within the SCAG projections for the city.

The proposed project would develop 900 residential dwelling units and, thus, would add approximately 2,358 residents to the population (DOF, 2022).4,5 In addition, the proposed project would include 38,405 square feet of commercial uses; however, the existing site includes 197,513 square feet of existing uses with 39,224 square feet currently occupied. Therefore, this analysis assumes that the proposed project would not generate a substantial amount of new employees.

Because the proposed project falls within the previously assumed growth projections for the City, inclusive of the City’s Downtown Plan LUEP, the additional units from the proposed project would not interfere with SCAQMD’s goals for improving air quality in the region because SCAQMD already projected such growth for the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the 2016 AQMP.

Construction-related emissions would be temporary in nature, lasting only for the duration of the construction period, and would not have a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations for new or modified sources. For example, the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 for the control of fugitive dust during construction and Rule 1113 for the control of VOC emissions from architectural coatings. According to the SCAQMD, the application of water to disturbed areas three times a day has a control efficiency of 61 percent.

Moreover, to reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions, the proposed project would utilize a low-emissions construction fleet meeting the current emission standards of CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation (California Code of Regulations [CCR]. Title 13, Section 2449). All contractors using off-road diesel equipment are subject to the Regulations and are responsible for compliance with the Regulations. In addition, the proposed project would incorporate construction emission control measures as specified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Mitigation 4 Residential population calculated using information from the California Department of Finance (DOF) to provide the most recent generation rates for residential populations available. 5 900 residential units x City of Long Beach’s average household size of 2.62= 2,358 residents Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 60 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Measure AQ-1(a) requires that the project reduce short-term construction emissions. According to this measure, acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late-model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ1(a) into the project, and by meeting the applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the AQMP to improve air quality in the Basin. Therefore, the proposed project would be within the development parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum and would result in less than significant impacts related to compatibility with applicable air quality plans. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe environmental impact related to air quality plans than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Less Impact than “Approved Project.” The proposed project would result in less severe impacts than the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Thus, impacts related to compatibility with air quality plans from the proposed project would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a). b) Air Quality Standards
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum did not perform quantitative emissions calculations for the construction emissions from individual implementing projects, but conservatively assumed 10 percent of buildout of the Downtown Plan per year. These emissions could exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds even with implementation of mitigation, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Project-level construction emissions specific to the proposed project were evaluated for this Addendum.

Since the time of the preparation of the Certified PEIR, the methodology used to calculate projectlevel emissions has been updated with more recent vehicle and equipment fleet mixes, and newer emissions control technology. Operational emissions in the Certified PEIR were analyzed using the Urban Emissions (URBEMIS) model. Currently, the SCAQMD does not recommend using the URBEMIS model for CEQA analyses and instead recommends the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The CalEEMod model (Version 2020.4.0) contains more updated vehicle fleet data based on vehicle registration data from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and uses the CARB on-road vehicle emissions factor (EMFAC) model. CalEEMod also employs construction equipment data from the OFFROAD model to reflect newer, more efficient equipment and better emissions control technology. In addition, fugitive dust emissions equations have been updated with the most recent United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) AP-42 emission factors.

Construction emissions were estimated for the proposed project using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.

The proposed project is anticipated to begin construction in late 2023 and would last for 48 months with completion in late 2027. Construction of the proposed project would require demolition of the existing 197,523 square feet of existing commercial uses that currently occupy the project site requiring approximately 898 total haul truck trips (inbound plus outbound) during the 60-day demolition period. During the grading phase, a total of approximately 7,610 cubic yards of soil would be exported from the project site. It is assumed that exporting the soil would require Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 61 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
approximately 752 total haul truck trips (inbound plus outbound) during the 45-day grading period.

Other precise details of construction activities are unknown at this time; therefore, default assumptions (e.g., construction equipment) from CalEEMod were assumed. This analysis also assumes the proposed project would use construction equipment certified to the USEPA and CARB Tier 4 emissions standards, which was included in the CalEEMod input assumptions. The use of Tier 4 equipment is generally consistent with the intent and requirements of Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a) to reduce short-term construction emissions.

Table 3, Unmitigated Maximum Regional Construction Emissions, identifies the proposed project’s maximum daily emissions during the different phase of construction activities. During the peak construction period, building construction activity may overlap with the architectural coating activities. Therefore, emissions from these three activities are summed together. The SCAQMD has established Rule 403: Fugitive Dust, which would require the applicant to implement measures that would reduce the amount of particulate matter generated during the construction period. The Rule 403 measures that were incorporated in this analysis include: water active sites at least three times daily (locations where grading is to occur shall be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving); cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet (0.6 meter) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114; reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less. Within CalEEMod, emissions control measures include the use of water or other soil stabilizers to control dust, resulting in reductions in fugitive dust PM10 and PM2.5 emissions of 50 percent or more. Detailed emissions calculations are provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, which is attached as Appendix B of this PEIR Addendum. As shown, the maximum daily construction emissions of VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 would be below the SCAQMD regional mass daily thresholds or the construction emissions estimates within the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

TABLE 3
UNMITIGATED MAXIMUM REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) a Emissions Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 0.5 4.1 24.3 <0.1 2.0 0.4
Site Preparation 0.5 2.1 21.5 <0.1 9.1 4.7
Grading 0.4 3.9 18.9 <0.1 3.7 1.7
Building Construction 3.4 12.0 50.4 0.1 11.3 3.1
Architectural Coating 15.9 0.4 7.1 <0.1 2.0 0.5
Paving 0.3 1.2 17.7 <0.1 0.2 0.1
Maximum Daily Emissions 19.3 12.4 57.5 0.1 13.3 4.7
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
a Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations. Detailed emissions calculations. b Emissions include fugitive dust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403.

SOURCE: Appendix B. See Appendix B to this Addendum for detail.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 62 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
As discussed above, and identified in Table 3 below, construction of the proposed project would not result in a new significant construction air quality impact, nor would it result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

As identified in the Certified PEIR, following buildout of the Downtown Plan, regional operational emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds even with implementation of mitigation, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Operational emissions generated from the proposed project were analyzed and compared to the Certified PEIR.

The analysis of stationary and mobile operational source emissions was performed using CalEEMod and the calculated emissions results compared to emissions in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Long-term air pollutant emissions associated with operation of the proposed project include emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources. Area sources include architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping. Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are used. Mobile-source emissions are from vehicle trips associated with operation of the proposed project. Emissions of PM10 result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Gasoline-powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel-powered vehicles. Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which natural gas is used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. The primary sources of energy demand for the proposed project would include building mechanical systems and appliances for heating and cooking. Greater building or appliance efficiency reduces the amount of energy for a given activity and thus lowers the resultant emissions. The emission factor is determined by the fuel source, with cleaner energy sources, like renewable energy, producing fewer emissions than conventional sources. The proposed project would comply with the 2019 Title 24 energy standards and the State’s green building code, the 2019 CALGreen Code, both of which were accounted for in the analysis. This analysis assumes that the proposed project would not include any woodburning hearths, consistent with prohibitions against such devices per SCAQMD Rule 445.

Long-term operation emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated using CalEEMod. Trip generation rates used in CalEEMod for the proposed project were based on the project’s trip generation estimates. The proposed project would generate approximately 5,645 average daily trips (ADT), which would result in 3,509 net new ADT. Therefore, this operational impact analysis is based on the net new operational emissions associated with the proposed project.

Detailed emissions calculations are provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, which is attached as Appendix B of this PEIR Addendum.

Table 4, Unmitigated Maximum Regional Operational Emissions, identifies the proposed project’s net daily emissions during operations. As shown, the net operational emissions from the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional mass daily thresholds or the operational emissions estimates within the Certified PEIR. As discussed above and detailed in Table 4, operation of the proposed project, would not result in a new significant operational air quality impact nor result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 63 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
TABLE 4
UNMITIGATED MAXIMUM REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) a Emissions Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Existing Operational Emissions
Existing Area 0.9 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 <0.1 <0.1
Existing Energy <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Existing Mobile 7.0 6.8 60.1 0.1 11.6 3.2
Total Existing Emissions 7.9 6.8 60.2 0.1 11.6 3.2
Project Operational Emissions
Project Area 24.3 14.3 80.0 0.1 1.5 1.5
Project Energy 0.3 2.7 1.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2
Project Mobile 12.1 10.9 101.8 0.2 24.0 6.5
Total Project Emissions 36.6 27.9 183.0 0.3 25.7 8.2
Net Daily Emissions 28.7 21.1 122.8 0.2 14.1 5.0
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
a Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations. Detailed emissions calculations.

SOURCE: Appendix B. See Appendix B to this Addendum for detail.

CONCLUSION: Less Impact than “Approved Project.” The proposed project would result in less severe impacts than the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Thus, impacts related to air quality standards from the proposed project would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a). c) Cumulative
The SCAQMD’s project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same, and projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered to be cumulatively considerable. Projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are not considered to be cumulatively significant (SCAQMD, 2003). The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum found that construction- and operations- related emissions attributable to development envisioned under the Downtown Plan would be significant and unavoidable, along with other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Basin as a whole. The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum found implementation of the Downtown Plan would continue to contribute to long-term increases in emissions that would exacerbate existing and projected non-attainment, thus, would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impact.

