Long Beach City Council
June 6, 2023

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -8 regulations for over 10 airports in the region, including the Long Beach Airport. The Long Beach Airport is centrally located within the planning area and is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and is subject to regulations established in the Los Angeles County ALUP.

The Los Angeles County ALUP outlines compatibility concerns related to noise and safety impacts to surrounding communities that could adversely affect the viability of the airport. Specifically, the Los Angeles County ALUP aims to protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents within the County through the establishment of Runway Protection Zones (easements for which land uses adjacent to the airport need to be controlled) and noise regulations (established in the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance).

Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the Joint Forces Training Base-Los Alamitos.

The Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) is situated in the City of Los Alamitos and contains the Army Aviation Support Facility and the 1st Battalion of the 140th Aviation Regiment of the California Army National Guard. The facility has two runways that are aligned northeast to southwest.

The Los Alamitos JFTB is within the jurisdiction of the Orange County ALUC, which is required to prepare and adopt an airport environs land use plan (AELUP) for each of the airports within its jurisdiction. As such, the Orange County AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB was adopted in 1975 and has since been revised numerous times, with the last revision occurring in 2016.

The Orange County AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB aims to safeguard the general welfare of residents within the vicinity of the airport and to ensure the continued operation of the airport.

Specifically, the plan seeks to protect the public from adverse aircraft noise and safety impacts. The Orange County AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB aims to achieve these goals by regulating land use patterns within the “airport influence area.” Specifically, airport influence areas are defined as areas where current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, and/or airspace protection may significantly impact land uses or necessitate land use restrictions. The southeastern boundary of the City of Long Beach is located within a portion of the Los Alamitos JFTB airport influence area, and as such, is subject to regulations outlined in the Orange County AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB.

City of Long Beach General Plan. The City’s General Plan establishes goals, policies, and strategies that combine to serve as a “blueprint” directing future growth in the City. The current General Plan consists of the Historic Preservation, Open Space and Recreation, Housing, Air Quality, Mobility, Land Use, Seismic Safety, Noise, Public Safety, Conservation, Urban Design, and Mobility Elements.

The Land Use Element (2019) and Urban Design Element (2019) are the most recent General Plan elements to be adopted, as part of the City’s larger effort to update older elements of its General Plan.

Noise Element. The existing Noise Element, which was adopted in 1975, identifies noisesensitive land uses and noise sources, and defines areas of noise impacts. The proposed project addressed in this Draft EIR includes the adoption of a new General Plan Noise Element (included as Appendix B of this Draft EIR), which would replace the City’s existing 1975 Noise Element. As

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» 4.1-9 required by Section 65302 of the California Government Code, the Noise Element is a required element of a City’s General Plan.

Land Use Element. The City originally adopted its General Plan LUE on July 1, 1989, and subsequently revised the LUE in March 1990, and April 1997. A new LUE was adopted in December 2019. This plan formulated the following broad-range goals guiding land use in the City: manage growth, encourage economic development, revitalize the Downtown area, allow for the construction of new housing, encourage the development of affordable housing, emphasize strong neighborhoods, maintain existing public facilities, and maintain and/or improve the circulation system.

The LUE introduces the concept of “PlaceTypes,” which replaced the prior approach of segregating property within the City through traditional land use designations and zoning classifications. The LUE establishes 14 primary PlaceTypes that divide the City into distinct neighborhoods, thus allowing for greater flexibility and a mix of compatible land uses within these areas. Each PlaceType is defined by unique land use, form, and character-defining goals, policies, and implementation strategies tailored specifically to the particular application of that PlaceType within the City.

Urban Design Element. The UDE was approved by the City Council in December 2019. The decision to include a UDE in the City’s General Plan grew from the City’s stated need to provide an urban framework that addresses the varying aesthetic characteristics associated with the historic districts, traditional neighborhoods, auto-oriented commercial centers, urbanized centers, and corridors located throughout the City. As the City continues to evolve, the UDE seeks to shape the urban environment by preserving the character of existing neighborhoods that define the City’s unique physical and aesthetic character while allowing for the continued evolution and improvement of the City in areas targeted for new development.

The UDE defines the physical aspects of the urban environment. Specifically, the UDE enhances the City’s PlaceTypes established in the LUE by creating great places; improving the urban fabric, and public spaces; and defining edges, thoroughfares, and corridors. It is the City’s intention that creating great places would provide gathering spaces for community members to meet and provide a space for spontaneous activities to occur. By improving the urban fabric, the City would allow for new development that would complement the existing historical development while serving as a unique and distinctive feature of the City.

Mobility Element. The Mobility Element, which was adopted in 2013, addresses the movement of people and goods via automobiles, transit, bicycles, and other modes. It addresses key issues such as trip reduction; parking, bicycle, and pedestrian access; traffic flow; transportation improvements and funding; and traffic safety.
2013–2021 Housing Element. The City's 2013–2021 Housing Element (Housing Element) was adopted for the current planning cycle in January 2014 and was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in April 2014. The City’s Housing Element reflects the State’s housing unit construction goals as allocated by SCAG in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the years between 2014 and 2021. The Housing Element analyzes current

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -10 housing needs, estimates future housing needs, considers potential sites for additional housing, and establishes goals, policies, and programs in response to both current and future housing needs.

Conservation Element. The Conservation Element was adopted in 1973. The primary objective of the Conservation Element is to provide direction regarding the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. It identifies the City’s natural resources and provides goals and policies for their preservation, development, and wise use. This element addresses harbors, water supply (as a resource) and water quality (including river, bay, and ocean water quality, and potable drinking water), terrestrial and marine biological resources, mineral resources, visual resources, soils and beaches, and open space.

Open Space and Recreation Element. The Open Space and Recreation Element, which was adopted in 2002, addresses the provision of parklands and recreation programs for the City’s residents. Specific recreational issues and policies contained in the Open Space and Recreation Element include parks and recreation facilities, recreation programs, shared facilities, coastal recreation and support facilities, marine recreation, and public access.

Seismic Safety Element. The Seismic Safety Element, which was adopted in 1988, provides goals and policies to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from seismic hazards.

Public Safety Element. The Public Safety Element, which was adopted in 1975, provides goals and policies to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from natural and human-induced hazards. The Public Safety Element specifically addresses urban fire hazards, coastal hazards, geologic hazards, crime prevention, utility-related hazards, hazardous materials, flood hazards, and disaster planning.

Historic Preservation Element. The Historic Preservation Element, which was adopted in 2010, addresses the protection and sustainability of the City’s historic resources. Goals and policies presented within the Historic Preservation Element are intended to recognize, maintain, and protect the community’s unique historical, cultural, and archeological sites and structures.

Air Quality Element. The Air Quality Element, which was adopted in 1996, bridges the Land Use and Mobility Elements of the City’s General Plan to better recognize the relationship between land use patterns, transportation planning, and air quality, and identifies a broad range of actions that could contribute to cleaner air in the City and surrounding region. The Air Quality Element identifies a series of policies, programs, and strategies that encourage fewer vehicle trips, increased opportunities for alternative transportation modes and fuels, and land use patterns that can be efficiently served by a diversified transportation system.

City of Long Beach Zoning Code. Zoning is the division of a city or county into districts and the application of development regulations specific to each district. The City of Long Beach Zoning Code, Title 21 of the Municipal Code, includes regulations concerning where and under what conditions a business may operate in the City. It also establishes zone-specific height limits, setback requirements, parking ratios, and other development standards, for residential and commercial

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» 4.1-11 sites. The City is currently in the process of establishing Title 22 in order to facilitate a substantial update to the City’s Zoning Code consistent with the recently adopted LUE. The intention is to fully transition from Title 21, which is the currently established zoning chapter within the City’s Municipal Code, to Title 22, which will eventually regulate zoning throughout the City.

The Zoning Code is a primary tool for implementing the City’s General Plan. It is the intent of the City that the General Plan LUE and the Zoning Code are consistent to ensure that goals and policies outlined in the General Plan and development standards outlined in the Zoning Code are implemented in a manner that is identifiable with the City’s overall vision for the City. As illustrated by Figure 4.1-3, Zoning Districts, the primary existing zoning districts in the City include residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

In addition to establishing zoning districts, the City’s Zoning Code also defines 32 Planned Development Districts throughout the City. All of these Planned Development Districts are more comprehensive than traditional zoning districts and are intended to allow for increased flexibility for development within these areas.

4.1.6 Proposed Noise Element Strategies and Policies
The following proposed strategies and policies contained in the proposed Noise Element are applicable to the analysis of Land Use and Planning and would replace existing policies and strategies outlined in the City’s existing Noise Element following project approval:

Strategy No. 1: Apply site planning and other design strategies to reduce noise impacts, especially within the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhoods, Multifamily Residential—Low and Moderate, and Neighborhood-Serving Centers and Corridors – Low and Moderate PlaceTypes. • Policy N 1-1: Integrate noise considerations into the land use planning process in order to prevent new land use noise conflicts.
• Policy N 1-2: Require noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into all development and redevelopment of sensitive receptor uses, including residential, health care facilities, schools, libraries, senior facilities, and churches in close proximity to existing or known planned rail lines. • Policy N 1-5: Incorporate urban design strategies such as courtyards, paseos, alleys, plazas and open space areas to provide a buffer to noise sensitive uses.

Strategy No. 2: Create a balance of business practices within dynamic, active, and engaging areas such as the Transit-Oriented Development – Low and Moderate, Downtown, and Waterfront PlaceType areas to promote activity while respecting adjacent sensitive uses. • Policy N 2-1: Ensure that developments located in commercial or entertainment areas do not exceed stationary-source noise standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -12 • Policy N 2-2: Require mitigation measures for new high-generating uses adjacent to sensitive receptors.

Strategy No. 3: Capitalize on urban design techniques and business operation strategies within business and employment center PlaceTypes (Community Commercial, Industrial, Neo-Industrial, Regional-Serving Facility, Port of Long Beach) to minimize noise impacts on surrounding adjacent uses.
• Policy N 3-1: Provide sufficient spatial separation between industrial uses and sensitive receptors. Utilize mitigation measures where feasible to reduce the noise source, such as noise attenuation methods, interrupting the noise path, or insulating the receptor to minimize the exposure of noise-sensitive uses to excessive industrial-related noise. • Policy N 3-5: Where sensitive receptors are located adjacent to industrial uses, reduce noise impacts through the use of noise barriers, restriction of operating hours, and investment in noise cancelling technology.
• Policy N 3-6: Mitigate off-site impacts from port operations and consider development of grant programs for off-site port-related noise mitigations.

Strategy No. 4: Protect and buffer noise sensitive areas and uses through effective building design and material selection.

Strategy No. 5: Implement best practices to reduce impacts of noise from industrial sources. • Policy N 5-6: Site design should consider sensitive receptor locations and place noise sources away from these uses when feasible.

Strategy No. 6: Minimize vehicular traffic noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.
• Policy N 6-1: Ensure noise-compatible land uses along existing and future roadways, highways, and freeways.
• Policy N 6-2: Use the “Land Use Compatibility Guidelines” and established Noise Standards or other measures that are acceptable to the City, to guide land use and zoning reclassification, subdivision, conditional use and use variance determinations and environmental assessment considerations, especially relative to sensitive uses, as defined by this chapter within a line-ofsight of freeways, major highways, or truck haul routes. • Policy N 6-4: Work toward understanding and reducing traffic noise in residential neighborhoods with a focus on analyzing the effects of traffic noise exposure throughout the City.
• Policy N 6-5: Establish and enforce designated truck routes on specified arterial streets to minimize the negative impacts to noise sensitive uses throughout the City.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» 4.1-13 • Policy N 6-6: For future noise sensitive land uses proposed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours, a qualified acoustical consultant shall conduct a noise analysis to determine appropriate measures are implemented to meet the necessary exterior and interior noise standards.
• Policy N 6-9: Encourage site planning and building design measures that minimize the effects of traffic noise in residential zones.

Strategy No. 7: Promote multimodal mobility to reduce noise generated from vehicular traffic. • Policy N 7-1: Encourage the use of active transportation modes (walking, bicycling), micromobility (electric vehicles) and transit as stipulated in the Mobility Element to minimize traffic noise in the City.
• Policy N 7-2: Work with local and regional transit agencies and businesses to provide transportation services that reduce traffic and associated noise as stipulated in the Mobility Element.
• Policy N 7-3: Evaluate private development proposals to ensure provisions for multimodal mobility where feasible.
• Policy N 7-4: Factor multimodal mobility as part of decisions affecting use and priority of public right-of- way.

Strategy No. 9: Minimize train noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses. • Policy N 9-1: Encourage noise-compatible land uses and incorporate noise-reducing design features within transit-oriented, mixed-use development near rail corridors. • Policy N 9-4: Work with rail operators to install and maintain noise mitigation features where operations adversely impact existing or planned residential and other noise-sensitive land uses.