As discussed above, construction and operational emissions from the proposed project would not exceed the applicable project-specific thresholds and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Furthermore, SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds would not be exceeded, as described in the next section. Therefore, the proposed project cumulative contribution to air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Thus, the Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 64 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
proposed project would not result in a new or more severe cumulative air quality impact than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Less Impact than “Approved Project.” The proposed project would result in less severe impacts than the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Thus, the proposed project’s cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. d) Sensitive Receptors
Certain population groups, such as children, elderly, and acutely and chronically ill persons (especially those with cardio-respiratory diseases), are considered more sensitive to the potential effects of air pollution than others. As a result, certain land uses that are occupied by these population groups, such as residences, hospitals, and schools, are considered to be air qualitysensitive land uses. The proposed project is located approximately 80 feet of residential uses, which includes the multi-family residential uses located to the west of the project site. Due to the unknown locations of projects to be implemented under the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum incorporated Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) which requires all projects constructed under the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum to undergo a localized significance analysis. Therefore, pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) of the Certified PEIR, a project-level localized significance analysis has been conducted for the Project based on the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008a).

Localized Significance Thresholds
Criteria air pollutant impacts to sensitive receptors near the project site are evaluated using the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology (SCAQMD, 2008b). LSTs are developed based upon the size or total area of the emissions source from the construction equipment activities, the ambient air quality levels in the Source-Receptor Area (SRA) in which the emission source is located, and the distance to the sensitive receptor. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA. The proposed project is located in SRA 4 (South Coastal Los Angeles County). LSTs only apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions during construction and operation at the discretion of the lead agency. Screening-level analysis of LSTs is only recommended for construction activities at project sites that disturb approximately 5 acres or less.

The project site has a construction surface area of 5.49 acres; however, the maximum daily disturbance to the project site on any given day would be approximately 3.5 acre, with most emissions emitted during the grading phase. Therefore, screening-level analysis of LSTs were interpolated for a 3.5-acre site was used for construction and a screening -level analysis of 5 acres were used for operational activities.

Localized significance is determined by comparing the on-site-only portion of the construction and operational emissions with emissions thresholds derived by the SCAQMD to ensure pollutant concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors would be below the LST established by SCAQMD.

The localized construction emissions presented in Table 5, Unmitigated Maximum Localized Construction Emissions, takes into account the applicable and feasible portions of Mitigation Measures AQ-1(a) and SCAQMD applicable rules and regulations, including SCAQMD Rule 403 Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 65 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
for fugitive dust and low VOC coatings. Implementation of these mitigation measures would result in a reduction of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and equipment exhaust (such as NOX, PM10, and PM2.5), such that regional project-related construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds during construction. Localized operations emissions are presented in Table 6, Unmitigated Maximum Localized Operational Emissions. Localized emissions during operations would also be below the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds.

TABLE 5
UNMITIGATED MAXIMUM LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) a Emissions Source NOX CO PM10 b PM2.5 b
On-Site Construction 2.2 23.3 8.9 4.6
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 103 1,186 11 6.5
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No
a Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations. Detailed emissions calculations. b Emissions include fugitive dust control measures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403.

SOURCE: Appendix B. See Appendix B to this Addendum for detail.

TABLE 6
UNMITIGATED MAXIMUM LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) a Emissions Source NOX CO PM10 b PM2.5 b
On-Site Operations 14.8 85.1 2.7 1.8
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 123 1,530 4 2
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No
a Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations. Detailed emissions calculations.

SOURCE: Appendix B. See Appendix B to this Addendum for detail.

As detailed in Tables 5 and 6, the localized construction and operational emissions for the proposed project would be below the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds and would result in less-thansignificant impacts. Therefore, the proposed project, would not result in new significant construction or operational air quality impacts and would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CO Hotspots
The greatest quantities of CO are produced from motor vehicle combustion and are usually concentrated at or near ground level because they do not readily disperse into the atmosphere, particularly under cool, stable (i.e., low or no wind) atmospheric conditions. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed State and/or Federal standards are termed “CO hotspots.” According to the Certified PEIR, the maximum cumulative traffic, including traffic generated by the Downtown Plan land uses, at a maximum affected intersection would be up to approximately 6,000 vehicles per hour, which would not exceed the screening criterion of 31,600 vehicles per hour. The proposed project would generate a net increase of 278 peak hour trips (the A.M. peak Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 66 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
hour) and a net increase of 165 daily trips, which would not add a substantial number of new trips to the roadway network. Furthermore, due to stricter vehicle emissions standards in newer cars, new technology, and increased fuel economy, future CO emissions would be substantially lower than those under the existing conditions.

Background concentrations of CO in the project site area are substantially below the Federal and the State standards. Maximum CO levels in recent years were approximately 4.5 ppm (one-hour average) and 3.7 ppm (eight-hour average) as compared to the criteria of 20 ppm (CAAQS onehour average) or 35 ppm (NAAQS one-hour average) and 9.0 ppm (eight-hour average) (SCAQMD, 2019). No exceedances of the CO standards have been recorded at monitoring stations in the Air Basin for some time and the Air Basin is currently designated as a CO attainment area for both the CAAQS and the NAAQS.

Therefore, given the relatively low contribution of trips generated from the proposed project, that the cumulative number of trips from the Downtown Plan land uses would be substantially below the screening criterion, and that the background CO concentrations are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS, the proposed project would not contribute to the formation of CO hotspots and no further CO analysis is required.

Projects identified in the LUEP would reduce commercial/retail/hotel vehicle trips in exchange for residential vehicle trips. While vehicle trips would vary depending on the number of dwelling units, the City does not have streets that are near the 100,000 vehicle per day capacity and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant consistent with those identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Given this, the implementation of the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts and would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

Toxic Air Contaminants
As discussed in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, implementation of the Downtown Plan would result in short-term emissions of DPM exhaust from heavy-duty construction equipment.

Emissions of DPM from diesel-fueled engines were identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998. Project construction activities would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for demolition, site grading and excavation, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. As stated in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, because the use of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment during construction of the project would be temporary, that DPM is highly dispersive (Zhu et al. 2002), and that USEPA and CARB regulations that minimize exhaust emissions are mandated to be implemented by construction contractors, construction-related TAC emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. Furthermore, as discussed above, project construction would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a), which includes enhanced exhaust control practices on off-road vehicle and off-road construction equipment. As shown previously in Table 3 and Table 5, project construction emissions, including exhaust PM10 and PM2.5, would be below the SCAQMD regional and localized significance thresholds and within the construction emissions identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. As a result, the proposed project would not result in new Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 67 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
significant construction TAC impacts and would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

With respect to operational TACs, the land uses analyzed in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum would not include substantial sources of long-term TAC emissions. The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum found that implementation of the Downtown Plan would have less-thansignificant impacts from short-term construction, long-term onsite stationary sources and offsite mobile-sources. However, the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum identified potential impacts with regard to TAC exposure resulting from the exposure to dry cleaning operations using perchloroethylene, TACs from the POLB and offsite stationary sources in the vicinity of the Downtown Plan area, and onsite mobile sources associated with proposed commercial land uses that have the potential to emit TACs or host TAC-generating activity (e.g., loading docks).

Mitigation measures would reduce concentrations of TAC that sensitive receptors would be exposed to for time spent indoors and would disclose to those considering residing in the Downtown Plan area the potential risks involved. However, the mitigation would not reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations for time spent outdoors and the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.

The proposed project’s commercial land uses would consist of retail uses. Even if such uses would include dry cleaning facilities, the use of perchloroethylene would be prohibited per SCAQMD Rule 1421.6 Additionally, the proposed project’s retail uses would be neighborhood serving and would not generate substantial truck trips of more than 100 trucks per day, or 40 trucks equipped with Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs). While minor incidental TAC emissions from sources such as the use of cleaning products and solvents could result from the proposed project, these TAC emissions sources would not result in substantial exposures to on- or off-site sensitive receptors that would result in an exceedance of health risk standards. Given the similar impacts and reduced emissions (from newer/cleaner equipment and vehicles), the proposed project would not result in new significant construction or operational TAC impacts and would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Less Impact than “Approved Project.” The proposed project would result in less severe impacts than the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Thus, the proposed project’s impacts related to sensitive receptors would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1a and AQ-1(b). e) Odors
Heavy-duty equipment on the project site during construction of the proposed project would emit odors, primarily from equipment exhaust. However, these odors are temporary and limited to the construction period and would cease to occur after individual construction is completed. The proposed project would not include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors and once operational, the proposed project would not be a source of odors. 6 According to SCAQMD Rule 1421, the use of perchloroethylene as a cleaning solvent shall be discontinued by December 31, 2020.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 68 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-6 would control exposure of sensitive receptors to operational odorous emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-6 lists certain procedures and requirements to reduce any impacts related to odors from project construction or operation; thus, with adherence to Mitigation Measure AQ-6, any potential odors generated by the project would be minimized.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new significant odor impacts nor would it result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Less Impact than “Approved Project.” The proposed project would result in less severe impacts than the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Thus, the proposed project’s impacts to odors would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-6.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 69 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
IV. Biological Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant
Impact Not Identified in
the “Approved Project”
Same or Less Impact than
Identified in the
“Approved Project

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — 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?
☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (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?
☐ ☒
Discussion
a–f) Biological Resources
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that the Downtown Plan is located within an urbanized area with no sensitive habitat or animal species present. In addition, the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum stated that the Downtown Plan would not propose to alter existing parks or open space where native or migratory bird species could be present. Therefore, the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that the Downtown Plan would result in no impact to biological resources.

As stated in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, the Downtown area is an urban environment with no sensitive habitat or animal species present. The proposed project would be within the allowable development envelope of the Downtown Plan through the LUEP and would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Therefore, the proposed project would not result a new or more severe environmental impact related to biological resources than was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 70 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, no impacts to biological resources would occur as a result of the project.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 71 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
V. Cultural Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant
Impact Not Identified in the
“Approved Project”
Same or Less Impact than
Identified in the “Approved
Project

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
☐ ☒
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☒
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
☐ ☒
Discussion
a) Historic Resources
As discussed in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, adoption of the Downtown Plan may result in redevelopment of properties considered to be eligible for listing on the National Register or the California Register, or that is determined eligible for listing as a City Landmark. The Historic Survey Report—prepared for the Certified PEIR—identified 58 properties presently listed as local landmarks within the Downtown Plan area. Compliance with Mitigation Measures CR-1(a) through CR-1(b), identified in Table 1, which encourage the identification and preservation of cultural and historic resources in the Downtown Plan area, would provide an opportunity to avoid or reduce impacts to historic properties. However, it is not feasible to fully implement the Downtown Plan without impacting historic resources. Therefore, the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum found that impacts to historic resources would be significant and unavoidable.

The proposed project would replace 197,513 square feet of existing commercial and retail uses with 900 residential apartment units, 38,405 square feet of leasable commercial space 1,383 vehicle parking spaces, and 187 bicycle spaces within three 8-story podium buildings (Buildings B, C1, and C2) and a standalone pavilion on an approximately 5.5-acre site. While there are no historic resources on the project site, the project vicinity is developed with mixed use commercial and residential uses with historical-period built-environment resources interspersed with more-recent construction. As shown in Tables 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 of the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, there are three historical resources in the vicinity of the project site: (1) a Spanish Colonial Revival style commercial building located approximately 406 feet to the southeast at 340 East 4th Street; (2) the Walkers Department Store located approximately 475 feet to the west at 401-432 Pine Avenue; and (3) the Kress Building located approximately 520 feet to the west at 445-455 Pine Avenue.

Given that the project would not result in the physical demolition, destruction, or relocation of a historical resource and would not alter the three historical resources in the project vicinity such that they would be materially impaired, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources. For this reason, the proposed project would not require the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1(a) and CR-1(b). Therefore, the proposed project would not result a new or more severe environmental impact related to historical resources than was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 72 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
CONCLUSION: Less Impact than “Approved Project.” The proposed project would result in less impacts than the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum’s significant and unavoidable impact; thus, impacts related to historical resources would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed project.
b–d) Archeological Resources, Paleontological Resources, and Human Remains
As discussed in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, due to the lack of natural ground surfaces in the Downtown Plan area, no surveys would be conducted prior to onset of demolition or other grounddisturbing activities. Nearly all properties (with the exception of parks and natural resource preserves) have been previously disturbed by grading and other prior development activities. Therefore, nearsurface archeological or paleontological resources, or human remains on previously developed properties that may have existed are likely to have been disturbed or removed. Despite this, the potential still exists for development activities to encounter and damage archaeological or paleontological resources, or encounter human remains and, thus, impacts would be potentially significant. However, impacts would be mitigated by complying with Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(c), as well as Mitigation Measure CR-3(a) and Mitigation Measure CR-3(b), of the Certified PEIR (refer to Table 1 above). Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(c), as well as Mitigation Measure CR-3(a) and Mitigation Measure CR-3(b), of the Certified PEIR require the project proponent to hire a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, and Native American representative to monitor the project site during construction and address preservation of any identified resources that may be encountered during project implementation.

The proposed project would replace 197,513 square feet of existing commercial and retail uses with 900 residential apartment units, 38,405 square feet of leasable commercial space 1,383 vehicle parking spaces, and 187 bicycle spaces within three 8-story podium buildings (Buildings B, C1, and C2) and a standalone pavilion on an approximately 5.5-acre site. The proposed project would be constructed in accordance with the standard engineering practices and design criteria specified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Excavation during project construction would occur up to a depth of approximately 8 feet. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-3(b) from the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, which would require archaeological monitoring during ground-disturbing activities; preparation of treatment plans, notices, and reports for unearthed resources; and coordination with agencies such as California Register of Historic Resources and the National Register of Historic Places, the County Coroner, and the Native American Heritage Commission.

In addition, the City would require the Applicant to prepare plans containing specific details and logistics for carrying out these measures as a condition of approval. The plans would cover archaeological resources/human remains and paleontological resources, and would include: the professional qualification standards for archaeological and paleontological staff (following the Secretary of the Interior and Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, as applicable); communication protocols; a description and maps noting the locations/depths of where monitoring is required based on sensitivity and construction plans; training for construction personnel; the process for modifying monitoring frequency (reducing or discontinuing); protocols to follow in the event of a discovery, including work stoppage and notification procedures; an outline for significance evaluations of Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 73 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
discovered resources; protocols for sampling, recovery, treatment, and analysis of resources; and reporting and curation requirements. Therefore, compliance with Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-3(b) from the Certified PEIR and the City’s required Conditions of Approval would mitigate impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources and human remains to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not result a new or more severe environmental impact related to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains than was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, the proposed project’s impacts to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-3(b).

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 74 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
VI. Geology and Soils
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant
Impact Not Identified in the
“Approved Project”
Same or Less Impact than
Identified in the “Approved
Project

6. GEOLOGY and Soils —
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) 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.)
☐ ☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☒
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☐ ☒ iv) 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
risks to life or property?
☐ ☒
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☒
Discussion
a.i–iii) Seismically Induced Ground Shaking
As described in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, seismically induced ground shaking could damage existing and proposed structures in the Downtown Plan area and could expose people or structures to potential substantial risk of loss, injury, or death. Faults associated with the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, which is mapped as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, is located within approximately 2 miles of the Downtown Plan Project area. Several other fault zones located within approximately 5 to 30 miles have the potential to impact the Downtown Plan area.

The Downtown Plan area is located at an elevation of approximately 30 feet above mean sea level with an essentially flat topography. Groundwater associated with sea level has recently been encountered at between 29 and 35 feet below ground level (City of Long Beach, 2010). These conditions create the potential for substantial adverse effects associated with seismic activity.

However, this impact would be reduced through the implementation of Certified PEIR Mitigation Measure Geo-1 (refer to Table 1 above).

The proposed project would be developed within the Downtown Plan area and would replace 197,513 square feet of existing commercial and retail uses with 900 residential apartment units, 38,405 square feet of leasable commercial space 1,383 vehicle parking spaces, and 187 bicycle spaces within three 8-story podium buildings (Buildings B, C1, and C2) and a standalone pavilion on an Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 75 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
approximately 5.5-acre site. Excavation during project construction would occur up to a depth of approximately 8 feet.

A Geotechnical Subsurface Due Diligence Report was prepared for the proposed project by LGC Geotechnical, Inc. (2022) (Appendix C). The geotechnical report noted that the project site is located in the seismically active Southern California region and could be subjected to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the many active Southern California faults. This hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground shaking can be mitigated if the proposed structures are designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices. The faults nearest the project site are associated with the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and Palos Verdes Fault Zone, located approximately 2.2 miles and

4.2 miles, respectively from the project site. The project site is not within a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards and no active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site.

Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the project site during the design life of the proposed project is considered low.

The proposed project would be designed and constructed according to standard engineering practices and design criteria specified in the Certified PEIR. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1 from the Certified PEIR, which requires new construction to be engineered to withstand the expected ground acceleration that may occur at the project site, taking into consideration the soil type, potential for liquefaction, and the most current and applicable seismic attenuation methods that are available at the time. The proposed project would also comply with applicable provisions of the most recent California Building Standards Codes(2019, also known as Title 24 of the California Codes of Regulations) adopted by the City and effective January 1, 2020. Thus, with compliance with all applicable Building Codes and implementation of Certified PEIR Mitigation Measure Geo-1, any potential impacts associated with seismically induced ground shaking would be reduced to a less–than-significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not result a new or more severe environmental impact related to ground shaking than was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, the proposed project’s impacts related to ground shaking would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1.
a.iv) Landslides
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that the Downtown Plan would result in no impact to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides due to the relative flat topography of the Downtown area.

As stated in the Certified PEIR, the Downtown area has a relatively flat topography, where the potential for landslides would be considered low. The project site is not mapped as being located within a landslide zone (California Department of Conservation, 2022). The proposed project would adhere to standard engineering practices specified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 76 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Addendum, including those related to landslides, and would not alter the extent of developed lands.

The proposed project would be within the development parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum and would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts associated with landslides than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed project.
b) Soil Erosion
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that the Downtown Plan would result in lessthan-significant impact associated with soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Construction of the proposed project would include demolition of the existing onsite buildings and earthmoving activities, including excavation up to a depth of approximately 8 feet. These ground disturbing construction activities could expose soils to potential erosive forces, such as wind and water. Erosion potential depends largely on the characteristics of soils disturbed, the quantity of disturbance, and the length of time soils are subject to conditions that would be affected by erosion processes.

However, all ground disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project would be temporary and would cease once construction is completed. All construction activities would occur in compliance with the City’s Grading Ordinance, Building Code, and all other applicable ordinances, plans, or policies and would obtain all applicable grading permits prior to earthmoving activities. Moreover, as discussed in greater detail in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required for the proposed project in accordance with the Certified PEIR Mitigation Measure Hydro-1. The SWPPP would identify the standard best management practices (BMPs), such as site design BMPs and source control BMPs, to minimize the potential for erosion or siltation on-site during construction. Therefore, compliance with the applicable building ordinances, plans, or policies and implementation of a project-specific SWPPP, impacts related to soil erosion during construction would be reduced to less than significant.