Strategy No. 10: While the operations of airports and airport related uses are noisy by nature, the adverse effects of aircraft-related noise should be minimized. • Policy N 10-1: Ensure that new development can be made compatible with the noise environment by using noise/land use compatibility standards and the airport noise contour maps as guides to future planning and development decisions. • Policy N 10-2: When making land use decisions, give careful consideration to the type and density of land use and its cumulative impacts so that appropriate decisions are made for the airport, its context, and its environment. Specific consideration should be given for all development within two miles of an airport.
• Policy N 10-3: Support efforts of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other responsible agencies to require the development of quieter aircraft.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -14 • Policy N 10-4: Utilize information provided by the Long Beach Airport Quarterly Environmental Reports, specifically noise contours, to advise land owners of special noise considerations associated with their development.
• Policy N 10-5: Continue to work with the FAA, airport staff and aircraft operators to ensure that future operations are in compliance with the City’s noise goals, where possible. • Policy N 10-6: Require private heliports/helistops to comply with the City noise ordinances and Federal Aviation Administration standards.
• Policy N 10-7: Work with interest groups to reduce helicopter noise impacts and direct helicopter operators to perform any training exercises over non-populated portions of the City, not over residential areas.
• Policy N 10-8: Continue open communications with citizens through continued outreach.

Continued use of WebTrak or a similar system will allow the ability for residents to give feedback to the City on noise impacts experienced such that further meaningful communication can continue with Federal and airport staff.
• Policy N 10-9: Continue to evaluate potential noise impacts and compatibility through analysis and mitigation required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Strategy No. 11: Minimize watercraft noise level impacts to residential areas and in other locations near noise-sensitive uses, where possible.
• Policy N 11-1: Continue to require the Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine Department to enforce the noise requirements within the California Harbors and Navigation Code. • Policy N 11-2: Enforce speed limits near the coastline and on the existing water channels. • Policy N 11-3: Continue communications with the Marine Department on responding to and documenting noise complaints.
• Policy N 11-4: Ensure that boat owners receive information on proper noise management practices, especially those leasing City slips or with City-registered docks. Strategies include informational signage and education.

Strategy No. 12: Minimize construction noise and vibration levels in residential areas and in other locations near noise-sensitive uses where possible.
• Policy N 12-1: Reduce construction, maintenance, and nuisance noise at the source, when possible, to reduce noise conflicts.
• Policy N 12-2: Limit the allowable hours for construction activities and maintenance operations near sensitive uses.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» 4.1-15 • Policy N 12-3: As part of the City’s Municipal Code, establish noise levels standards based on PlaceType and time of day, to which construction noise shall conform. • Policy N 12-4: Encourage off-site fabrication to reduce needed onsite construction activities and corresponding noise levels and duration.
• Policy N 12-5: Encourage the following construction best practices:
○ Schedule high-noise and vibration-producing activities to a shorter window of time during the day outside early morning hours to minimize disruption to sensitive uses. ○ Grading and construction contractors should use equipment that generates lower noise and vibration levels, such as rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment. ○ Construction haul truck and materials delivery traffic should avoid residential areas whenever feasible.
○ The construction contractor should place noise- and vibration-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses whenever feasible.
○ All residential units located within 500 ft of a construction site should be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 ft should also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs should indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for a “noise disturbance coordinator.”
○ A “noise disturbance coordinator” should be established. The disturbance coordinator should be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator should determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and should be required to implement reasonable measures to reduce noise levels.
• Policy N 12-6: Continue to provide information bulletins dispersing information on municipal code requirements and recommended best practices.

Strategy No. 15: Reduce the disproportionate environmental noise burdens affecting lowincome and minority populations. • Policy N 15-1: Require that proposals for new sensitive land uses are located adequate distances from freeways and major roadways based on an analysis of physical and meteorological conditions at the project site.
• Policy N 15-2: Require that proposals for new sensitive land uses incorporate adequate setbacks, barriers, landscaping, or other measures as necessary to minimize noise impacts.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -16 Strategy No. 16: Continue to actively enhance the regulation and management of noise to improve procedures and minimize noise impacts.
• Policy N 16-5: Update the Noise Ordinance to carry out the Noise Element and periodically update based on community input and updates in technology and best practices. • Policy N 16-8: Ensure adequate resources are provided for enforcement of City noise regulations.

4.1.7 Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance criteria are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Thresholds of Significance. Based on these thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact related to land use and planning if it would:

Threshold 4.1.1: Physically divide an established community Threshold 4.1.2: Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
The IS (Appendix A) determined that the approval of the proposed project is considered a policy/ planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in the division of any established communities. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, Threshold 4.1.1 will not be discussed further in this Draft EIR.

4.1.8 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.1.2: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Long Beach General Plan, City of Long Beach Municipal Code, the Los Angeles County ALUP, and the Orange County AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB, are applicable to the proposed project and consistency with these applicable local and regional plans are discussed below.

General Plan. The proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance. Proposed amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance are intended to create consistency between the existing Noise Ordinance and the proposed Noise Element. Additionally, the amendments to the Noise Ordinance would regulate noise and implement the policies of the Noise Element. As such, proposed amendments to the Noise Ordinance would not conflict with existing elements of the General Plan because they are consistent with the intent of the proposed Noise Element.

Approval of the proposed project would ensure that the proposed Noise Element would serve as the guiding document to create and maintain a healthy noise environment in the City and manage the

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» 4.1-17 exposure of community residents to excessive noise generated by future development in the City.

The proposed Noise Element would be consistent with California Government Code Section 65302 as it addresses one of the seven required elements (Noise) in the City’s General Plan. The proposed Noise Element, together with the other General Plan Elements, would serve to guide the overall development and urban form of the entire City through the horizon year 2040.

The goals and policies in the proposed Noise Element are intended to provide protection for land uses, as identified in the LUE, from excessive noise. The Noise Element identifies potential and anticipated noise sources and establishes programs to avoid or mitigate noise impacts. These goals and policies would reduce potential impacts related to incompatible uses and noise, and would promote a healthy environment to accommodate future projections in housing, population, and employment in the City.

In addition to the LUE, the Noise Element is related to other mandated elements, including Housing, Circulation, and Open Space. Recognition of the interrelationship of noise and these four other mandated elements is necessary in order to prepare an integrated general plan. In addition, the Noise Element is related to policies in the Urban Design Element, an optional element under state law. As described in detail throughout Table 4.1.3 and summarized below, the strategies and policies included in the proposed Noise Element are internally consistent with the following elements of the City’s General Plan.

Land Use Element (2019). A key objective of the Noise Element is to provide noise exposure information for use in the LUE. California Government Code Section 65302(f) states that: “The noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise.” The future noise contours presented in the proposed Noise Element are consistent with assumptions made in the LUE. The proposed Noise Element provides existing and future noise contours that may be used, along with the LUE, to evaluate future land use proposals.

The proposed Noise Element also includes goals and policies related to site planning and other design strategies to reduce noise impacts resulting from the PlaceTypes included in the LUE and would integrate noise considerations into the land use process in order to prevent land use conflicts related to noise (refer to Strategy No.1, Policy N 1-1, Policy N 1-2, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Strategy No. 3, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-1, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-9, Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-1, Strategy No. 10, Policy N 10-1, and Policy N 10-2). Therefore, the proposed Noise Element would be consistent with the overall intent of the LUE.

Urban Design Element (2019). The UDE defines the physical aspects of the urban environment.

Specifically, the UDE aims to further enhance the City’s PlaceTypes established in the LUE by creating great places; improving the urban fabric and public spaces; and defining edges, thoroughfares, and corridors. In addition, the City intends to utilize the UDE to foster healthy, sustainable neighborhoods; promote compact and connected development; minimize and fill in gaps in the urban fabric of existing neighborhoods; improve the cohesion between buildings, roadways, public spaces, and people; and improve the economic vitality of the City.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -18 Urban design techniques and policies, including noise attenuation measures (refer to Policy N 1-2 and Policy N 3-1), can be employed to minimize noise impacts and are included in the proposed Noise Element. The proposed Noise Element also includes strategies and policies that incorporate urban design strategies to provide buffers to noise sensitive uses, and that capitalize on urban design techniques within business and employment center PlaceTypes to minimize noise impacts on surrounding and adjacent uses (refer to Policy N 1-5 and Strategy No. 3).

Therefore, the proposed Noise Element would be consistent with the overall intent of the UDE.

Open Space and Recreation Element (2002). The 2002 Open Space Element covers four topic areas related to open space: the preservation of natural resources, the managed production of resources, public health and safety, and outdoor recreation. Excessive noise can adversely affect the enjoyment of recreation activities in designated open space. As such, noise exposure levels should be considered when planning open space. The proposed Noise Element includes noise exposure information for use in planning open space. Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that prevent land use conflicts related to noise that would minimize noise impacts on open space and recreation areas (refer to Strategy No. 1, Policy N 1-1, Policy N 1-2, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Strategy No. 3, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-1, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-9 Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-1, Strategy No. 10, Policy N 10-1, Policy N 10-2). Therefore, the proposed Noise Element would be consistent with the overall intent of the Open Space and Recreation Element.

Housing Element (2014). The 2014 Housing Element covers an eight-year planning period (from October 15, 2013, to October 15, 2021) and includes discussion regarding adequate sites for new housing and standards for housing stock. The Housing Element identifies policies, programs, and objectives that focus on conserving and improving existing affordable housing; providing adequate sites for new housing; assisting in development of affordable housing; removing governmental constraints to housing development; and promoting equal housing opportunities. Since residential uses are considered noise sensitive, the noise exposure and contour information provided in the proposed Noise Element can be utilized for future planning efforts, and helps to identity potential noise constraints. Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that require noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into development and redevelopment, limit and minimize construction noise in residential areas, and encourage site planning and building design measures that minimize the effects of noise in residential zones (Refer to Policy N 1-2, Policy N 1-5, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Policy N 2-2, Policy N 3-1, Policy N 3-5, Strategy No. 4, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-4, Policy N 6-5, Policy N 6-6, Policy N 6-9, Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-4, Strategy No. 12, Policy N 12-2, Policy N 15-1, and Policy N 15-2). Therefore, the proposed Noise Element would be consistent with the overall intent of the Housing Element.

Mobility Element (2013).The 2013 Mobility Element focuses on improving the quality of life for Long Beach residents and visitors through transportation and mobility planning. The future noise contours presented in the proposed Noise Element are consistent with assumptions made in the Mobility Element. Additionally, the proposed project includes strategies and policies to promote multimodal mobility to reduce noise generated from vehicular traffic (Strategy N. 7, Policy N 7-1, Policy N 7-2, Policy N 7-3, and Policy N 7-4). These strategies and policies further

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» 4.1-19 the goals of the Mobility Element. Therefore, the proposed Noise Element would be consistent with the overall intent of the City’s General Plan Mobility Element.

The proposed Noise Element would not result in inconsistencies with the Air Quality Element (1996), Conservation Element (1973), Historic Preservation Element (2010), Public Safety (2002), or Seismic Safety Element (1988) because although these elements, together with the Noise Element, would serve to guide the overall development and urban form of the City, the Noise Element is not specifically interrelated with the goals, policies, and strategies of these elements.

For further detailed discussion related to the proposed Noise Element’s consistency with adopted applicable elements of the City’s General Plan, refer to Table 4.1.3 below.

Table 4.1.3: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
Land Use Element (2019)
Overview. The proposed Noise Element provides existing and future noise contours that may be used, along with the LUE, to evaluate future land use proposals. The proposed Noise Element also includes goals and policies related to site planning and other design strategies to reduce noise impacts resulting from the PlaceTypes included in the LUE and would integrate noise considerations into the land use process in order to prevent land use conflicts related to noise (refer to Strategy No. 1, Policy N 1-1, Policy N 1-2, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Strategy No. 3, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-1, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-9 Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-1, Strategy No. 10, Policy N 10-1, Policy N 10-2).

Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall intent of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element.

Goal No. 1: Implement Sustainable Planning
and Development Practices
Consistent. The proposed Noise Element includes policies requiring noise attenuation measures (refer to Policy N 1-2 and Policy N 3-1), which would help minimize impacts resulting from the
implementation of sustainable planning and development practices, which encourage compact, mixed-use developments in certain areas of the City such as downtown, along corridors and surrounding transit stations to create walkable environments in certain areas.

The proposed project also includes updates to the boundaries of the Noise District Map found in Section 8.80.160 of the City’s Municipal Code to better reflect and be consistent with LUE PlaceTypes (refer to Figure 3-5 in Section 3.0, Project Description).

The General Plan LUE PlaceTypes established a number of mixeduse PlaceTypes that delineate areas that are currently mixed-use in nature and that are planned or anticipated to be more mixed-use in the future, and where commercial, residential and other compatible land uses will be integrated.

The proposed project would also include updates to Table A, Exterior Noise Limits, in Long Beach Municipal Code Section

8.80.160, Exterior noise limits—Correction for character of sound, to include mixed-use land uses under District Two and Table C in Long Beach Municipal Code Section 8.80.170, Interior noise limits— Maximum sound levels, to be updated to include interior noise limits for mixed-uses.

As such, the proposed project would be complementary to this goal of implementing sustainable planning and development practices.

Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 1 of the LUE.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -20 Table 4.1.3: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
Goal No. 2: Strengthen the City’s Fiscal
Health by Stimulating Continuous Economic
Development and Job Growth.

Consistent. Implementation of this goal is ongoing and is reflected in existing programs and regulations related to the City’s economic development. The proposed project would not result in any conflicts related to the strengthening of the City’s fiscal health.

Additionally, the proposed project would help support the implementation of this goal by managing the distribution and intensity of noise from special events in order to prioritize the wellbeing of residents. Special events provide benefits to the City, including economic development and tourism; however, noise may be a concern for residents living in close proximity to special events.