Once construction is complete, the project site would primarily be comprised of impervious surfaces, with the exception of the designated greenspaces and/or ornamental landscaping. These areas would be revegetated and would not contain exposed soils that could erode with wind or water. In addition, the proposed project would not allow for a development at a greater density/intensity than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

Thus, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts associated with soil erosion or the loss of topsoil than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 77 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, impacts related soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydro-1.
c) Liquefaction
As described in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, seismic activity could induce ground shaking that could cause structural failure and potential subsidence risk of loss, injury, or death. The Seismic Safety Element maps a portion of the Downtown Plan area, immediately adjacent to the Los Angeles River, as an area of highest potential impact. However, even within the central Downtown area, groundwater may occur at depths of 20 feet and subterranean structures, such as parking garages and basements, could extend to depths at which groundwater is encountered. This creates the potential for a significant impact associated with liquefaction in the Downtown Plan area. However, the Certified PEIR found this impact would be reduced through the implementation of Mitigation Measure Geo-2 (refer to Table 1 above), which requires the preparation of site specific comprehensive geotechnical investigation for future development within the Downtown Plan area.

The proposed project would replace 197,513 square feet of existing commercial and retail uses with 900 residential apartment units, 38,405 square feet of leasable commercial space, 1,383 vehicle parking spaces, and 187 bicycle spaces within three 8-story podium buildings (Buildings B, C1, and C2) and a standalone pavilion on an approximately 5.5-acre site. Excavation during project construction would occur up to a depth of approximately 8 feet.

In accordance with the Certified PEIR’s Mitigation Measure Geo-2, a Geotechnical Subsurface Due Diligence Report (Geotechnical Report) was prepared for the proposed project by LGC Geotechnical, Inc. (2022) (Appendix C). The geotechnical report concluded that according to the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Long Beach Quadrangle, the project site is not located within an area designated as having a potential for liquefaction. Additionally, according to the County of Los Angeles Safety Element (County of Los Angeles, 2021), and the City of Long Beach General Plan (City of Long Beach, 1988), the project site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for liquefaction. The native soils encountered at the project site during exploration consisted of clayey soils with variable amounts of sand and silt and dense sands with varying amounts of silt and clay. Based on groundwater depth records, native soil type and distance to a fault, the geotechnical report concluded that the potential for liquefaction of the site soils is considered very low and no surface manifestations of liquefaction, including loss of bearing strength, amplified ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and flow failures, are expected at the project site. Thus, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts associated with liquefaction than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, the proposed project’s impacts related to liquefaction would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure Geo-2.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 78 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
d) Expansive or Unstable Soils
As described in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, the potential exists within the Downtown Plan area to encounter expansive soils or soils that are unstable or would become unstable as a result of new development. These conditions could result in on-site or off-site lateral spreading or subsidence. Although native soils in the Downtown Plan area typically have low expansion potential, soil characteristics vary widely and clay deposits may occur on the project site. This variation creates the potential for a significant impact associated with expansive or unstable soils in the Downtown Plan area. However, this impact would be reduced through the implementation of Mitigation Measure Geo-3 (refer to Table 1).

The proposed project would replace 197,513 square feet of existing commercial and retail uses with 900 residential apartment units, 38,405 square feet of leasable commercial space, 1,383 vehicle parking spaces, and 187 bicycle spaces within three 8-story podium buildings (Buildings B, C1, and C2) and a standalone pavilion on an approximately 5.5-acre site. Excavation during project construction would occur up to a depth of approximately 8 feet.

In accordance with Mitigation Measure Geo-3, the potential presence of expansive or unstable soils at the project site was evaluated in the Geotechnical Report (Appendix C). The geotechnical report concluded that on-site geologic materials are in the low expansion range and recommended that the proposed podium and pavilion structures be supported by a rigid shallow foundation system designed to resist site expansive soils. Based on this recommendation, the proposed project has been designed with a rigid shallow foundation system designed to resist site expansive soils to mitigate for potential effects from expansive soils. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. For this reason, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts associated with expansive soils than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, the proposed project’s impacts related to expansive soils would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure Geo-3.
e) Wastewater Disposal
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that the Downtown Plan would result in no impact to the risk associated with soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems as all development under the Downtown Plan would be served by the City’s existing wastewater system.

The project site is currently served by the City’s existing wastewater system and would continue to be served by the City’s wastewater system with development of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project does not include the use of septic tanks or an alternative wastewater system.

In addition, the proposed project would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Thus, implementation of the project would have no impact related to using septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. For this reason, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 79 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
associated with alternative wastewater disposal than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, no impacts related to alternative wastewater disposal would occur with implementation of the project.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 80 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant
Impact Not Identified in the
“Approved Project”
Same or Less Impact than
Identified in the “Approved
Project

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —
Would the project:
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?
☐ ☒
Discussion
As discussed in Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, the Downtown Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to construction and operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum calculated GHG emissions resulting from construction and operational activities. Mitigation Measures GHG-1(a) through GHG-2(b) are applicable to the proposed project and are identified in Table 1 above. These Mitigation Measures require project-specific mitigation measures that are appropriate and feasible during each phase or increment of project development and would respond to changes in the regulatory environment and to new GHG reduction technologies that would continue to be innovated over time.

As detailed in the Project Description above, the number of residential dwelling units approved to date have exceeded the number evaluated in the Certified PEIR. However, the floor area of office and commercial uses and the number of hotel rooms that have been approved to date are substantially lower than what was evaluated in the Certified PEIR. As required by the Certified PEIR, air pollutant emissions generated by all the land uses developed in the Downtown Plan area must not be exceeded by new projects under consideration for approval under the Downtown Plan.

The Downtown Plan LUEP was developed to allow for reallocation of land uses while ensuring the impacts from the reallocation do not exceed the air quality emissions for the Downtown Plan area that were determined in the Certified PEIR. As detailed in the LUEP, the 900 additional residential units proposed under the project can be accommodated by the reallocation of other land uses. This reallocation would not result in any additional impacts than what was previously described in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.
a) Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts
Since the time of the preparation of the Certified PEIR, methodology used to calculate project-level emissions have been updated with more recent vehicle and equipment fleet mixes, and newer emissions control technology. Operational GHG emissions in the Certified PEIR were analyzed using the URBEMIS model. Currently, the SCAQMD does not recommend using the URBEMIS model for CEQA analyses and is now recommending the CalEEMod model. The CalEEMod model contains more updated vehicle fleet data based on vehicle registration data from Caltrans and uses the CARB EMFAC model. CalEEMod also contains updated construction equipment data from the OFFROAD model to reflect newer, more efficient equipment and better emissions control technology.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 81 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
As identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, GHG emissions from individual implementing projects could exceed thresholds, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact, even after implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1(a) through GHG-2(b). Thus, construction and net operational GHG emissions generated from the project were analyzed and compared to the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. The analysis of existing, construction and operations emissions was also performed with the CalEEMod model.

The proposed project would result in a net change in project site emissions of GHGs. Existing operational GHG emissions would be related to the existing commercial and retail uses that are currently on the project site. For the purpose of this analysis, the operational GHG emissions were calculated for the existing buildings, which represents the project site’s baseline GHG emissions.

The emissions were calculated using historical energy and utilities data.

The project’s construction and operational GHG emissions were estimated for the proposed project and compared to the baseline GHG emissions to calculate the net change in GHG emissions.

Construction activities, which include demolition, grading and excavation, building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings, generate temporary and short-term GHG emissions. The emissions generated from these common construction activities include fuel combustion from mobile heavy-duty diesel and gasoline powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips. CalEEMod (version 2020.4.0) was used to calculate the project’s total construction GHG emissions from on-site construction equipment, on-road haul trucks and vendor and construction worker trips during each of the construction activities. For additional construction modeling details, refer to the construction assumptions described above in Section III, Air Quality, and in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, attached as Appendix B of this PEIR Addendum. Emission of GHGs during construction are a small contributor to the overall GHG emissions associated with the project. Consistent with generally accepted methodologies, construction GHG emissions from the project are amortized over a typical 30-year project lifetime and included as part of the project’s operational GHGs.

The project’s operational GHG emissions would result from the daily operations of the residential, retail, and amenities uses. GHG emissions related to building energy (natural gas and electricity), water demand, solid waste generation were estimated in CalEEMod. Adjustments to CalEEMod were made based upon project-specific sustainability features. The energy usage for the multifamily complex was reduced by 15 percent to account for the requirements of 2019 Title 24 standards.

CalEEMod does not incorporate water use reductions achieved by CALGreen (Part 11 of Title 24).

New development would be subject to CALGreen, which requires a 20 percent increase in indoor water use efficiency. Thus, to account for compliance with CALGreen, low-flow water fixtures and water-efficient irrigation systems were included in the water consumption calculations for the apartment complex. For solid waste, the diversion rate in CalEEMod was adjusted from no waste diversion to reflect the state diversion goal of 75 percent.

Mobile source GHG emissions would result from vehicle traveling to and from the project site based on trip generation rates provided in the project’s trip generation study (Appendix B). Default trip lengths is CalEEMod were used to estimate the project’s vehicle miles traveled. CalEEMod uses conservative assumptions for trip lengths which are based on Statewide averages. The project would Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 82 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
include electrical infrastructure support for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations on the project site.

Once operational, these charging units would support a reduction in mobile source emissions associated with the project; however, this reduction has not been accounted for in this analysis. The use of EMFAC2017 as default in the CalEEMod model would be consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Elements and Urban Development Elements and SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS. Refer to Greenhouse Gas Technical Analysis for the Mosaic Project, Long Beach, California (LSA Project No. LBL2201), attached as Appendix B of this PEIR Addendum, for additional details.

The emissions associated with the existing commercial and retail uses were subtracted from the proposed project emissions to provide the net operational emissions. The net operational emissions with amortized construction emissions were then compared to the City’s efficiency target thresholds.

Table 7, Net Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions, summarizes the project’s net annual GHG emissions.

TABLE 7

NET ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS PER YEAR) Emissions Source
Proposed Project
(MTCO2e/ year)
Existing Operational Emissions
Existing Area <0.01
Existing Energy 115.4
Existing Traffic 1,975.3
Existing Waste 20.7
Existing Water 14.2
Existing Total: 2,125.6
Project Operational Emissions
Project Area 211.2
Project Energy 1,430.5
Project Traffic 3,648.3
Project Waste 57.1
Project Water 303.1
Construction Emissions a 200.6
Proposed Project Operational Total: 5,650.2
Total Existing Emissions 2,125.6
Proposed Project Net Operational Total: 3,725.2
Emissions per Service Population (MTCO2e/SP/year) 1.5
CAAP Screening Threshold (MTCO2e/SP/year) b 1.4
Exceed Screening Threshold? Yes
a The total construction GHG emissions were amortized over 30 years and added to the operational GHG emissions of the project.
b The CAAP Screening Threshold is found in Appendix D of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Climate Action and Adaption Plan and Public Safety Element Update.

SOURCE: Appendix B.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 83 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
As shown in Table 7, project construction emissions during the approximate 48-month construction period would generate an estimated 200.6 MTCO2e amortized over a 30-year period. For comparison the estimated total GHG emissions during construction in the Certified PEIR was estimated to be approximately 535 MTCO2e per year. The proposed project would result in a per service population emission of 1.5 MTCO2e per year per service population, which is above the City’ Climate Action Adaptation Plan (CAAP) screening threshold of 1.4 MTCO2e, see discussion in b) below.

The proposed project’s GHG emissions would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of GHG impacts previously identified in the Certified PEIR and the LUEP Addendum. Furthermore, as required in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, the proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, GHG-1(a) and GHG-2(b) from the Certified PEIR, identified in Table 1; thus, project-level GHG emissions would be minimized with implementation of these measures. For this reason, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts associated with GHG emissions than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR.

CONCLUSION: Less Impact than “Approved Project.” The proposed project would result in less impacts than identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, the proposed project’s impacts to GHG emission would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, GHG-1(a) and GHG-2(b).
b) Applicable Plans, Policies, or Regulations
This section describes if the project would conflict with performance-based standards included in the regulations outlined in the applicable portions of the Climate Change Scoping Plan, the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), and the SCAG RTP/SCS.

The City’s CAAP, also known as the Long Beach Climate Action Plan, was adopted by the City Council on August 16, 2022. The CAAP provides a framework for updating policies, programs, and incentives for Long Beach residents and businesses to reduce the City’s GHG footprint. The CAAP provides a framework to reduce the City’s GHG footprint (climate action) and ensure the community and physical assets are better protected from the impacts of climate change (climate adaptation). The vision of the CAAP is to create a more sustainable, resilient, and equitable city by addressing climate change in a way that remedies existing environmental health disparities while also improving health, quality of life, and enhancing economic vitality throughout Long Beach.

The CAAP includes a roadmap for implementing new polices, programs, incentives, requirements, projects, and initiatives in the immediate future, as well as longer-term actions that will need to be studied further while monitoring how the climate continues to change and evaluating the effectiveness of actions taken. Additionally, the CAAP includes a 2030 GHG reduction goal of

3.04 MTCO2e per service population and a 2045 aspirational goal of net carbon neutrality citywide.

The CAAP SEIR includes a CAAP Consistency Review Checklist to be used for future projects to determine a project’s consistency with the CAAP. This Review Checklist sets a per service population emission screening threshold of 1.4 MTCO2e.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 84 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
As noted in a) the proposed project would result in a per service population emission of 1.5 MTCO2e per year per service population, which is above the City’s CAAP screening threshold of

1.4 MTCO2e. Therefore, the proposed project is required to illustrate compliance with the CAAP Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Action Consistency Checklist, which is included in LSA’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (see Appendix B of this Addendum). Implementation of Regulatory Control Measure GHG-1, which is listed below, would ensure that the proposed project complies with all CAAP Action Consistency Requirements.

Regulatory Control Measure GHG-1: Consistent with the City of Long Beach CAAP Action Consistency Requirements, the Project Applicant shall incorporate the following design features as part of the proposed project:
• Utilize 100 percent zero-carbon electricity on-site through one of the following options: (1) Install on-site renewable energy systems or participate in a community solar program to supply 100% of the project’s estimated energy demand to the maximum extent feasible; (2) Participate in Southern California Edison at the Green Rate level (i.e., 100% carbon-free electricity) for all electricity accounts associated with the project until which time Southern California Edison provides 100% carbon-free electricity for all accounts by default; or (3) combination of #1 and #2 above such that 100% of the project’s electricity is zero-carbon. • Install photocatalytic tiles on outdoor surfaces.
• In the contract specifications for future tenants and any landscaping contracts for the property or tenants, prohibit the use of gasoline-powered small equipment, including lawn and garden equipment and outdoor power equipment for all tenants and owners. Provide educational materials to tenants regarding the SCAQMD Electric Lawn and Garden Equipment Incentive and Exchange Program, Commercial Lawn & Garden Battery Buy-Down Rebate Program, and Residential Lawn Mower Rebate Program as well as requirements of AB 1346. • Use recycled water and/or greywater for non-potable uses and incorporate water reuse strategies onsite, such as rainfall capture systems through: requiring use of reclaimed/recycled water and/or greywater for outdoor uses; installing residential greywater systems that meet appropriate regulatory standards; installing rainfall capture systems; and installing dual plumbing for the use of recycled water.

With implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAAP and would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant effect on the environment.

The goal to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (Executive Order S-3-05) was codified by the Legislature as the 2006 Global Warming Solution Act (AB 32) and subsequently amended by SB

32. SB 32 establishes a target to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

CARB approved in 2008, and revised in 2017, a Climate Change Scoping Plan to achieve the GHG emission reduction target set by SB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and nonmonetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. The increase in infill development in urban communities with readily accessible public transit, such as in the City of Long Beach, is a key Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 85 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
element of the 2017 Scoping Plan strategy to achieve the 2030 GHG emissions reduction target for GHG emissions associated with land use projects.

The City is located within the jurisdiction of SCAG for regional transportation planning, which works to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHGs generated from vehicles.

SCAG’s RTP/SCS is a long-range plan to balance future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS outlines growth strategies to integrate regional land use and transportation planning to reduce GHG emissions. The recently adopted 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is the region’s transportation and sustainability investment strategy for protecting and enhancing the region’s quality of life and economic prosperity through this period. According to the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which is an update to the prior 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, the SCAG region is home to nearly 19 million people, 6 million households, and 8 million jobs (SCAG, 2020). By 2045, SCAG projects that the region’s population will increase to

22.5 million people. Implementation of 2020-2045 RTP/SCS strategies are expected to help California reach its GHG reduction goals, with reductions in per capita transportation emissions of 19 percent by 2035 as required by CARB for the SCAG region. Both the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the prior 2016-2040 RTP/SCS demonstrate GHG emissions reduction trajectories that show more aggressive GHG emission reductions for long-term future years, including a commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources by promoting compact and infill development in compliance with SB 375. By meeting and exceeding the SB 375 targets for 2020 and 2035 as well as achieving an approximately 19 percent decrease in per capita GHG emissions by 2035, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is expected to fulfill and exceed its portion of SB 375 compliance with respect to meeting the California’s GHG emission reduction goals.

At the regional level, both the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the prior 2016-2040 RTP/SCS are applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs. Generally, projects are consistent with the provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as SCAG’s SCS, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals. The proposed project is expected to produce approximately 1.5 MTCO2e per service population, which is above the CAAP screening threshold of 1.4 MTCO2e per service population as outlined in the SEIP for the CAAP.7 Therefore, the proposed project would be required to fill out the CAAP Review Checklist to show that it conforms to the City’s General Plan and CAAP GHG Emission Reduction Actions.

As shown in Table 7, the proposed Project would result in a net increase in GHG emissions of approximately 3,725 MTCO2e per year, which is primarily attributable to vehicle emissions. This represents a relatively small increase in GHG emissions given that the project would align with CAAP Mitigation Action T-6: Increase Employment and Residential Development along Primary Transit Corridors. The proposed project would develop a new mixed-use residential and commercial building on an infill location, which would locate residents and employees near existing residential and commercial uses and alternative modes of transportation including the 7 The CAAP Screening Threshold for project is 1.4 MTCO2e per service population, but the CAAP GHG reduction goal for 2030 is 3.04 MTCO2e per service population. The proposed projects is estimated to have GHG emissions of 1.5 MTCO2e per service population, which is below the 2030 CAAP goal, but above the CAAP screening threshold, therefore, the CAAP Review Checklist would be required to prove conformity to the CAAP.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 86 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
Metro A Line (Blue) and other nearby public transit lines; thus, reducing VMTs the demand for travel by single-occupancy vehicles. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the GHG reduction-related actions and strategies contained in both the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the prior 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.

The proposed project’s GHG impacts are within the scope of the impacts identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of GHG impacts previously identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum and would be less than significant. Furthermore, as required in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, the proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, GHG-1(a) and GHG-2(b), identified in Table 1 above. Thus, project-level GHG emissions would be minimized with implementation of these measures. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to conflicting with an applicable GHG plan, policy, or regulation than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Less Impact than “Approved Project.” The proposed project would result in less impacts than identified in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2, GHG-2(a) and GHG-2(b).

Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAAP with implementation of the Regulatory Control Measure GHG-1 and would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant effect on the environment.

Energy
The Certified PEIR did not analyze energy impacts. Information presented below is for informational purposes only and is based in part on the Energy Memorandum prepared for the Project by US-EcoLogic in October 2022 (Appendix D).

The proposed project would consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the use of off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction workers travel to and from the project site, and delivery and haul truck trips (e.g., hauling of demolition material to offsite reuse and disposal facilities). Project construction would also consume energy, on a limited basis, to power lighting, electric equipment, and supply and convey water for dust control. Electricity use from construction would be short-term, limited to working hours, used for necessary constructionrelated activities, and represent a small fraction of the project’s net annual operational electricity.

During operation of the project, energy would be consumed for multiple purposes, including, but not limited to, HVAC, refrigeration, lighting, and the use of electronics, equipment, and appliances.

Energy would also be consumed during project operations related to water usage, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips. Project operation would increase the demand for electricity resources including for water supply, conveyance, distribution, and treatment. The 900 residential units and 38,405 square feet of commercial use would consume approximately 23,831 amperes. The proposed project would comply with the applicable provisions of Title 24 and the CALGreen Code in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The proposed project would be designed to include numerous energy saving features that would allow the project to comply with the Title 24 standards and achieve energy savings required by State regulations. Per compliance with the CALGreen Code, new Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 87 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
construction requires energy and water efficient fixtures and fittings, energy efficient mechanical systems, light pollution reduction, site development best practices, sub metering, water efficient landscapes, recycling, and superior weather resistance and moisture management for buildings.

The proposed project would support Statewide efforts to improve transportation energy efficiency and reduce transportation energy consumption with respect to private automobiles. The project would encourage alternative modes of transportation by providing electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure including 709 EV capable vehicle parking spaces, 292 EV ready vehicle parking spaces, and 70 vehicle parking spaces that would have infrastructure and a charging station. The proposed project would include both sidewalk bicycle parking stalls to serve the retail/commercial uses as well as provide bicycle storage racks for the residences. These features would reduce VMT and encourage alternative forms of transportation such as walking and bicycling, thus reducing fossil fuel consumption.

In addition, the Project would comply with Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which would result in more efficient use of transportation fuels (lower consumption). Project-related vehicles would also comply with Pavley Standards, which are designed to reduce vehicle GHG emissions by mandating increasingly stringent emissions standards on new vehicles but would also result in fuel savings from more efficient engines in addition to compliance with Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 88 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant
Impact Not Identified in the
“Approved Project”
Same or Less Impact than
Identified in the “Approved
Project

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —
Would the project:
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 onequarter 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 for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☒
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☒
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☐ ☒
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
☐ ☒
Discussion
a–b) Transport, Use, Disposal, or Release of Hazardous Materials As described in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, the types of commercial and residential land uses envisioned for the Downtown Plan area would not typically contain businesses involved in the transport, use, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Therefore, hazardous material impacts to residences, schools, or other properties would not be expected to result from transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials from business anticipated to locate within the Downtown Plan area. However, future development projects would involve the demolition of existing structures, some of which, may contain asbestos and lead-based paint materials.

Additionally, the historic activity involving industrial uses and storage of hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and acids on properties within the Downtown Plan area may have contaminated on-site soils and/or groundwater quality. Any disturbances to ground surfaces associated with new development may disturb surface or near-surface contaminants, and excavation and transport of such contaminants could result in exposure of workers to public health hazards. This creates the Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 89 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
potential for significant impacts associated with the transport, use, disposal, upset or accidental release of hazardous materials. These impacts would be reduced with the implementation of Mitigation Measures Haz-1(a) through Haz-1(c) identified in Table 1, which would require that all demolition, renovation, and excavation projects survey and remove any lead or asbestos found in their project sites in accordance with proper abatement procedures in compliance with California and Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and SCAQMD requirements.

The materials would be hauled to a licensed receiving facility by a certified transportation company and an abatement report submitted to the City, prior to the issuance of construction or demolition permits. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures Haz-3(a) through Haz-3(d), identified in Table 1 above, would require all projects to prepare and implement a contingency plan, coordinate with local regulatory agencies for review and approval of remedial activities, prepare a report, and conduct soil and groundwater sampling assessments.

The proposed project would require demolition of various existing retail and restaurant operations within two large one-story commercial buildings, totaling 197,513 square feet. Given that the buildings were constructed in 2003 and due to the nature of existing uses on site, the existing buildings are not expected to contain lead, asbestos, or other hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project would not require implementation of Certified PEIR Mitigation Measures Haz-1(a) through Haz-1(c). The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (Phase I ESA) was conducted on December 28, 2020, for the project by Partner Assessment Corporation (refer to Appendix E). The Phase I ESA determined that the project site was formerly developed with various residential and commercial uses from as early as 1895 until as late as 1976. The project site was redeveloped for commercial use and occupied by a shopping mall from 1981 to 1994 and was again redeveloped for commercial use and occupied by the current retail structures from 2003 to the present day.

The Phase I ESA did not identify any recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs), or historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs) on the project site. However, two environmental issues, which refer to environmental concerns that do not qualify as RECs, were identified on site. Three former occupants on the project site (L B Plaza Mall at 451 Long Beach Boulevard, JC Penny at 411 Long Beach Boulevard, and Long Beach at 591 Long Beach Boulevard) were identified as containing underground storage tanks (USTs); however, no specific details were provided regarding these listings (Appendix E). Two former occupants on the project site (Berry West East at 254 East 5th Street and Rowe & Son at 254 East 5th Street) were identified as operating a hat cleaners and blockers from 1931 to 1944 and other former occupants included printing, photo developing, and oil storage (Appendix E). However, during the construction of the former shopping mall in 1981 and the current retail structures in 2003, massive excavation, grading, and foundation construction activities would have removed any remaining USTs, as well as residual, contaminated soil (if any at all) in the vicinity of these former USTs and operations.

Based on these variables, along with the elapsed time since the former uses and USTs are presumed to have been located on site, the former historical uses and USTs were not considered to represent a significant environmental concern with respect to the project site (Appendix E). The Phase I ESA revealed no evidence of RECs, CRECs, or HRECs in connection with the project site and no further action was recommended. Given the conclusions from the Phase I ESA report, the project’s impact Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 90 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
potential related to hazardous materials resulting from transport, use, or disposal would be less than significant. In addition, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure Haz-3(a), which would require preparation of a contingency plan to identify appropriate measures to be followed if contaminants are found or suspected or if structural features that could be associated with contaminants or hazardous materials are suspected or discovered. If contaminants are detected, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures Haz-3(b) through Haz3(d), which would include coordination with local regulatory agencies for review and approval of remedial activities, preparation of a report, and soil and groundwater sampling assessments. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, the proposed project’s impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Haz3(a) through Haz-3(d). c) Hazardous Materials near Schools
As discussed in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, a total of six schools are located within the Downtown Plan area and three others are within 0.25 mile of Downtown. Demolition, renovation, or excavation activities within 0.25 mile of these schools could expose children to release of hazardous materials, particularly which walking to and from school and during time spent outside classrooms. As such implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1 (Haz-1(a) through Haz-1(c)), identified in Table 1, would require all projects to prepare a lead-based paint and asbestos survey and remove (if identified) all asbestos-containing material in compliance with California and federal OSHA and SCAQMD requirements, prior to issuance of a demolition or renovation permit. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures Haz-3(a) through Haz-3(d), identified in Table 1, would require all projects to prepare and implement a contingency plan, coordinate with local regulatory agencies for review and approval of remedial activities, prepare a report, and conduct soil and groundwater sampling assessments.

There are currently three existing schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. Oropeza Elementary School and Renaissance High School for the Arts are located approximately 508 feet and 1,048 feet north of the project site, respectively, and the YMCA Downtown Preschool is located approximately 1,139 feet northeast of the project site. As such, demolition associated with the proposed project could expose children to the release of hazardous materials, particularly while walking to and from school and during time spent outside classrooms. However, as discussed above, due to the age and nature of existing uses on site, the existing buildings are not expected to contain lead, asbestos, or other hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project would not require implementation of Mitigation Measures Haz-1(a) through Haz-1(c). The proposed project would not result in an impact to risks associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in the vicinity of school facilities. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to hazardous materials near schoolsthan what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 91 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, the impacts related to hazardous materials near schools would less than significant with implementation of the proposed project.
d) Hazardous Sites
As described in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, it is possible that projects in the Downtown Plan area would be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, therefore, would pose a potentially significant impact to risks associated with contaminated sites. However, the Certified PEIR’s Mitigation Measures Haz-1(a) through Haz-1(c) and Mitigation Measures Haz-3(a) through Haz-3(d), identified in Table 1 above, would require that all demolition, renovation, and excavation projects perform surveys to determine whether hazardous materials exist on the project sites and would require that the projects remove the materials in accordance with proper abatement procedures.

A search in the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) EnviroStor and State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) GeoTracker databases show that there are no active cleanup sites within 1,000 feet of the project site (DTSC, 2022 and SWRCB, 2022). The Long Beach Press Telegram leaking underground storage tank site is located at 604 Pine Avenue, approximately 470 feet northwest of the project site, and has a status of “Completed – Case Closed” as of July 22, 1996 (SWRCB, 2022).