The proposed Noise Element includes Strategy No. 13 and policies Policy N 13-1 through Policy N 13-6, which include measures that would balance the needs of special events while prioritizing the well-being of residents. The Special Events Noise Study prepared by City Staff and released to the public on July 17, 2019 was also used to inform the update to the City’s Noise Ordinance and the General Plan Noise Element. The Special Events Noise Study outlined best practices that the City could implement to better manage noise from special events—a number of which have already been implemented by the City. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 2 of the LUE.

Goal No. 3: Accommodate Strategic Growth
and Change
Consistent. The proposed project would be consistent with this goal because the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies intended to provide protection for land uses, as identified in the LUE, from excessive noise and vibration sources. The LUE identified specific areas for targeted growth. The proposed Noise Element and amendments to the Noise Ordinance would help meet this goal of accommodating strategic growth and change by protecting strategic growth areas from excessive noise and vibration sources by requiring noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into development and redevelopment (refer to Policy N 1-2 and Policy N 3-1). Additionally, the noise exposure and contour information provided in the proposed Noise Element can be utilized for future planning efforts to accommodate strategic growth.

Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 3 of the LUE.

Goal No. 4: Support Neighborhood
Preservation and Enhancement
Consistent. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies to apply site planning and design strategies to reduce noise impacts, especially within the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhoods, Multifamily Residential—Low and Moderate, and Neighborhood-Serving Centers and Corridors – Low and Moderate PlaceTypes (refer to Strategy No. 1 and policies Policy N 1-1 through Policy N 1-9). These policies support the City’s goal of preserving and enhancing neighborhoods for generations to come. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 4 of the LUE.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» 4.1-21 Table 4.1.3: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
Goal No. 5: Diversify Housing Opportunities Consistent. The LUE includes the Multi-Family, Neighborhood Center, Transit-Oriented Development, Neo-Industrial, Downtown, and Waterfront PlaceTypes, which all allow a range of housing types at varying densities, including single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, garden apartments, condominiums, mixed-use, live/work lofts, and mid- and high-rise residential towers.

The noise exposure and contour information provided in the proposed Noise Element can be utilized for future planning efforts for these diverse housing opportunities allowed by the LUE, and helps to identity potential noise constraints. Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that require noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into development and redevelopment, limit and minimize construction noise in residential areas, and encourage site planning and building design measures that minimize the effects of noise in residential zones (Refer to Policy N 1-2, Policy N 1-5, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Policy N 2-2, Policy N 3-1, Policy N 3-5, Strategy No. 4, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-4, Policy N 6-5, Policy N 6-6, Policy N 6-9, Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-4, Strategy No. 12, Policy N 12-2, Policy N 15-1, and Policy N 15-2). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 5 of the LUE.

Goal No. 6: Ensure a Fair and Equitable Land
Use Plan
Consistent. Creating a more equitable distribution of noise is one of the four primary goals of the proposed Noise Element. Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that are complementary to this Goal and include measures to reduce the disproportionate environmental noise burdens affecting lowincome and minority population (Strategy No. 15 and policies Policy N 15-1 through Policy N 15-7). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 6 of the LUE.

Goal No. 7: Provide Reliable Public Facilities
and Infrastructure to Encourage Investment
Consistent. Implementation of this goal is ongoing and is reflected in existing programs and regulations, which ensure that the City’s infrastructure and public facilities will be functional and economically sustainable. The proposed project, which is a planning/policy action, would not result in any conflicts with the functionality or economic sustainability of Long Beach’s infrastructure and public facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 7 of the LUE.

Goal No. 8: Increase Access to, Amount of and
Distribution of Green and Open Space
Consistent. The proposed project includes noise exposure information for use in planning open space. Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes Policy N 1-5, which encourages the incorporation of urban design strategies such as courtyards, paseos, alleys, plazas, and open space areas to provide a buffer to noise sensitive uses. This policy encourages an increase in the amount of and distribution of open space areas. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 8 of the LUE.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -22 Table 4.1.3: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
Goal No. 9: Preserve, Protect, Restore and
Reconnect with Natural Resources
Consistent. Excessive noise can adversely affect the enjoyment of recreation activities in designated open space areas. As such, noise exposure levels should be considered when planning open space.

The proposed Noise Element includes noise exposure information for use for in planning open space. Additionally the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that prevent land use conflicts related to noise (refer to Strategy No. 1, Policy N 1-1, Policy N 1-2, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Strategy No. 3, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-1, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-9 Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-1, Strategy No. 10, Policy N 10-1, Policy N 10-2).

Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 9 of the LUE.

Open Space and Recreation Element
(2002)
Overview. The proposed Noise Element includes noise exposure information for use for in planning open space.

Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that prevent land use conflicts related to noise that would minimize noise impacts on open space and recreation areas (refer to Strategy No. 1, Policy N 1-1, Policy N 1- 2, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Strategy No. 3, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-1, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-9 Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-1, Strategy No. 10, Policy N 10-1, Policy N 10-2). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall intent of the City’s General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element.

Goal No. 1: Open space for the preservation of
natural resources.

Consistent. Implementation of this goal is ongoing and is reflected in existing programs and regulations related to the preservation of natural resources in the City. Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes noise exposure information for use for in planning open space. The proposed Noise Element also includes strategies and policies that prevent land use conflicts related to noise, which would help facilitate the preservation of open space (refer to Strategy No. 1, Policy N 1-1, Policy N 1-2, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Strategy No. 3, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-1, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-9 Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-1, Strategy No. 10, Policy N 10-1, Policy N 10-2). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 1 of the Open Space and Recreation Element.

Goal No. 2: Open space for the managed
production of resources.

Consistent. Implementation of this goal is ongoing and is reflected in existing programs and regulations related to the management of resources in the City. Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes noise exposure information for use in planning open space, which would facilitate the provision of open space. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 2 of the Open Space and Recreation Element.

Goal No. 3: Open space for public health and
safety.

Consistent. Implementation of this goal is ongoing and is reflected in existing programs and regulations related to public health and safety. Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes noise exposure information for use for in planning open space, which would facilitate the provision of open space. Additionally the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that prevent land use conflicts related to noise, which would ensure a healthy noise environment (refer to Strategy No. 1, Policy N 1-1, Policy N 1-2, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Strategy No. 3, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-1, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-9 Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-1, Strategy No. 10, Policy N 10-1, Policy N 10-2).

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» 4.1-23 Table 4.1.3: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 3 of the Open Space and Recreation Element.

Goal No. 4: Open space for recreation and
recreational facilities.

Consistent. The proposed Noise Element includes noise exposure information for use in planning open space, which would facilitate the provision of open space. Additionally the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that prevent land use conflicts related to noise (refer to Strategy No. 1, Policy N 1-1, Policy N 1-2, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Strategy No. 3, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-1, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-9 Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-1, Strategy No. 10, Policy N 10-1, Policy N 10-2). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 4 of the Open Space and Recreation Element.

Housing Element (2014)
Overview. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that require noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into development and redevelopment, limit and minimize construction noise in residential areas, and encourage site planning and building design measures that minimize the effects of noise in residential zones (Refer to Policy N 1-2, Policy N 1-5, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Policy N 2-2, Policy N 3-1, Policy N 3-5, Strategy No. 4, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-4, Policy N 6-5, Policy N 6-6, Policy N 6-9, Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-4, Strategy No. 12, Policy N 12-2, Policy N 15-1, and Policy N 15-2). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall intent of the City’s Housing Element.

Goal No. 1: Provide housing assistance and
preserve publicly assisted units.

Consistent. Implementation of this goal is ongoing and is reflected in existing programs and regulations, which provide housing assistance. The proposed project would not result in any conflicts with the provision of housing assistance or the preservation of publicly assisted units. The proposed project would not result in any conflicts with providing housing assistance and preservation of publicly assisted units. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies related to site planning and other design strategies to reduce noise impacts resulting from the PlaceTypes included in the LUE and would integrate noise considerations into the land use process in order to prevent land use conflicts related to noise, which would help preserve publically assisted units (refer to Strategy No. 1, Policy N 1-1, Policy N 1-2, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Strategy No. 3, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-1, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-9 Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-1, Strategy No. 10, Policy N 10-1, Policy N 10-2). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 1 of the Housing Element.

Goal No. 2: Address the unique housing needs of
special needs residents.

Consistent. Implementation of this goal is ongoing and is reflected in existing programs and regulations, which address the housing needs of special needs residents. The proposed project would not result in any conflicts with the unique housing needs of special needs residents. The noise exposure and contour information provided in the proposed Noise Element can be utilized for future planning efforts for diverse housing opportunities allowed by the LUE, and helps to identity potential noise constraints. Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that require noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into development and redevelopment, limit and minimize construction noise in residential areas, and encourage site planning and building design measures that minimize the effects of noise in residential

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -24 Table 4.1.3: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
zones (Refer to Policy N 1-2, Policy N 1-5, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Policy N 2-2, Policy N 3-1, Policy N 3-5, Strategy No. 4, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-4, Policy N 6-5, Policy N 6-6, Policy N 6-9, Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-4, Strategy No. 12, Policy N 12-2, Policy N 15-1, and Policy N 15-2). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 2 of the Housing Element.

Goal No. 3: Retain and improve the quality of
existing housing and neighborhoods.

Consistent. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies aimed at protecting existing neighborhoods and existing programs by apply site planning and design strategies to reduce noise impacts, especially within the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhoods, Multifamily Residential—Low and Moderate, and Neighborhood-Serving Centers and Corridors – Low and Moderate PlaceTypes (Strategy No. 1 and policies Policy N 1-1 through Policy N 1-9). These policies support the City’s goal to retain and improve the quality of existing housing and neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 3 of the Housing Element.

Goal No. 4: Provide increased opportunities for
the construction of high quality housing.

Consistent. The proposed project would not result in any conflicts with providing increased opportunities for the construction of high quality housing. The noise exposure and contour information provided in the proposed Noise Element can be utilized for future planning efforts for the diverse housing opportunities allowed by the LUE, and helps to identity potential noise constraints.

Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that require noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into development and redevelopment, limit and minimize
construction noise in residential areas, and encourage site planning and building design measures that minimize the effects of noise in residential zones (Refer to Policy N 1-2, Policy N 1-5, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Policy N 2-2, Policy N 3-1, Policy N 3-5, Strategy No. 4, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-4, Policy N 6-5, Policy N 6-6, Policy N 6-9, Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-4, Strategy No. 12, Policy N 12-2, Policy N 15-1, and Policy N 15-2). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 4 of the Housing Element.

Goal No. 5: Mitigate government constraints to
housing investment and affordability.

Consistent. Implementation of this goal is ongoing and is reflected in existing programs and regulations, which address constraints to housing investment and affordability in the City. The proposed project would not result in any conflicts with respect to the mitigation of government constraints to housing investment and affordability. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 5 of the Housing Element.

Goal No. 6: Provide increased opportunities for
home ownership.

Consistent. Implementation of this goal is ongoing and is reflected in existing programs and regulations, which increase opportunities for home ownership in the City. The proposed project would not result in any conflicts with increasing opportunities for home ownership. The noise exposure and contour information provided in the proposed Noise Element can be utilized for future planning efforts for the diverse housing opportunities allowed by the LUE, and helps to identity potential noise constraints. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 6 of the Housing Element.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» 4.1-25 Table 4.1.3: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
Goal No. 7: Fair and equal housing opportunity. Consistent. Existing programs to ensure fair housing would continue with approval of the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in any conflicts with the provision of fair and equal housing opportunity.

Additionally, implementation of the proposed Noise Element would result in a more equitable distribution of noise. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that include measures to reduce the disproportionate environmental noise burdens affecting low-income and minority population (refer to Strategy No. 15 and policies Policy N 15-1 through Policy N 15-7). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 7 of the Housing Element.

Urban Design Element (2019)
Overview. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that incorporate urban design strategies to provide buffers to noise sensitive uses, and that capitalize on urban design techniques within business and employment center PlaceTypes to minimize noise impacts on surrounding and adjacent uses (Policy N 1-5, Strategy No. 3). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall intent of the City’s UDE.

Goal No. 1: Creating Great Places Consistent. As described in the UDE, creating great places allows for friends and strangers to interact in a space that encourages activity, spontaneity, exploration, and discovery. Great Places encourage businesses to relocate for both the quality of life of employees and their families.

The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that incorporate urban design strategies to provide buffers to noise sensitive uses, and that capitalize on urban design techniques within business and employment center PlaceTypes to minimize noise impacts on surrounding and adjacent uses (Policy N 1-5, Strategy No. 3). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 1 of the UDE.

Goal No. 2: Urban Fabric Consistent. As described in the UDE, defining patterns within the existing urban fabric successfully expresses what makes Long Beach unique, and is reflective of the neighborhoods and context of the City. It allows for the establishment of new development patterns that do not detract from successful, historical development patterns, but rather builds upon and celebrates the pre-existing Urban Fabric, both natural and man-made, as a component of place.

The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies aimed at protecting existing neighborhoods and existing programs by applying site planning and design strategies to reduce noise impacts, especially within the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhoods, Multifamily Residential—Low and Moderate, and Neighborhood-Serving Centers and Corridors – Low and Moderate PlaceTypes (Strategy No. 1 and policies Policy N 1-1 through Policy N 1-9). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 2 of the UDE.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -26 Table 4.1.3: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
Goal No. 3: Public Spaces Consistent. As described in the UDE, integrating public spaces allows for the community to come together for informal and formal events, where public art can be put on display, where both children and adults can engage in physical activities, and where civic engagement can occur. These Public Spaces are informed by the context of Long Beach and its history of diversity, uniqueness, and civic involvement.

The proposed Noise Element includes Policy N 1-5, which encourages the incorporation of urban design strategies such as courtyards, paseos, alleys, plazas and open space areas to provide a buffer to noise sensitive uses. This policy encourages the integration of public spaces in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 3 of the UDE.

Goal No. 4: Edges, Thoroughfares, and Corridors Consistent. As described in the UDE, edges, thoroughfares, and corridors reflect the uniqueness of the natural and urban environments and the neighborhoods that they traverse. Natural and man-made edges, such as the Pacific Ocean, Port of Long Beach, Los Angeles River, and San Gabriel River, act as catalysts for improved environmental health, quality of life, and opportunities for non-motorized modes of transit. Thoroughfares act to define the larger commercial activities of the City, while at the same time integrating pedestrian amenities that allow for transitioning into adjacent districts. Corridors are the heart of the community where individual neighborhood characteristics are celebrated, opportunities for the ‘public room’ concept are provided, and a wide-array of multimodal transportation options is supported.

Functioning corridors enhance the quality of adjacent
neighborhoods, connectivity to them, and accessibility to goods and services.

The proposed Noise Element includes goals and policies related to site planning and other design strategies to reduce noise impacts resulting from the PlaceTypes included in the LUE and would integrate noise considerations into the land use process in order to prevent land use conflicts related to noise (refer to Strategy No. 1, Policy N 1-1, Policy N 1-2, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Strategy No. 3, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-1, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6- 9 Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-1, Strategy No. 10, Policy N 10-1, Policy N 10-2). Therefore, the proposed Noise Element would support development that would preserve these Edges, Thoroughfares, and Corridors. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 4 of the UDE.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» 4.1-27 Table 4.1.3: General Plan Consistency Analysis
General Plan Policy or Goal Project Consistency
Mobility Element (2013)
Overview. The future noise contours presented in the proposed Noise Element are consistent with the goals contained in the Mobility Element. Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies to promote multimodal mobility to reduce noise generated from vehicular traffic (refer to Strategy N. 7, Policy N 7-1, Policy N 7-2, Policy N 7-3, and Policy N 7-4). These strategies and policies further the goals of the mobility element. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall intent of the City’s General Plan Mobility Element.

Goal No. 1: Create an efficient, balanced,
multimodal mobility network.

Consistent. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies to promote multimodal mobility to reduce noise generated from vehicular traffic (Strategy No. 7, Policy N 7-1, Policy N 7-2, Policy N 7-3, and Policy N 7-4). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 1 of the Mobility Element.

Goal No. 2: Maintain and enhance air, water, and
ground transportation capacity.

Consistent. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies to promote multimodal mobility to reduce noise generated from vehicular traffic (Strategy N. 7, Policy N 7-1, Policy N 7-2, Policy N 7-3, and Policy N 7-4). Encouraging multimodal mobility would further the maintenance and enhancement of air, water, and ground transportation capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Goal No. 2 of the Mobility Element.

Goal No. 3: Lead the region by example with
innovative and experimental practices.

Consistent. PlaceTypes included in the LUE, such as Neo-Industrial, represent an innovative approach to creating and retaining employment while reducing the environmental impacts of those uses. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies related to site planning and other design strategies to reduce noise impacts and would integrate noise considerations into the land use process in order to prevent land use conflicts related to noise (refer to Strategy No. 1, Policy N 1-1, Policy N 1-2, Strategy No. 2, Policy N 2-1, Strategy No. 3, Policy N 5-6, Strategy No. 6, Policy N 6-1, Policy N 6-2, Policy N 6-9 Strategy No. 9, Policy N 9-1, Strategy No. 10, Policy N 10-1, Policy N 10-2). Therefore, the proposed project would facilitate innovative and experimental practices and would be consistent with Goal No. 3 of the Mobility Element.

Source: City of Long Beach General Plan, as amended.

For the reasons cited above and as detailed in Table 4.1.3, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies outlined in the City’s General Plan. Impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Airport Land Use Plans. The Los Angeles County ALUP establishes regulations for over 10 airports in the region, including the Long Beach Airport, which is centrally located within the planning area. The Los Angeles County ALUP outlines compatibility concerns related to noise and safety impacts to surrounding communities that could adversely affect the viability of the airport. Specifically, the Los Angeles County ALUP aims to protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents within the County through the establishment of Runway Protection Zones (easements for which land uses adjacent to the airport need to be controlled) and noise regulations (established in the Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance). The Orange County AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB seeks to protect the public from adverse aircraft noise and safety impacts. The Orange County AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB aims to achieve these goals by regulating land use patterns within the “airport

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -28 influence area.” Specifically, airport influence areas are defined as areas where current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, and/or airspace protection may significantly impact land uses or necessitate land use restrictions.

The proposed Noise Element includes Policy N 10-1, which ensures that new development can be made compatible with the noise environment by using noise/land use compatibility standards and the airport noise contour maps as guides to future planning and development decisions. The proposed Noise Element also includes Policy N 10-9, which requires the evaluation of potential noise impacts and compatibility through analysis and mitigation required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As such, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable airport land use plans because development under the proposed Noise Element would be required to evaluate potential noise impacts associated with discretionary development and ensures compatibility with the noise environment under the airport land use plans. Further, proposed amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance would not conflict with adopted airport land use plans. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with adopted airport land use plans. Impacts would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Municipal Code. As described in Section 3.4.4, Proposed Noise Ordinance Amendments, in Chapter

3.0, Project Description, several amendments to the Noise Ordinance (LBMC Chapter 8.80, Noise) would be included as part of the proposed project. In the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.80.030, Administration and Enforcement, text would be added to clarify and expand the capacity of the Noise Control Officer, which would streamline departmental responsibilities and administrative processes.

Proposed amendments to the Noise Ordinance also include updates to the boundaries of the noise districts shown in the Noise District Map found in Section 8.80.160 to better reflect and be consistent with the recently adopted LUE PlaceTypes (see Figure 3-5, Proposed Noise District Map, in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, for a map of the proposed boundaries). The LUE establishes several mixed-use PlaceTypes that delineate areas that are currently mixed-use in nature and that are planned or anticipated to be more mixed-use in the future, and where commercial, residential and other compatible land uses will be integrated. Currently, District Two consists of areas that contain predominantly commercial uses with other land use types also present. The proposed update to the Noise District Map expands District Two boundaries to better capture areas that currently are characterized by mixed-use development or are planned for mixed-uses and commercial uses in the future. The proposed amendments to the Noise Ordinance also include adding Mixed Use as a land use type in Table A in Section 8.80.160 and Table C in Section 8.80.170 of the City’s Municipal Code, with the corresponding maximum allowable daytime and nighttime decibel levels shown in Table 3.2, Exterior Noise Limits, and Table 3.3, Interior Noise Limits (see Chapter 3.0, Project Description, for further information). These proposed amendments to the tables would be consistent with proposed amendments to the Noise District Map. These proposed amendments also maintain current standards for indoor and outdoor noise limits for residential and other noise-sensitive land uses such as schools.

Overall, the proposed amendments to the Noise Ordinance would update the boundaries of the Noise Districts to better align with higher intensity, mixed-use PlaceTypes in the LUE and would add

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» 4.1-29 Mixed Use as a land use type in the Noise District tables found in Long Beach Municipal Code Sections 8.80.160 and 8.80.170. As such, implementation of the proposed project would ensure that the PlaceTypes as designated in the LUE would be consistent with the Noise Districts, and would also ensure that noise characteristics in an area are associated with land uses allowable by PlaceType.

Noise characteristics are associated with specific land uses, rather than an acoustical neighborhood, and are therefore best regulated through the establishment of Noise Districts consistent with adopted PlaceTypes. For example, residential land uses, such as in Founding and Contemporary Neighborhoods, have lower noise limits than mixed-use land uses. Further, the establishment of acoustical neighborhoods would not be consistent with the adopted PlaceTypes in the LUE. Lastly, the reliance on land uses to establish Noise Districts provides a more objective measure as compared to using an acoustical neighborhood, which is subject to discretion and is inherently more subjective. Therefore, the establishment of Noise Districts consistent with PlaceType designations, as proposed by the project, rather than the establishment of acoustical neighborhoods, is appropriate for regulating noise.

Upon approval of the proposed project, these amendments would result in project consistency with the City’s Municipal Code. Additionally, the proposed amendments would ensure consistency between the proposed Noise Element and the City’s Municipal Code. To ensure that the proposed project complies with and would not conflict with or impede the City’s Municipal Code, including the Noise Ordinance, the proposed project includes Project Design Feature 4.1.1, which requires the implementation of a program to amend the Municipal Code to ensure that changes facilitated by the adopted Noise Element are consistent with the Municipal Code. All inconsistencies between the Noise Element and Municipal Code are required to be resolved through text amendments within 36 months following project approval. Therefore, with incorporation of Project Design Feature PDF

4.1.1, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code. No mitigation is required.

4.1.9 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
There would be no potentially significant impacts related to land use and planning.

4.1.10 Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features

4.1.10.1 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not require any mitigation measures related to land use and planning.

4.1.10.2 Project Design Features
The proposed project would be required to adhere to the following project design feature related to land use and planning.

Project Design Feature 4.1.1 To ensure that the proposed project complies with and would not conflict with or impede the City of Long Beach (City) Municipal Code, including the Noise Ordinance, a program shall be implemented to amend the Municipal Code to ensure that
changes facilitated by the adopted Noise Element are consistent with the Municipal Code. The program to amend the Municipal

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -30 Code shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Director of Development Services, or designee. All inconsistencies between the Noise Element and Municipal Code shall be resolved through text amendments within 36 months following project approval.

4.1.11 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Project implementation would not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to land use and planning. No mitigation is required.

4.1.12 Cumulative Land Use Impacts
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for land use. The cumulative impact area for land use for the proposed project is the planning area. Several development projects are approved and/or pending within the City. Each of these projects, as well as all proposed discretionary development in the City, would be subject to its own General Plan consistency analysis and would be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies. For this reason, cumulative impacts associated with inconsistency of future development with adopted plans and policies would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with applicable land use documents and would achieve consistency with PlaceTypes established by the recently adopted LUE. The proposed project includes amendments to the Noise Ordinance, including updates to the boundaries of the noise districts and amendments to Table A in Section 8.80.160 and Table C in Section 8.80.170 of the City’s Municipal Code, to better reflect and be consistent with PlaceTypes established by the LUE. As such, project implementation would reduce cumulative project impacts related to any inconsistencies with the City’s General Plan. The project would also address potential inconsistencies with the City’s Noise Ordinance (as outlined in Project Design Feature PDF No. 4.1.1), which would reduce cumulative project impacts related to potential Municipal Code inconsistencies to a less than significant level. Further, the proposed project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance, which are considered a policy/ planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would potentially result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Therefore, land use impacts associated with the proposed project would be considered less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would be required.

Service Layer Credits: © 2019 Microsoft
Corporation Earthstar Geographics SIO
SOURCE: Bing Maps (2018); City of Long Beach (2019)
I:\CLB1804\GIS\MXD\GPLU.mxd (12/30/2019)
Existing Land Uses
FIGURE 4.1-1
0 0.75 1.5
MILES
LEGEND
City Boundary
General Plan Land Use
Single Family (LUD 1)
Mixed Style Homes (LUD 2)
Townhomes (LUD 3A)
Moderate Density Residential (3B)
High Density Residential (LUD 4)
Urban High Density Residential (LUD 5)
High Rise Residential (LUD 6)
Mixed Uses (LUD 7)
Major Commercial Corridor (LUD 8)
Traditional Retail Strip Commercial (8A)
Pedestrian-Oriented Retail Shop (LUD 8P)
Mixed Retail/Residential Strip (LUD 8R)
Mixed Office/Residential Strip (LUD 8M)
Shopping Nodes (LUD 8N)
Restricted Industry (LUD 9R)
General Industry (LUD 9G)
Institutions/Schools (LUD 10)
Open Space/Parks (LUD 11)
Harbor/Airport (LUD 12)
Right-of-Way (LUD 13)
Long Beach General Plan
Noise Element

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -32 This page intentionally left blank
City of
Signal Hill
LA
CO
LA CO
(Rancho Dominguez)