In addition, the Phase I ESA conducted for the project site did not identify the site as being included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Phase I ESA identified the previous presence of USTs and former historical uses, including hat cleaning and blocking, printing, photo developing, and oil storage, on the project site. However, during redevelopment of the subject property with the current retail structures in 2003, massive excavation, grading and foundation construction activities would have removed any remaining USTs, as well as residual, contaminated soil (if any at all) in the vicinity of these former USTs and operations. Based on these variables, along with the elapsed time since the former uses and USTs are presumed to have been located on site, the former historical uses and USTs were not considered to represent a significant environmental concern with respect to the project site (Appendix E).

In addition, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure Haz-3(a), which would require preparation of a contingency plan to identify appropriate measures to be followed if contaminants are found or suspected or if structural features that could be associated with contaminants or hazardous materials are suspected or discovered. If contaminants are detected, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures Haz-3(b) through Haz-3(d), which would include coordination with local regulatory agencies for review and approval of remedial activities, preparation of a report, and soil and groundwater sampling assessments. Thus, impacts relating to Government Code Section 65962.5 would be less than significant with development of the proposed project. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to being located on a designated hazardous materials site than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 92 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, impacts would be less than significant with Mitigation Measures Haz-3(a) through Haz-3(d). e–f) Airport Safety
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that the Downtown Plan would result in no impact to airport safety.

The project site is located approximately 3.3 miles southwest of the Long Beach Airport and is not within a designated airport land use compatibility plan area. Thus, there is no potential for development of the proposed project to impact airport safety and no impact to airport safety would occur. For this reason, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related airport safety than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, no impacts to airport safety would occur as a result of the proposed project. g) Emergency Preparedness
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that the Downtown Plan would result in no impact to emergency preparedness as the Downtown Plan does not proposes to alter existing street patterns.

Development of the proposed project would alter existing street patterns as The Promenade North between East 4th Street and East 5th Street would be closed for pedestrian access only. However, the closure of The Promenade North would not impair emergency access as The Promenade North is already a pedestrian paseo between East 3rd Street and East 4th Street, where the proposed project would extend the pedestrian paseo and would not affect existing surrounding roadways operation. In addition, the proposed project has been reviewed by the Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) and was determined to be in compliance with emergency access requirements. No issues related to the closure of The Promenade North to vehicular traffic were identified. Furthermore, The Promenade North is not considered a major roadway and is not indicated as a City disaster route (Los Angeles County Public Works, 2013).

Furthermore, any proposed development within the Downtown Plan area, including the proposed project, would be required to pay fees pursuant to the Fire Facilities Impact Fee, as amended, in Chapter 18.16 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC), as well as the Police Facilities Impact Fee as amended in Chapter 18.15 of the LBMC. These fees would be used to finance the construction of additional emergency facilities or improvements to current facilities to help mitigate any impacts to emergency access or preparedness. Thus, the proposed project would not impact emergency preparedness and would not result in new or more severe impacts related to emergency preparedness than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 93 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, no impact related to emergency preparedness would occur as a result of the proposed project. h) Wildlands
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that the Downtown Plan would result in no impact to wildland resources as the Downtown area does not contain wildlands and is not located adjacent to wildlands.

As the project site is located within the Downtown area, the project site does not contain wildlands nor is it adjacent to wildlands. Additionally, the proposed project is not within a California Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) designated fire hazard severity zone and, therefore, would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires (CAL FIRE, 2022). Thus, the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact to wildland resources than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, no impacts to wildlands would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 94 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant
Impact Not Identified in the
“Approved Project”
Same or Less Impact than
Identified in the “Approved
Project

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
☐ ☒
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
☐ ☒
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
☐ ☒
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?
☐ ☒
e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
☐ ☒
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ☐ ☒
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
☐ ☒
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?
☐ ☒
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
☐ ☒
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ☐ ☒
Discussion
a, f) Water Quality
Construction Activities
As discussed in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, construction activities associated with future development could result in discharges of urban pollutants into the City drainage systems.

This would include runoff from excavation and grading; fuel, lubricants, and solvents from construction vehicles and machinery; and trash and other debris. These factors would potentially result in a significant adverse impact on water quality. However, construction impacts would be reduced with the implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydro-1, identified in Table 1 above, which would determine the need for the developer to prepare a SWPPP and require the implementation of BMPs or equivalent measures to reduce erosion and sedimentation and control Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 95 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
pollutant runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Thus, with implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydro-1, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

A Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (Hydrology Report) was prepared for the proposed project by David Evans and Associates, Inc. (Appendix F). The report determined that compliance with low impact development (LID) requirements and implementation of BMPs would minimize project impacts related to water quality or waste discharge during construction activities to a less than significant level. In addition, construction activities within the project site would be required to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements pertaining to preservation of water quality and reduction of runoff. Specifically, since proposed project would include construction activities that disturb more than one acre of land, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure Hydro-1, which requires the preparation of a SWPPP and the implementation of BMPs or equivalent measures to reduce erosion and sedimentation and control pollutant runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, compliance with the recommendation of the hydrology report and local, state, and federal regulations would ensure impacts to water quality during construction of the project would be less than significant.

Operational Activities
As discussed in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, future development in the Downtown Plan area would generate various urban pollutants such as soil, herbicides, and pesticides that could adversely affect surface water and groundwater quality in the project area watershed. These factors would potentially result in a significant impact on water quality. However, operational impacts would be reduced through the implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydro-2, identified in Table 1 above, which would determine the need for the developer to prepare a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Thus, with implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydro-2 impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation.

While development of the proposed project would result in impervious surfaces at the project site, the project would slightly reduce the amount of onsite impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions and improve the project site’s hydrologic function through the installation of onsite BMPs. The proposed project would be designed to capture stormwater runoff into an onsite drainage system, which would then be conveyed to the onsite biofiltration planters for treatment and storage before ultimately being discharged into the City’s existing stormwater system. The proposed on-site drainage and biofiltration system would comply with the City’s LID requirements (Appendix F). Whereasrunoff water from the projectsite currently flows without treatment towards storm drain connections along the right-of-way and into the main storm drains in the street, the proposed biofiltration system would treat runoff up to the 85th percentile before discharge. Thus, the Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report concluded that the surface water hydrology, water quality, and groundwater impacts would be less than significant with development of the proposed project. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact to water quality and discharge than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 96 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, the proposed project’s impacts would be less than significant with Certified PEIR Mitigation Measure Hydro-1 and Hydro-2.
b) Groundwater Supply and Recharge
As discussed in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, future development within the Downtown Plan area would result in an incremental increase in water demand due to the intensification of development in the Downtown Plan area. Although the majority of the City’s water supply consists of imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a significant portion is extracted from the local groundwater basin.

The proposed project would be located on a previously developed site currently occupied by two large commercial buildings. Excavation during project construction would occur up to a depth of approximately 8 feet, which would be above the Project Site’s historic groundwater level of 30 feet below ground surface (Appendix C). Potable water would be provided to the proposed project from the Long Beach Water Department’s (LBWD) existing water supply sources. A will serve letter for the proposed project from LBWD was received on October 4, 2022, and indicated that LBWD would have capacity to serve the project site upon the condition of approval that the LBWD sewer system is able to meet the sewer peak flows from the final designed project with minimum two weeks of sewer flow monitoring performed by the project developer (Appendix I).

The majority of the existing project site is impervious and consists of two large commercial buildings, hardscape areas, and landscaping. The design of the proposed project would include open space and landscaping improvements, including planters and shade trees, gardens, a pedestrian trail, and a flex lawn, which would increase the amount of pervious surfaces on the project site compared to existing conditions and would increase on-site groundwater recharge.

Therefore, the proposed project would increase the amount of groundwater recharge and would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with ground water recharge.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, impacts related to groundwater supplies and recharge would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed project.
c–e) Drainage Patterns and Runoff
As discussed in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, future development within the Downtown Plan area would result in an incremental increase in water usage due to the intensification of development in the Plan area. Although the Downtown Plan area is substantially urbanized, the Downtown Plan would convert areas of relatively low-intensity development into more intensely developed land. This conversion would create a potentially significant impact to existing drainage patterns for projects located within the Downtown Plan area. In addition, construction activities associated with future development could result in discharges of urban pollutants into the City drainage systems. However, construction impacts would be reduced with the implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydro-1, identified in Table 1 above, which would Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 97 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
determine the need for the developer to prepare a SWPPP and require the implementation of BMPs or equivalent measures to reduce erosion and sedimentation and control pollutant runoff to the maximum extent practicable, and operational impacts would be reduced through the implementation of Mitigation Measure Hydro-3, identified in Table 1 above, which would determine the need for the developer to conduct an analysis of the existing stormwater drainage system and identify improvements needed to accommodate any projected increased runoff that would result from development under the proposed Downtown Plan.

The project site is currently developed with various retail and restaurant operations within two large one-story commercial buildings. As such, the majority of the project site currently consists of impervious surfaces, which is similar to adjacent areas which are also predominately built-out.

Table 8, Existing On-Site Drainage Conditions, of the Hydrology Report below shows existing onsite drainage conditions and Table 9, Proposed On-Site Drainage Conditions, of the Hydrology Report shows proposed drainage conditions. The project site was split into 7 subareas based off the two buildings and the surrounding landscape and hardscape areas for each. For proposed drainage conditions, the project site was split into 13 subareas so that most of the proposed runoff would drain into the proposed on-site drainage system and the remaining runoff would flow onto the bordering streets until the flow met an existing curb-opening catch basin.