LONG BEACH

ORANGE CO
(Rossmoor)
City of
Paramount
City of
Los Angeles
City of
Compton

FWY DIEGO
Port of
Long Beach
SCENIC
SAN

COYOTES
LA
CO
CSULB

LONG BEACH
10TH
WILLOW
SPRING
CLARK

STEARNS

WARDLOW

BELLFLOWER
OCEAN

ATLANTIC ARTESIA

PALO VERDE
FWY

DIAGONAL

LAKEWOOD

TERMINAL ISLAND
BIXBY

MAGNOLIA

ATHERTON
PARK

PACIFIC

WOODRUFF
MARKET
XIMENO

PACIFIC COAST

ANTONIO
DOWNEY
LOYNES
APPIAN

PARAMOUNT

SHORELIN E

HARDING
GARDEN

GROVE FWY

LIVINGSTON

GREENLEAF

NORWALK

PACIFIC
72ND

SAN GABRIEL RIVER FWY

SANTA FE

DEL AMO
70TH

HILL LOS CHERRY
WILLOW

ATLANTIC

REDONDO
OCEAN
CARSON

LONG BEACH
SOUTH
ORANGE

BROADWAY
HARBOR

CLARK NIETO
2ND
7TH

PACIFIC COAST
CHERRY

ALAMITO

ANAHEIM S
CHERRY
ORANGE
4TH

STUDEBAKER
SAN
§¨605
§¨405
§¨710
|ÿ91
|ÿ47
|ÿ103
|ÿ22
El Dorado Park West
Wardlow Park
Westside Los Altos South
Bixby Knolls
Sutter
Hamilton
Lindbergh
South
Wrigley
Dairy
Lakewood
Village
Los Altos North
Central Area East
North
Wrigley
Los
Cerritos
Addams
Starr King
Naples
Rose Park
Stearns
Park
Bryant
School
Arlington
Central Area
West
Belmont
Heights
Upper
Westside
Grant
School
East
Village
Park
Estates
Ramona
Park
El Dorado
Park East
Houghton
Park
California
Heights
Alamitos
Beach
De
Forest
Park
Bluff
Heights
Bixby
Highlands
West
End
Belmont
Shore
Bixby
Hill
Recreation
Park
Scherer
Park
Ranton
Circle
Willmore
City North
Pine
Alamitos
Heights
Bluff Park
El Dorado
Park South
University East
Downtown
Shoreline
Atherton
South
Ridgewood
Heights
Belmont
Park
Washington
School
Memorial
Heights
Davenport
Park
Carmelitos
Wrigley
Heights
Longwood
College
Estates
Coolidge
Triangle
Cherry
Manor
Peninsula
Artesia
Freeway
Corridor
Alamitos
Ridge
Southeast
Franklin
School
University Park
Estates
Promenade
City of
Carson
City of
Lakewood
City of
Seal Beach
City of
Bellflower
City of
Los Alamitos
City of
Hawaiian Gardens
Community Plan Area Neighborhood Historic District
Eastside
Southeast
North Long Beach
Bixby Knolls
Central
Westside &
Wrigley
Midshore Downtown
Traffic
Circle
MILES
0 0.75 1.5
N
General Plan Noise Element
Community Plan Areas SOURCE: City of Long Beach Land Use Element (2019) FIGURE 4.1-2
I:\CLB1804\G\Community_Plan_Areas.cdr (12/30/2019)
Long Beach
Airport

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -34 This page intentionally left blank
LEGEND
City Boundary
Zoning
Specific Plan
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Park
Public Right-of-Way
Planned Development
SOURCE: Bing Maps (2014); City of Long Beach (2018)
I:\CLB1804\GIS\MXD\Zoning.mxd (2/5/2019)
FIGURE 4.1-3
Long Beach General Plan
Noise Element
Zoning Districts
0 0.75 1.5
MILES

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

4.1 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.1 Land Use and Planning.docx «03/10/21» -36 This page intentionally left blank

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-1

4.2 NOISE
This section evaluates the potential short-term and long-term noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City of Long Beach (City) Noise Ordinance (Long Beach Municipal Code [LBMC] Section 8.80) (proposed project).

This analysis evaluates potential noise and vibration impacts within the planning area by evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed Noise Element strategies and policies and amendments to the Noise Ordinance. This section is based on information provided in the proposed Noise Element (December 2019, included as Appendix B of this Draft EIR) of the City of Long Beach’s (City) General Plan, and the Noise Ordinance of the City’s Municipal Code (adopted 1977, most recent revision 2009), the proposed amendments to the Noise Ordinance, and the Noise Existing Conditions Report (LSA, 2018) (Appendix D) prepared to inform the update to the proposed Noise Element.

4.2.1 Scoping Process
The City of Long Beach (City) received a total of 53 public comment letters during the public review period of the IS/NOP. For copies of the IS/NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A of this EIR.

Many of the comment letters received were related to a separate study that was concurrently being prepared regarding noise associated with special events taking place within the City and did not contain comments related to the scope and content of the Draft EIR. Although several comment letters were received related to noise during special events, six comment letters included comments related to noise impacts related to the Draft EIR. One letter states that the noise complaint process with the City is ineffective. Another letter requests the following to be included in the Noise Element: (1) specify noise limits for residential areas; (2) define and limit special events to 2–3 designated events per year that can exceed noise levels; (3) measure existing conditions from residents’ balconies, as well as at stage during special events; (4) define acoustical neighborhoods for outdoor entertainment; (5) set noise level standards as a condition in all event permits; (6) where two acoustical neighborhood meet, default to the standards including referencing the lowest level of noise; (7) identify a responsible person for coordination of noise limits at special events; (8) include community leaders of the Downtown residents in the process; and (9) update the Municipal Code to reflect that special events should only be occasionally allowed to exceed noise standards. Several letters stated that the Noise Element should include limits on noise levels, the maximum number of days that permitted events can exceed limits by acoustical neighborhood, and a clear methodology on how residents can escalate issues related to permitted events. One letter suggests that the Noise Element should include a discussion of impacts of amplified entertainment noise generated during special events and that the C-weighted scale should be considered in the Noise Element and Draft EIR due to its ability to more accurately convey impacts to public health.

Several comment letters state that the Noise Element fails to regulate and enforce noise limits related to traffic noise.

Analysis of special events is not within the scope of this Draft EIR because special events are temporary and often seasonal in nature; as such, they are not considered representative of typical noise patterns. This Draft EIR analyzes the impacts associated with adoption of the new Noise Element and amendments to the existing Noise Ordinance as contained in Chapter 8.80 of the Municipal Code. Neither of these planning/policy documents sets specific noise levels for special events. However, the Noise Element includes policies aimed at balancing the needs of special events

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -2 while prioritizing the well-being of City residents (refer to Strategy No. 13 and Policies N 13-1 through N 13-6 in Section 4.2.6, Proposed Noise Element Strategies and Policies, below).

4.2.2 CEQA Baseline
Noise measurements were taken in February 2014 and May 2017 to record existing noise levels at various locations throughout the City as described in the Noise Existing Conditions Report. This provides a baseline that reflects current conditions related to noise at the time the Draft EIR was prepared.

During the preparation of the Initial Study (IS), the City was in the process of updating and adopting a new proposed Land Use Element (LUE) and Urban Design Element (UDE). Since the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published (May 2019), the Long Beach City Council adopted the new Land Use Element (2019) and Urban Design Element (2019) at a public hearing on December 3, 2019. The new LUE, which replaced the previous 1989 LUE, introduced the concept of “PlaceTypes,” which replaced the previous land use approach of segregating property within the City through traditional land use designations and zoning classifications. The LUE establishes 14 primary PlaceTypes that aim to divide the City into distinct neighborhoods, thus allowing for greater flexibility and a mix of compatible land uses within these areas. The new UDE replaced the 1975 Scenic Routes Element.

The UDE defines the physical aspects of the urban environment. Specifically, the UDE aims to further enhance the City’s PlaceTypes established in the LUE by creating great places; improving the urban fabric, and public spaces; and defining edges, thoroughfares, and corridors.

The new LUE and UDE have been incorporated into the analysis of the Draft EIR for the purpose of evaluating noise impacts associated with project implementation.

4.2.3 Methodology
This analysis describes existing and projected future noise and vibration conditions, discusses the characteristics of sound, sets forth criteria for determining the significance of noise and vibration impacts, and estimates the potential noise and vibration impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed project.

Noise measurements were taken at 14 long-term locations and 32 short-term locations in February 2014 and May 2017 to record the actual existing noise levels at various locations throughout the City. A noise measurement survey of the City was conducted to determine the location of noise measurement sites that would provide a noise profile of the City. Several criteria were used in the site selection process including, but not limited to, the proximity of a measurement site to sensitive land uses as well as its proximity to significant noise generators. Several of the significant noise generators within the City are I-405, I 710, SR-91, SR-1, and Long Beach Boulevard. This is due to the very high volume of automobile and truck traffic at these freeways and roadways. To provide noise measurement coverage of the area, measurement sites were chosen within the confines of the City.

After the site selection process was completed, a series of long-term 24-hour and short-term noise 15-minute measurements were taken at the chosen sites.

The noise model SoundPlan was used to evaluate traffic-related noise conditions throughout the City. This model requires various parameters, including traffic volumes, vehicle mix, vehicle speed,

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-3 and roadway geometry to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels are weighted and summed over 24-hour periods to determine the Ldn contours. Existing traffic volumes (SCAG 2017) were used to assess existing traffic noise levels in the City.

4.2.3.1 Characteristics of Sound
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound and consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is generally related to annoyance, while loudness can affect our ability to hear through hearing damage. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations, or cycles per second, of a wave, resulting in the tone’s range from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment and is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves, combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound pressure refers to how hard the sound wave strikes an object, which in turn produces the sound’s effect. This characteristic of sound can be measured precisely with instruments. The project analysis defines the noise environment of the planning area in terms of sound pressure levels and the project’s effect on sensitive land uses.

4.2.3.2 Measurement of Sound
Sound pressure is measured through the A-weighted scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. Unlike linear units (e.g., inches or pounds), decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale representing points on a sharply rising curve. For example, 10 decibels (dB) are 10 times more intense than 1 dB; 20 dB are 100 times more intense than 1 dB; and 30 dB are 1,000 times more intense than 1 dB. Thirty decibels (30 dB) represent 1,000 times as much acoustic energy as 1 dB. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by the human ear as only a doubling of the loudness of the sound. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 A-weighted decibels (dBA) (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud).

The A-weighted scale was specifically created to conform to the human ear and the frequencies to which it responds. Also, it is the weighting scale most commonly used for Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulatory measurements. The A-weighted scale is used throughout this analysis. The C-weighted scale is another form of measurement of sound pressure and would be most appropriate for very loud, instantaneous events such as blasting. It can also be used if the predominant source of noise is at low frequencies below 500 hertz. The C-weighted scale is not considered in this analysis because the types of sound pressure most appropriately measured by the C-weighted scale are not typical of the ambient noise environment.

Sound levels are generated from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. For a single point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by stationary equipment. If noise is produced by a line source (e.g., highway traffic or railroad operations), the sound decreases 3 dBA

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -4 for each doubling of distance over hard surfaces, and the sound decreases 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation.

There are many ways to measure noise for various time periods; an appropriate ambient noise metric affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant metrics for communities in the State of California are the Leq and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day-night average level (Ldn) based on dBA. The CNEL is the timevarying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as evening hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). The Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening hours.

The CNEL and the Ldn are normally within 1 dBA of each other and are considered interchangeable.

Other noise level metrics that are important when assessing the annoyance factor include the maximum noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time-averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis for short-term noise impacts are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax, which reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. It is often used together with percentile noise levels, in noise ordinances for enforcement purposes. For example, the L10 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50 noise level represents the median noise level. Half of the time, the noise level exceeds this median noise level, and half of the time, it is less than this median noise level. The L90 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period. For a relatively constant noise source, the Leq and L50 are approximately the same.

Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first category includes audible impacts that refer to increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to changes of 3 dBA or greater since this level has been found to be the lowest audible change perceptible to humans in outdoor environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to changes in the noise level between 1 and 3 dBA, which are only noticeable in laboratory environments. The last category includes changes in noise levels of less than 1 dBA, which are inaudible to the human ear.

4.2.3.3 Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure (typically more than 8 hours, as defined by OSHA) to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions (thereby, affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system). In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear, even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear. This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-5

4.2.3.4 Vibration
Vibration refers to ground-borne noise and perceptible motion. Ground-borne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors, where the motion may be discernible, but without the effects associated with the shaking of a building there is less adverse reaction. Vibration energy propagates from a source through intervening soil and rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by occupants as motion of building surfaces, rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or a low-frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves. Building damage is not a factor for normal transportation projects, including rail projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile driving during construction. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less.

This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.

To distinguish vibration levels from noise levels, the unit is written as “vibration velocity decibels” (VdB). Human perception to vibration starts at levels as low as 67 VdB and sometimes lower.

Annoyance due to vibration in residential settings starts at approximately 70 VdB. Ground-borne vibrations are almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. Although the motion of the ground may be perceived, without the effects associated with the shaking of the building, the motion does not provoke the same adverse human reaction.

Typical sources of ground-borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile driving and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), steel-wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough roads. Problems with ground-borne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within approximately 100 feet (ft) of the vibration source, although there are examples of ground-borne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 ft.1 When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible. Ground-borne noise is not likely to be a problem because noise arriving via the normal airborne path usually will be greater than ground-borne noise.

Ground-borne vibration has the potential to disturb people as well as damage buildings. Although it is very rare for train-induced ground-borne vibration to cause even cosmetic building damage, it is not uncommon for construction processes such as blasting and pile driving to cause vibration of sufficient amplitudes to damage nearby buildings.2 Ground-borne vibration is usually measured in terms of vibration velocity, either the root-mean-square (RMS) velocity or peak particle velocity (PPV). Factors that influence ground-borne vibration and noise include the following:
 Vibration Source: Vehicle suspension, wheel types and condition, track/roadway surface, track support system, speed, transit structure, and depth of vibration source

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

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -6  Vibration Path: Soil type, rock layers, soil layering, depth to water table, and frost depth  Vibration Receiver: Foundation type, building construction, and acoustical absorption Among the factors listed above, there are significant differences in the vibration characteristics when the source is underground compared to at the ground surface. In addition, soil conditions are known to have a strong influence on the levels of ground-borne vibration. Among the most important factors are the stiffness and internal damping of the soil and the depth to bedrock.

Experience with ground-borne vibration indicates that: (1) vibration propagation is more efficient in stiff, clay soils than in loose, sandy soils; and (2) shallow rock seems to concentrate the vibration energy close to the surface and can result in ground-borne vibration problems at large distances from the source. Factors such as layering of the soil and depth to the water table can have significant effects on the propagation of ground-borne vibration. Soft, loose, sandy soils tend to attenuate more vibration energy than hard, rocky materials. Vibration propagation through groundwater is more efficient than through sandy soils.

In extreme cases, excessive ground-borne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. For buildings considered of particular historical significance or that are particularly fragile structures, the damage threshold is approximately 96 VdB; the damage threshold for other structures is 100 VdB.3

4.2.4 Existing Environmental Setting

4.2.4.1 Existing Planning Area
The existing planning area includes the entire area within the City’s jurisdictional limits, as the project involves an update to the City’s General Plan Noise Element and the Noise Ordinance. The planning area is currently developed and consists of a mix of residential, commercial, medical, institutional, industrial, and open space and recreation uses.

4.2.4.2 Sensitive Uses in the Project Vicinity
Noise-sensitive receptors in the City include residences, schools, hospitals, churches, and similar uses that are sensitive to noise. Construction and operation activities considered under the proposed Noise Element and Noise Ordinance amendments could adversely affect nearby noisesensitive land uses. Although CEQA generally does not require analysis or mitigation of the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project, the City, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to require measures to protect public health and safety. Therefore, this section includes a discussion of the proposed project’s potential to result in impacts to existing sensitive receptors and future sensitive receptors.

4.2.4.3 Overview of the Existing Noise Environment
In the City of Long Beach, the dominant source of noise is transportation noise, including vehicular traffic, rail, and airport noise. Industrial and mechanical equipment are also contributors to the

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

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-7 noise environment in the City, as are intermittent sources such as construction equipment and leaf blowers. Noise from motor vehicles is generated by engine vibrations, the interaction between the tires and the road, and the exhaust systems. Airport-related noise levels are primarily associated with aircraft engine noise made while aircraft are taking off, landing, or running their engines while still on the ground. Existing noise sources are further discussed below.

Ambient Noise Levels. To assess existing noise levels, the Existing Conditions Noise Report considers noise measurements taken in February 2014 and May 2017 to record the actual existing noise levels at various locations throughout the City. The noise measurements were recorded at different locations within the City based on several criteria used in the site in the site selection process including, but not limited to, the proximity of a measurement site to sensitive land uses as well as its proximity to significant noise generators. Noise measurement data collected during long-term noise level measurements are summarized in Table 4.2.1 and noise measurement data collected during short-term noise level measurements are summarized in Table 4.2.2. The short-term noise measurements indicate that ambient noise in the City ranges from approximately 51.2 dBA to 76.2 dBA Leq.

Existing Roadway Noise Levels. Motor vehicles with their distinctive noise characteristics are one of the primary sources of noise in Long Beach. The amount of noise varies according to many factors, such as volume of traffic, vehicle mix (percentage of cars and trucks), average traffic speed, and distance from the observer. Major contributing roadway noise sources include Interstates 710 (I-710) and 405 (I-405), State Route 91 (SR-91), Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), and local roadways including Long Beach Boulevard, Santa Fe Avenue, Atlantic Avenue, Alamitos Avenue, 7th Street, 2nd Street, Ocean Boulevard, and other arterial and collector roadways throughout the City.

Existing Rail Noise Levels. Currently, three freight rail lines pass through the City, which are operated by Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and Pacific Harbor Line Incorporated (PHL). The rail lines run north-south through the west side of the City, and through the northwest corner of the City, around the neighborhood of North Long Beach.

The City is also subject to operational rail noise. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Rail Blue line (Blue line) passes north to south through Long Beach along Long Beach Boulevard. The Metro service hours are from approximately 4:45 a.m. until 1:00 .m. on weekdays and from 4:45 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. on weekends. Land uses surrounding the rail line include multi- and single-family residential, and commercial uses, the Senior Arts Colony, high-rise office towers, the Pacific Coast Campus of Long Beach City College, and the Long Beach Transit Mall. Seven different Metro stations serve local neighborhoods throughout the City. Activity on the Blue line affects the ambient noise environment along the railroad alignment.

Based on Federal Railroad Administration crossing inventories for various crossings in the City, typical operations along the main rail line include up to 74 trains per day that range in speed from 5 to 25 miles per hour (mph).

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -8 Table 4.2.1: Existing Long-Term 48-Hour Noise Level Measurements Site No. Start Date Location
Day 1 Day 2 Average
Source(s) of Noise
Daytime
Noise Level
Range
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime
Noise Level
Range
(dBA Leq)
Daily Noise
Level
(dBA CNEL)
Daytime
Noise Level
Range
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime
Noise Level
Range
(dBA Leq)
Daily Noise
Level
(dBA CNEL)
Daily Noise
Level
(dBA CNEL)
LT-01 5/12/2017 305 Newport
Avenue

53.2–61.5 42.2–52.6 58.6 49.9–63.1 43.7–53.1 58.8 58.7 Traffic on Newport and 3rd Street.

LT-02 5/17/2017 3386 Elm
Avenue

58.3–64.1 53.4–59.4 64.7 58.7–63.9 52.9–61.6 65.2 64.9 Traffic on I-405 and Wardlow Road and some
aircraft.

LT-03 5/17/2017 Orizaba Avenue
and East 67th
Street

62.0–67.6 61.0–66.4 70.7 62.1–65.6 61.0–66.6 70.8 70.8 Traffic on SR-91.

LT-04 5/17/2017 2603 Studebaker
Road

66.4–69.9 52.1–68.0 69.9 66.3–69.6 53.6–67.1 69.7 69.8 Traffic on Studebaker Road and Willow Street.

LT-05 5/17/2017 6463 Bixby
Terrace Drive

66.2–67.8 57.3–67.8 71.0 66.2–67.7 58.1–67.1 71.0 71.0 Traffic on 7th Street.

LT-06 5/15/2017 2001 River
Avenue

67.0–70.3 59.0–70.5 72.0 65.2–72.1 55.9–64.3 70.2 71.1 Traffic on SR-103 and SR-1, idling trucks, industrial
activity, and aircraft.

LT-07 5/15/2017 1222 West
Spring Street

67.2–70.8 62.9–69.6 74.0 68.0–70.1 63.5–70.0 73.9 73.9 Traffic on I-710 and aircraft.

LT-08 5/12/2017 151 South Pine
Avenue

61.2–66.1 56.3–64.5 68.8 61.3–67.1 56.3–65.3 69.4 69.1 Traffic on Shoreline Drive and Pine Avenue.

LT-09 5/12/2017 215 Granada
Avenue

53.6–60.3 45.1–54.4 59.6 51.6–59.4 44.2–54.1 59.6 59.6 Traffic on Granada Avenue and Second Street.

LT-10 5/12/2017 460 Long Beach
Boulevard

64.7–71.2 58.3–65.7 71.3 63.1–69.0 56.9–65.7 71.1 71.2 Light rail and traffic on Long Beach Boulevard and 4th
Street.

LT-11 5/15/2017 2250 Arlington
Street

54.3–60.5 55.1–58.9 64.3 53.8–59.6 48.1–55.8 59.9 62.1 Traffic on I-405 and airplanes.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-9 Table 4.2.1: Existing Long-Term 48-Hour Noise Level Measurements Site No. Start Date Location
Day 1 Day 2 Average
Source(s) of Noise
Daytime
Noise Level
Range
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime
Noise Level
Range
(dBA Leq)
Daily Noise
Level
(dBA CNEL)
Daytime
Noise Level
Range
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime
Noise Level
Range
(dBA Leq)
Daily Noise
Level
(dBA CNEL)
Daily Noise
Level
(dBA CNEL)
LT-12 5/17/2017 256 East Vernon
Street

57.6–65.4 49.2–60.1 62.2 57.8–60.1 49.9–60.5 63.0 62.6 Traffic on Long Beach Boulevard and Willow
Street, trains, construction,
and aircraft.

LT-13 5/15/2017 Del Mar Avenue
and San Antonio
Drive

65.3–67.5 58.1–68.4 71.1 65.4–70.8 52.6–65.4 69.6 70.3 Traffic onI-710, trains, and traffic on Del Mar Avenue.

LT-14 5/15/2017 Del Mar Avenue
and Avery Place

58.2–66.4 50.9–58.8 63.6 57.6–64.7 48.5–57.5 62.3 63.0 Traffic onI-710, trains, and traffic on Del Mar Avenue.

Source: Existing Conditions Report LSA (2018).

CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA = A-weighted decibel(s)
ft = foot/feet
I-405 = Interstate 405
I-710 = Interstate 710
Leq = average noise level
SR-1 = State Route 1
SR-91 = State Route 91
SR-103 = State Route 103

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -10 Table 4.2.2: Existing Short-Term Noise Level Measurements Monitor No. Date Start Time dBA Leq
Location
Description Noise Sources Notes
ST-1 2/11/2016 7:27 a.m. 66.6 6857–6909 Atlantic
Avenue
Traffic on Atlantic Avenue, faint
traffic on I-710, and trucks with
trailers turning in nearby lot.

Paused out pedestrian pass-by talking loudly.

ST-2 2/11/2016 7:58 a.m. 70.3 3114 South Street Traffic on South Street and birds. None.

ST-3 2/11/2016 8:58 a.m. 63.6 3115 Long Beach
Boulevard
Traffic on Long Beach Boulevard,
backup beeper across Long Beach
Boulevard, and birds.

Airplane: 15 seconds, 70 Leq.

ST-4 2/11/2016 9:35 a.m. 65.7 1940 Long Beach
Boulevard
Traffic on Long Beach Boulevard,
birds, and distant music.

Paused out pedestrian pass-bys. Train on Long
Beach Boulevard: 5 seconds, 68 Leq/3
seconds, 70 Leq.

ST-5 2/11/2016 10:13 a.m. 63.3 614 Locust Avenue Traffic on 6th Street and birds. Paused out sirens and pedestrians.

ST-6 2/11/2016 10:51 a.m. 64.0 600 Redondo
Avenue
Traffic on Redondo Avenue. Car
with loud music pass-by.

Airplane, paused out car in parking lot,
motorcycle, helicopter.

ST-7 2/11/2016 2:11 p.m. 62.3 5800–6462 East
Marina Drive
Traffic on 2nd Street and birds. Paused out cars on Marina Drive. 2nd Street level is ~10 ft higher than measurement
location level.

ST-8 2/11/2016 1:15 p.m. 66.0 Cal State University
Long Beach,
Bellflower
Boulevard and
Beach Drive
Traffic on Bellflower Boulevard, birds,
and music in car/horn.

Airplane: 7 seconds, 63 dB/23 seconds, 63 dB.

ST-9 2/11/2016 11:42 a.m. 62.0 3500
Hathaway Avenue
Traffic on Hathaway Avenue and
distant music in apartment.

Airplane: 35 seconds, 54 Leq/8 seconds; 58 dB/
12 seconds; 59 dB, 17 seconds; 56 dB/15 seconds,
55 dB.Paused outsiren.Location~10 ft aboveroad
levelonthe bermoftheapartment level.

ST-10 2/11/2016 8:31 a.m. 76.2 3245 Cherry Avenue Traffic on Cherry Avenue. Airplane: 5 seconds, 82 Leq. Helicopter: 8 seconds, 74 Leq /5 seconds, 76 Leq. Motorcycle: 2 seconds,
96 Leq.

ST-11 2/11/2016 2:47 p.m. 62.5 3401 Studebaker
Road
TrafficonWardlowRoad. None.

ST-12 5/12/2017 10:32 a.m. 55.3 951 Maine Avenue Traffic on I-710, aircraft, birds chirping constantly.

Helicopter ~75 dBA max. Distanthelicopter. Filtered
sirens and dogs.Aircraft,55dBA max,trainhornin
low 50s. Aircraft, 63.2 dBA max.Peopletalking in the
distancenear playground area.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-11 Table 4.2.2: Existing Short-Term Noise Level Measurements Monitor No. Date Start Time dBA Leq
Location
Description Noise Sources Notes
ST-13 5/17/2017 10:15 a.m. 65.0 3402 Clark Avenue Traffic on Clark Avenue and Wardlow Road.Some aircraftnoise.
51 dBA low traffic noise. 74.3/73.0/66.0 dBA/68.7
dBA/71.4 dBA traffic on Clark Avenue, 75.0 dBA
with truck. 65.0 dBA aircraft noise with traffic.

ST-14 5/12/2017 12:10 p.m. 70.0 2002 Pacific Coast
Highway
Traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and
Cherry Avenue.

Filtered parking lot activity. Loud car 83.0 dBA max,
filtered emergency vehicle, car door slam (partial
filter), plane flyover (max 75.0 dBA), crosswalk has
speaker, beeps.

ST-15 5/12/2017 10:07 a.m. 63.3 Scherer Park TrafficonEastDelAmo Boulevard.

Aircraftnoise, leaf blower across the
street near the YMCA, and some
landscaping activities.

53.0dBAnotraffic,with leaf blower. 66.0 dBA traffic
onDelAmo,with leaf blower. 60.0 dBA trafficonDel
Amo,with leafblower.78.0/68.0 dBAaircraftnoise.

ST-16 5/17/2017 9:29 a.m. 54.9 Pan-American Park,
5157 Centralia
Street
Traffic on Centralia Street and Clark
Avenue.