TABLE 8

EXISTING ON-SITE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
Drainage Area (#) Drainage Area (Acres) Impervious (%) Q50 (cfs) A1 3.47 91 8.43
B1 0.28 91 0.80
C1 0.35 91 1.00
D1 0.12 91 0.34
Total Lot 6 4.22 91 10.57
E1 1.28 91 3.35
F1 0.27 91 0.77
G1 0.03 91 0.09
Total Lot 13 1.58 91 4.21
NOTES: Q50 = 50-year peak storm runoff, cfs = cubic feet per second SOURCE: Appendix F. See Appendix F to this Addendum for detail.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 98 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
TABLE 9

PROPOSED ON-SITE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
Drainage Area (#) Drainage Area (Acres) Impervious (%) Q50 (cfs) A2 0.97 89 2.76
B2 0.13 89 0.37
C2 0.23 89 0.66
D2 0.40 89 1.04
Total Parcel 1 1.73 89 4.83
E2 0.11 89 0.29
F2 0.13 89 0.37
G2 1.39 89 3.63
H2 0.68 89 1.94
I2 0.13 89 0.34
Total Parcel 2 2.44 89 6.57
J2 1.07 89 3.05
K2 0.13 89 0.37
L2 0.28 89 0.73
M2 0.05 89 0.14
Total Parcel 1.53 89 4.29
NOTES: Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 comprise the existing Lot 6 condition.

Q50 = 50-year peak storm runoff, cfs = cubic feet per second SOURCE: Appendix F. See Appendix F to this Addendum for detail.

As shown above in Tables 8 and 9, the proposed project would change 50-year storm runoff from

14.78 cfs to 15.69 cfs. Although the proposed project would increase storm runoff from the project site, the increase in runoff would be minimal and the proposed project would increase the amount of pervious surfaces on site by 6 percent compared to existing conditions, which would improve the project site’s hydrologic function. In addition, the overall flowrate on the project site would not change from existing conditions (Appendix F).

In accordance with Mitigation Measure Hydro-1, the proposed project’s design would include the implementation of BMPs—including biofiltration planters—that would comply with the City’s LID requirements (Appendix F). Whereasrunoff water from the project site currently flows without treatment towards storm drain connections along the right-of-way and into the main storm drains in the street, the proposed biofiltration system would treat runoff up to the 85th percentile before discharge. In addition, the proposed project would implement Certified PEIR Mitigation Measure Hydro-3, which would determine the need for the developer to conduct an analysis of the existing stormwater drainage system and identify improvements needed to accommodate any projected increased runoff that would result from project development.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surfaces resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on site or in the project vicinity. Furthermore, the Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 99 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures Hyrdro-1 and Hydro-3, identified in Table 1, which would reduce any potential drainage and runoff impacts.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures Hydro-1 and Hydro-3.
g–j) Flooding, Seiche, Tsunami, and Mudflow
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that the Downtown Plan would result in no impact to risks associated with flooding, or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow due to the location of the Downtown Area not being located within designated impact areas for these hydrological hazards.

Since the project site is located within the Downtown area, the proposed project would also not be located within designated impact areas for seiche, tsunami, or mudflows. No impacts related to these hydrologic hazards would occur with development of the proposed project. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact to risks related to flooding, seiche, tsunami, or mudflows that was not previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, no impact related to flooding, seiche, tsunami, or mudflows would occur with implementation of the proposed project.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 100 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
X. Land Use and Planning
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant
Impact Not Identified in the
“Approved Project”
Same or Less Impact than
Identified in the “Approved
Project

10. LAND USE AND LAND USE PLANNING —
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
☐ ☒
Discussion
a) Community
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that the Downtown Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact to community division due to the existing urban, built-out nature of the Downtown Plan area.

The project site is located in the Downtown Plan area, which is an urbanized, generally built out area of the city, and is currently developed with various existing retail and restaurant operations within two large one-story commercial buildings. The project site is bound by East 6th Street to the north, with commercial and restaurant uses beyond; Long Beach Boulevard and the 5th Street Metro A Line rail station to the east, with commercial uses and mixed-use residential beyond; East 4th Street to the south, with retail/commercial and restaurant uses beyond; and an above-grade public parking structure and The Promenade North to the west, with mixed-use residential, commercial and restaurant uses, and an above-grade public parking structure beyond. The project proposes to develop three 8-story podium buildings and a standalone pavilion. As such, the project would be an infill development and would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area.

The project would not physically separate or otherwise disrupt an existing residential use on or adjacent to the project site. All proposed development would occur within the boundaries of the project site as it currently exists. The proposed project does propose off-site improvements, which includes the closure of The Promenade North between East 4th Street and East 5th Street for pedestrian use only. However, The Promenade North is already a pedestrian paseo between East 3rd Street and East 4th Street, where the proposed project would extend the pedestrian paseo and would not affect existing roadways operation. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact to community division that was not previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, impacts related to dividing an established community would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed project.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 101 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
b) Land Use Change
As described in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, future development within the Downtown Plan area is subject to consistency with the Land Use Element of the Long Beach General Plan, which designates the majority of the Downtown Plan area as Downtown (DT) PlaceType (Previously designated as LUD No. 7 Mixed Use District) and PD-30 Zoning District, which allows for a mix of commercial and high-density residential uses. The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that since the Downtown Plan would adopt updated plans and development regulations, future development subject to the Plan would be consistent with the existing and planned zoning and development district regulations. No other land use plans or regulations exist within the Downtown Plan area. Thus, the City concluded that the Downtown Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact to land use compatibility.

The proposed project would be located within the area designated in the Downtown Plan as LUD No. 7 Mixed Use District and within the PD-30 zoning region, which allows a mix of commercial and high-density residential uses, entertainment and visitor–serving commercial uses, and a mix of other moderate to high-density residential uses with ground-floor storefronts, live/workspaces, and arts-related uses. As demonstrated throughout this addendum, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the project site. In addition, the Downtown Plan’s Figure 3-2, Height Areas and Minimum Streetwall, identifies the project site within the Height Incentive Area, which allows for a maximum permitted height of 240 feet and FAR of 8.0. The three mixed-use residential buildings under the proposed project would be up to 95 feet in height and the FAR would be 4.5:1 for Building B, 3.9:1 for Building C1, and 4.2:1 for Building C2. Therefore, the proposed project would be within the allowable height and FAR of the Height Incentive Area. In conformance with the Downtown Plan, the proposed project would develop a mix of residential and commercial uses within the height restriction for the area, within the height restriction for the area, and, therefore, would be consistent with the Downtown Plan’s planned development district regulations and impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact to land use inconsistency that would result in an environmental effect that was not previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, impacts related to land use inconsistency that would result in an environmental effect would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed project. c) Habitat Conservation
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that the Downtown Plan would result in no impact to habitat conservation.

As discussed above in Section IV, Biological Resources, there are no biological resources located within the Downtown Plan area. In addition, the project site is already developed and there is no existing habitat located onsite. Furthermore, the proposed project would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact to habitat conservation than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 102 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, no impacts to habitat conservation would occur with implementation of the proposed project.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 103 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
XI. Mineral Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant
Impact Not Identified in the
“Approved Project”
Same or Less Impact than
Identified in the “Approved
Project

11. MINERAL RESOURCES — 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?
☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☒
Discussion
a–b) Mineral Resources
The Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum determined that the Downtown Plan would result in no impact to mineral resources as there are no designated mineral resource or oil extraction recovery sites within or adjacent to the Downtown Plan area.

Since the project site is located within the Downtown Plan area, the project site is designated and zoned for urban development and has not been identified as a mineral or oil extraction recovery site. The proposed project would be within the development parameters considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum and would not allow for development at a greater density/intensity than previously considered. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact to mineral resources than what was previously considered in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum.

CONCLUSION: Same Impact as “Approved Project.” The proposed project would be consistent with the analysis and conclusions presented in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum; thus, no impact to mineral resources would occur with implementation of the proposed project.

Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 104 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
XII. Noise
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant
Impact Not Identified in the
“Approved Project”
Same or Less Impact than
Identified in the “Approved
Project

12. NOISE — Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
☐ ☒
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☒
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
☐ ☒
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
☐ ☒
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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☒
f) For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☒
Discussion
a) General Plans, Noise Ordinances or Applicable Standards Construction
The Certified PEIR determined that the Downtown Plan could expose nearby sensitive receptors to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies that would result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures Noise1(a) and Noise2(b) proposed in the Certified PEIR would reduce construction noise levels to less than significant impact.

As stated in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, the City’s Noise Element of the General Plan and the City’s Municipal Code regulates noise in the project area. As summarized in Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, the City’s Municipal Code, Section 4.9.1 establishes requirements for exterior noise. All project construction activities must be conducted in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, which limits construction activities to between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and federal holidays, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, except for emergency work, and no construction on Sunday. Project activity is prohibited unless a special permit is approved by the City’s Noise Control Officer.

As indicated in the Certified PEIR and LUEP Addendum, the highest construction noise levels during typical construction activities would be generated during grading, excavation, and foundation work, with lower noise levels occurring during building construction. Maximum noise levels of 73 to 95 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet could occur during the noisiest phases of construction activity. However, typical hourly average construction-generated noise levels would be approximately 74 to 88 dBA Leq measured at a distance of 50 feet from the noise-generating Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum
The Mosaic Project 105 ESA / 201801165.12
Downtown Plan Program EIR Addendum December 2022
activity. The Certified PEIR stated that pile driving can produce very high noise levels on the order of 95 to 100 dBA at 50 feet, which are difficult to control.