Loud car, airplane 71.4dB,9:32a.m.two people
beginpracticing cricketat49.1dBAon the other side
of the diamond, airplane 67.7 dBAmaxwithlittletono
traffic,61dBAtrafficon Centralia Street, birds chirping, distantaircraft.

ST-17 5/17/2017 9:04 a.m. 56.6 5850 Los Arcos
Street
Traffic on Los Arcos Street and Oceana
Avenue. Aircraft noise, some landscaping
activity.

48.0 dBA no traffic. (Low) ambient noise.

60.0/58.0/57.0/58.0 dBA traffic on Los Arcos
Street. 67.0 dBA landscaping noise (part of it filtered out).

ST-18 5/17/2017 9:44 a.m. 56.1 7875 Rosina Street 53.4 dBA low traffic noise. 63.0/62.0 dBA traffic on Rosina Street and Val
Verde Avenue.

53.4 dBA low traffic noise. 63.0/62.0 dBA trafficon
RosinaStreet andValVerdeAvenue.

ST-19 5/12/2017 11:21 a.m. 61.9 BixbyPark, 130Cherry
Avenue
Traffic on Broadway and Cherry
Avenue and helicopter flyovers.

Skateboarders near Bixby Park Community Center.

Helicopter and loud truck 70.3 dBAmax,loudcar~70
dBA, helicopterflyover 72.5 dBA max. Loud
motorcycles 71-plusdBA max,72.5max.Garbage truck
on Cherry Avenue.

ST-20 5/12/2017 12:54 p.m. 67.3 1600 Atlantic Avenue
at the northwest
corner of Martin
Luther King Jr.

Avenue and 15th
Street
Traffic on Martin Luther King Jr.

Avenue and skateboarders at skate
park across Martin Luther King Jr.

Avenue.

Loudcarmid-high70s dBA.Loudcarstereo ~74dBA,
loudcars76.8 dBA,84.4dBA.Filtered shouting.1:07–
1:08 p.m. distant plane (traffic louder), 1:09 p.m.
distant plane (skate park louder).

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -12 Table 4.2.2: Existing Short-Term Noise Level Measurements Monitor No. Date Start Time dBA Leq
Location
Description Noise Sources Notes
ST-21 5/12/2017 11:46 a.m. 57.6 1085 Orizaba AvenueTrafficnoiseonOrizaba Avenueand11th Street, aircraftnoise,andnoise from
school playground.

51.0 dBA playground noise (no traffic). 71.0 dBA
traffic on Orizaba Avenue with playground noise.

65.0 dBA aircraft with playground noise. 61 dBA
traffic on 11th Street.

ST-22 5/15/2017 11:09 a.m. 71.5 1700 West Willow
Street
Traffic on Willow Street and Santa Fe
Avenue.

Aircraft mid 60s dBA, 75.8dBAmax,71.1dBA max.
11:12a.m.,11:16 a.m. traffic louder than distant
helicopters. Bus stops at nearby stop. Filtered
emergency vehicle and siren.

ST-23 5/17/2017 10:33 a.m. 68.2 2201 North
Bellflower Boulevard
Traffic on Bellflower Boulevard and
Stearns Street.

Loud motorcycle ~77 dBA. Direct airliner flyover

78.9 dBA.Small planes ~71 dBA, traffic andsmallplane

69.2 dBA. Helicopter ~80 dBA.Plane73.9dBA.

Traffic louder than tireservicecenterand dryersat
carwashes. Traffic and carwash dryers 68.0 dBA.

Traffic high 60s low 70s dBA.

ST-24 5/12/2017 11:06 a.m. 56.3 South Greenway
and Bixby Village
Drive
Traffic on Bixby Village Drive, some
traffic on South Greenway, faint aircraft
noise.

42.5 dBA no traffic. 62.0/59.0dBAnotraffic on
Greenway.72.0 dBA traffic, bus. 57.0 dBA traffic on
Bixby Village Drive. 68.0 dBA helicopter.

ST-25 5/19/2017 1:38 p.m. 67.0 1802North
Studebaker Road
Traffic on Studebaker Road,Atherton
Street,and I-405.

Motorcycle on Studebaker Road ~77.9 dBA.

Heavy truck on southbound Studebaker Road ~79
dBA. Loud pickup truck on northbound
Studebaker Road 77.0 dBA. Traffic on Studebaker
Road reaches low 70s dBA intermittently.

ST-26 5/12/2017 10:32 a.m. 58.5 2260th Street Traffic on Ocean Boulevard. Some noise from street sweeper.

42.0 dBA no traffic. 57.0 dBA traffic on Ocean
Boulevard.70.0 dBAtrafficonOcean Boulevard.

ST-27 5/15/2017 12:27 p.m. 63.2 1147 East South
Street
Traffic on Orange Avenue and South
Street.

Filteredemergency vehicle.12:40p.m. distantcar
alarm.

ST-28 5/15/2017 11:51 a.m. 72.2 6020 Long Beach
Boulevard
Traffic on Long Beach Boulevard
and Victoria Street. Some trucks pulling
into stop.
11:54a.m.plane(heavy truck louder). Filtered
mediumtruckpassby directly behind meter. High
truckpercentage.

ST-29 5/15/2017 10:33 a.m. 60.0 4974 Oregon
Avenue
Traffic on Del Amo Boulevard and
some traffic on Oregon Avenue.

54.0dBAlowtrafficon DelAmoBoulevard.63.6 dBA,
65/0dBAtrafficon DelAmoBoulevard.71.0 dBA
trafficonDelAmo Boulevardandaircraft noise.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-13 Table 4.2.2: Existing Short-Term Noise Level Measurements Monitor No. Date Start Time dBA Leq
Location
Description Noise Sources Notes
ST-30 5/19/2017 12:51 p.m. 51.2 2339 Curry Street HVACat2380CurryStreet and possible generator, distantaircraft,andtraffic,
someactivityatindustrial usesat2380
CurryStreet and2339CurryStreet,and a
windpump.

Occasional wind pump wheel noise (50.0–51.9 dBA).

Aircraft ~50 dBA, aircraft and wheel 54.5/~53 dBA.
~1:00 p.m. cars maneuvering west of 2339 Curry
Street, high 50s, low 60s dBA. Car passby mid 60s
dBA, pickup truck passby 61.9 dBA, minivan 61.3
dBA. Filtered dogs and distant emergency vehicles.

ST-31 5/17/2017 8:46 a.m. 57.8 Hartwell Park, 5801
Parkcrest Street
Traffic on Carson Street and Woodruff
Avenue.

Two low-flying airplanes andtraffic64.2dBA.Car
withoutmufflerlow70s dBAPropellerplaneand light
traffic 70.9 dBA. Birds chirping.AllenTire Co. across
street, traffic islouder. Filteredsirens.

ST-32 5/12/2017 12:26 p.m. 65.2 Clark Avenue and
Atherton Street
Traffic on Clark Avenue and Atherton
Street.

None.

Source: Existing Conditions Report LSA (2018).

CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level dB = decibel(s) dBA = A-weighted decibel(s)
ft = foot/feet
HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I-405 = Interstate 405
I-710 = Interstate 710
Leq = average noise level
SR-1 = State Route 1
SR-91 = State Route 91
SR-103 = State Route 103

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -14 Existing Stationary Source Noise Levels. A wide variety of existing stationary sources contribute to noise throughout the City of Long Beach, which include heating ventilation and cooling (HVAC) mechanical systems, delivery truck idling and loading/unloading activities, and recreational and parking lot activities (such as slamming car doors and people talking). Of these noise sources, noise generated by delivery truck activity typically generates the highest maximum noise levels.

Delivery truck loading and unloading activities can result in maximum noise levels of 75 dBA to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. Typical parking lot activities, such as people conversing or doors slamming, generate approximately 60 dBA to 70 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. Other sources of noise include commercial centers and industrial zones that emit noise during operation. Domestic noise sources, such as leaf blowers, and gas-powered lawn equipment, etc., are common stationary noise sources and can produce noise levels measured at 70 dBA to 75 dBA at 50 ft. 4 Existing Port of Long Beach Noise Levels. Port of Long Beach operations noise levels are generally limited to the areas within the perimeter of the Port. Noise associated with the Port includes cranes, vessel horns, forklifts, and truck activities. Due to the distance between the nearest sensitive receptors from daily Port operations on the coast within the Port boundaries, noise is rarely audible at such a large distance. Heavy truck traffic associated with the transport of cargo along the I-710 corridor is the primary source of noise associated with the Port. Impacts associated with the Port of Long Beach, including noise, were assessed in the Port of Long Beach Community Impact Study in July 2016.

Existing Airport Noise Levels. Long Beach Airport is a public airport centrally located in the City, approximately 3 miles northeast of Downtown. This airport has limited passenger flights and is restricted by ordinances that minimize airport-related noise. Although commercial flights are restricted, several charters, private aviation, flight schools, law enforcement flights, helicopters, advertising blimps, and planes towing advertising banners still frequently operate from this airport.

Operations at the Long Beach Airport typically occur within the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with the exception of occasional unscheduled landings that occur after 10:00 p.m., and emergency and police helicopter activities. The Long Beach Airport Community Guide to Aircraft Noise presents factual information on the City of Long Beach Airport Noise Compatibility Ordinance (Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 16.43) and Long Beach Airport’s efforts to minimize aircraft noise over nearby neighborhoods. While the City is not able to control the flight paths, typical operations include approaches from the southeast of the airport and departures taking off in a northwest direction.

Other airports with aircraft activity that affect the ambient noise environment within the City limits include Los Angeles International Airport and John Wayne Airport. Los Angeles International Airport is located approximately 20 miles northwest of the City, and John Wayne Airport is located approximately 30 miles southwest of the City. Although noise from aircraft activity is occasionally audible throughout the City, the City is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of these airports.

4 Noise Free America. Citizens for a Quieter Sacramento Rebuttal to the CLCA Position on Leaf Blowers.

Website: https://noisefree.org/sources-of-noise/lawn-and-garden-equipment/ (accessed March 25, 2020).

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-15

4.2.4.4 Existing Vibration Sources
Vibration Sources. Major vibration sources in the City include construction activities, rail operations, and heavy vehicle traffic. Other sources which have the potential to cause vibration impacts are aircraft operations, low-frequency music and some stationary sources. Similar to noise standards, cities can adopt vibration exposure standards regarding the sensitivity of land uses which may be affected. In relation to vibration impacts, there are two factors that are considered to assessing the level of impact expected: the potential for damage to a building or structure and the potential of annoyance to people. Also similar to potential noise impacts, the most efficient actions to help reduce vibration impacts occur during the planning and permitting phases of any project or development.

Construction Activity Vibration. Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors. The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related ground-borne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the PPV descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess ground-borne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and the degree of annoyance for humans. The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life, are evaluated against different vibration limits. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 millimeters per second (0.008 to 0.012 inches per second), PPV. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels (e.g., people in an urban environment) may tolerate a higher vibration level.

Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only (e.g., minor cracking of building elements) or may threaten the integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher and there is no general consensus as to what amount of vibration may pose a threat for structural damage to the building. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to a building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity (e.g., impact pile driving) occurs immediately adjacent to the structure.

Rail Activity Related Vibration. Rail operations are potential sources of substantial ground-borne vibration depending on distance, the type and the speed of trains, and the type of railroad track.

People’s response to ground-borne vibration has been correlated best with the velocity of the ground. The velocity of the ground is expressed on the decibel scale. The reference velocity is 1 x 10- 6 inches per second. RMS, which equals 0 VdB, and 1 inch per second equals 120 VdB. Although not a universally accepted notation, the abbreviation “VdB” is used in this document for vibration decibels to reduce the potential for confusion with sound decibels.

One of the problems with developing suitable criteria for ground-borne vibration is the limited research into human response to vibration and, more importantly, human annoyance inside buildings. The United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration has developed rational vibration limits that can be used to evaluate human annoyance to ground-borne vibration. These criteria are primarily based on experience with passenger train operations (e.g., rapid transit and commuter rail systems). The main difference between passenger and freight

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -16 operations is the time duration of individual events; a passenger train lasts a few seconds whereas a long freight train may last several minutes, depending on speed and length.

Heavy Vehicles and Buses. Ground-borne vibration levels from heavy trucks and buses are not normally perceptible, especially if roadway surfaces are smooth. Buses and trucks typically generate ground-borne vibration levels of about 63 VdB at a distance of 25 ft when traveling at a speed of 30 mph. Higher vibration levels can occur when buses or trucks travel at higher rates of speed or when the pavement is in poor condition. Vibration levels below 65 VdB are below the threshold for human perception.

Other Sources of Vibration Annoyance. In addition to sources that have vibration impacts which translate through the ground surface between source and receptor, sources which generate high levels of low-frequency noise may generate vibration through air. These sources may include aircraft and helicopter operations, low-frequency music and other large stationary sources.

4.2.5 Regulatory Setting
The following section summarizes the regulatory framework related to noise, including federal, State and City of Long Beach plans, policies, and standards.

4.2.5.1 Federal Regulations
United States Environmental Protection Agency. In 1972, Congress enacted the United States Noise Control Act. This act authorized the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to publish descriptive data on the effects of noise and establish levels of sound “requisite to protect the public welfare with an adequate margin of safety.” These levels are separated into health (hearing loss levels) and welfare (annoyance levels). For protection against hearing loss, 96 percent of the population would be protected if sound levels are less than or equal to 70 dBA during a 24-hour period of time. At 55 dBA Ldn, 95 percent sentence clarity (intelligibility) may be expected at 11 ft, with no community reaction. However, 1 percent of the population may complain about noise at this level and 17 percent may indicate annoyance. The USEPA cautions that these identified levels are guidelines, not standards.

Federal Vibration Impact Standards. Vibration impact criteria included in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts on human annoyance, as shown in Table 4.2.3. The criteria presented in Table 4.2.3 account for variation in project types as well as the frequency of events, which differ widely among projects. It is intuitive that when there will be fewer events per day, it should take higher vibration levels to evoke the same community response.

This is accounted for in the criteria by distinguishing between projects with frequent and infrequent events, in which the term “frequent events” is defined as more than 70 events per day.

4.2.5.2 State Regulations
The State of California has established regulations that help prevent adverse impacts to occupants of buildings located near noise sources. Referred to as the State Noise Insulation Standard, it

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-17 Table 4.2.3: Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria Land Use Category
Ground-Borne Vibration
Impact Levels
(VdB re 1 micro-inch/sec)
Ground-Borne Noise
Impact Levels
(dB re 20 micro-Pascals)
Frequent 1
Events
Infrequent 2
Events
Frequent 1
Events
Infrequent 2
Events
Category 1: Buildings in which low ambient vibration is essential for interior operations (i.e., vibration-sensitive manufacturing, hospitals with vibration sensitive
equipment, and university research operation).
65 VdB3 65 VdB3--4--4
Category 2: Residences and buildings in which people
normally sleep. 72 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 43 dBA
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily
daytime uses.
75 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 48 dBA
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018). 1 Frequent events are defined as more than 70 events per day. 2 Infrequent events are defined as fewer than 70 events per day. 3 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical microscopes.

Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. 4 Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground-borne noise. dB = decibels
dBA = A-weighted decibels
HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
inch/sec = inch(es) per second
re = relative
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
requires buildings to meet performance standards through design and/or building materials that would offset any noise source in the vicinity of the receptor. State regulations include requirements for the construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings that are intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. These requirements are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (known as the Building Standards Administrative Code), Part 2 (known as the California Building Code), Appendix Chapters 12 and 12A. For limiting noise transmitted between adjacent dwelling units, the noise insulation standards specify the extent to which walls, doors, and floor-ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound. For limiting noise from exterior noise sources, the noise insulation standards set an interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed.

In addition, the standards require preparation of an acoustical analysis demonstrating the manner in which dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard, where such units are proposed in an area with exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL.

In addition, Chapter 5, Section 5.507 of the California Green Building Standards Code includes nonresidential mandatory measures , which require that buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB Leq-1-hour during any hour of operation shall have building, addition, or alteration exterior wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source meeting a composite Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of at least 45 (or Outdoor/Indoor Transmission Class [OITC] 35) with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 (or OITC 30).

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -18 The State has established land use compatibility guidelines for determining acceptable noise levels for specified land uses in the State of California General Plan Guidelines as shown in Table 4.2.4. 5 The land use compatibility guidelines are intended to be an advisory resource when considering changes in land use and policies, such as zoning modifications, and are included in the proposed Noise Element.

Table 4.2.4: Community Noise Exposure Ldn or CNEL (dB)

5 State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines. Appendix D: Noise Element Guidelines. July.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-19

4.2.5.3 Local and Regional Policies and Regulations
City of Long Beach General Plan. The City’s General Plan establishes goals, policies, and strategies that combine to serve as a “blueprint” directing future growth in the City. The current General Plan consists of the Historic Preservation, Open Space and Recreation, Housing, Air Quality, Mobility, Land Use, Seismic Safety, Noise, Public Safety, Conservation, Urban Design, and Mobility Elements.

Noise Element. The City of Long Beach General Plan addresses noise in the Noise Element. The existing Noise Element was adopted in 1975. The Noise Element contains goals and policies for noise control and abatement in the City. The goals and policies contained in the Noise Element address noise in relation to land use planning, the noise environment, transportation noise, construction and industrial noise, population and housing noise, and public health and safety.

General noise goals for Long Beach aim to attain a healthier and quieter environment for all citizens while maintaining a reasonable level of economic progress and development.

The proposed project is the adoption of a new General Plan Noise Element to replace the existing Noise Element adopted in 1975. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that would attain the goals of the proposed Noise Element, which include striving for a more equitable distribution of noise, limiting the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels in noisesensitive areas and at noise-sensitive times of day, and creating allowances for Long Beach to thrive as a dynamic, growing city. The overall objective of the proposed Noise Element is to create and maintain a healthy noise environment in Long Beach.

City of Long Beach Municipal Code. The City of Long Beach addresses noise impacts in Title 8:

Health and Safety, Chapter 8.80, Noise, and sets regulations to minimize airport noise in Title 16:

Public Facilities and Historical Landmarks, Chapter 16.43, Airport Noise Compatibility.6 The Municipal Code establishes exterior and interior noise standards at receiving land uses and establishes permitted hours of construction activity noise as described below.

Chapter 8.80, Noise, establishes exterior and interior noise limits for the generation of sound within the City. The maximum noise levels vary based on the receiving land use type and the cumulative duration of noise. The ordinance also limits noise generated by construction. The Municipal Code restricts construction activities to weekdays and federal holidays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and on Saturdays, restricts construction to between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., except for emergency work. Construction work on Sundays is prohibited unless the City’s Noise Control Officer issues a permit. The permit may allow work on Sundays between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Additionally, Chapter 16.43, Airport Noise Compatibility, establishes cumulative noise limits and noise budgets for properties in the vicinity of the Airport. The Municipal Code establishes a goal that incompatible property in the vicinity of the airport shall not be exposed to noise above 65 dBA CNEL.

Loading and unloading activities are also regulated under the noise ordinance. The ordinance states that loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is

6 City of Long Beach. 2019. Municipal Code. February.

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -20 restricted to the noise level provisions of Exterior Noise Limits in Table A in Section 8.80.160 of the Municipal Code and the Interior Noise Limits shown in Table C in Section 8.80.170 of the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed project includes amendments to these tables to incorporate mixeduse land uses as shown in Table 3.2, Exterior Noise Limits, and Table 3.3, Interior Noise Limits in Section 3.0, Project Description. No other changes to allowable noise limits are proposed.

Additionally, the ordinance states that operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates vibration, which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at 150 ft from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way, is prohibited.

4.2.6 Proposed Noise Element Strategies and Policies
The following proposed Strategies and Policies are applicable to the analysis of Noise and would replace existing goals, strategies, and policies outlined in the City’s existing Noise Element following project approval:

Strategy No. 1: Apply site planning and other design strategies to reduce noise impacts, especially within the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhoods, Multifamily Residential—Low and Moderate, and Neighborhood-Serving Centers and Corridors – Low and Moderate PlaceTypes.  Policy N 1-1: Integrate noise considerations into the land use planning process in order to prevent new land use noise conflicts.
 Policy N 1-2: Require noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into all development and redevelopment of sensitive receptor uses, including residential, health care facilities, schools, libraries, senior facilities, and churches in close proximity to existing or known planned rail lines.  Policy N 1-3: Ensure development and redevelopment is considerate of the natural shape and contours of a site in order to reduce noise impacts.
 Policy N 1-4: Encourage developers or landowners to incorporate noise reduction features in the site planning process.
 Policy N 1-5: Incorporate urban design strategies such as courtyards, paseos, alleys, plazas and open space areas to provide a buffer to noise sensitive uses.  Policy N 1-6: Ensure that project site design and function minimize the potential adverse impacts of noise.
 Policy N 1-7: Encourage educational facilities to locate playgrounds, sports fields, and other outdoor activity areas away from residential areas.
 Policy N 1-8: Require new development to provide facilities which support the use of multimodal transportation, including, walking, bicycling, carpooling and, transit.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-21  Policy N 1-9: Utilize noise barriers after all practical design-related noise measures have been integrated into the project. In instances where sound walls are necessary, they should be incorporated into the architectural and site character of the development and pedestrian access should be integrated.

Strategy No. 2: Create a balance of business practices within dynamic, active, and engaging areas such as the Transit-Oriented Development – Low and Moderate, Downtown, and Waterfront PlaceType areas to promote activity while respecting adjacent sensitive uses.  Policy N 2-1: Ensure that developments located in commercial or entertainment areas do not exceed stationary-source noise standards at the property line of proximate residential or commercial uses.
 Policy N 2-2: Require mitigation measures for new high-generating uses adjacent to sensitive receptors.
 Policy N 2-3: Require that high-generating uses engage in responsible management and operation to control the activities of their patrons on-site and within reasonable and legally justifiable proximity to minimize noise impacts on adjacent residences.  Policy N 2-4: Develop, update and apply best practices for restaurants, bars and retail establishments with evening activities to ensure compatibility such as limitations on hours, location of trash/recycling, policies for rooftop activities, and communications with neighboring residents and businesses.

Strategy No. 4: Protect and buffer noise sensitive areas and uses through effective building design and material selection.
 Policy N 4-1: Encourage developers to utilize noise absorbing building materials.  Policy N 4-2: In mixed-use developments, locate and orient residential units away from noise sources associated with other uses on the site.
 Policy N 4-3: In mixed-use developments, locate residential balconies and windows away from the primary street and from other uses on the site.
 Policy N 4-4: In mixed-use developments, require techniques to prevent the transfer of noise and vibration to the residential uses on the site.
 Policy N 4-5: Encourage building design that incorporates varying and/or angled wall articulation to disperse noise.
 Policy N 4-6: Promote building design best practices such as staggering wall studs to minimize transmission of noise between rooms.

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -22  Policy N 4-7: Consider use of decorative walls and/or dense landscaping to further buffer noise between uses.
 Policy N 6-1: Ensure noise-compatible land uses along existing and future roadways, highways, and freeways.
 Policy N 6-2: Use the “Land Use Compatibility Guidelines” and established Noise Standards or other measures that are acceptable to the City, to guide land use and zoning reclassification, subdivision, conditional use and use variance determinations and environmental assessment considerations, especially relative to sensitive uses, as defined by this chapter within a line-ofsight of freeways, major highways, or truck haul routes.  Policy N 6-3: Continue to work with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to install, maintain, and update freeway and highway rights-of-way buffers and sound walls.  Policy N 6-4: Work toward understanding and reducing traffic noise in residential neighborhoods with a focus on analyzing the effects of traffic noise exposure throughout the City.
 Policy N 6-5: Establish and enforce designated truck routes on specified arterial streets to minimize the negative impacts to noise sensitive uses throughout the City.  Policy N 6-6: For future noise sensitive land uses proposed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours, a qualified acoustical consultant shall conduct a noise analysis to determine appropriate measures are implemented to meet the necessary exterior and interior noise standards.
 Policy N 6-7: Enforce regulations that address noise generated by motorcycles and support education efforts to create awareness and encourage compliance (such as posting signs along Ocean Boulevard).
 Policy N 6-8: Work with transit providers to evaluate and update fleet vehicle characteristics and operations to minimize noise.
 Policy N 6-9: Encourage site planning and building design measures that minimize the effects of traffic noise in residential zones.
 Policy N 6-10: Evaluate the tone and pitch of emergency vehicle sirens and truck backup sounds to promote the least impactful approach. Responsible Department: Development Services  Policy N 6-11: Support and promote the Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) program for retirement of older vehicles, as they tend to generate more noise than newer, more fuelefficient vehicles.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-23 Strategy No. 7: Promote multimodal mobility to reduce noise generated from vehicular traffic.  Policy N 7-1: Encourage the use of active transportation modes (walking, bicycling), micromobility (electric vehicles) and transit as stipulated in the Mobility Element to minimize traffic noise in the City.
 Policy N 7-2: Work with local and regional transit agencies and businesses to provide transportation services that reduce traffic and associated noise as stipulated in the Mobility Element.
 Policy N 7-3: Evaluate private development proposals to ensure provisions for multimodal mobility where feasible.
 Policy N 7-4: Factor multimodal mobility as part of decisions affecting use and priority of public right-of- way.

Strategy No. 8: Implement street design and maintenance practices to minimize vehicular noise impacts.
 Policy N 8-1: Employ noise mitigation practices, as necessary, when designing future streets and highways, and when improvements occur along existing road segments. Mitigation measures should emphasize the establishment of buffers or setbacks between the arterial roadways and adjoining noise-sensitive areas.
 Policy N 8-2: Consider traffic calming design, such as “road diets,” traffic control measures, and low-noise pavement surfaces that minimize motor vehicle traffic noise.  Policy N 8-3: Consider the noise impacts on adjacent residential uses associated with establishing stop signs or other traffic control or traffic calming devices.  Policy N 8-4: Maintain roadways so that the paving is in good condition to reduce noisegenerating cracks, bumps, and potholes and ensure steel plates are properly installed where needed.
 Policy N 8-5: Consider using roadway sound attenuation techniques for resurfacing projects that use “quiet” pavement or noise-reducing rubberized asphalt.

Strategy No. 9: Minimize train noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.  Policy N 9-1: Encourage noise-compatible land uses and incorporate noise-reducing design features within transit-oriented, mixed-use development near rail corridors.  Policy N 9-2: Encourage all active railroads within the City to schedule trains during daylight hours when possible.

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -24  Policy N 9-3: Encourage the rail operators, both freight and passenger, to minimize the level of noise produced by train movements and horn noise within the City by reducing the number of night time operations, improving vehicle system technology, and developing improved sound barriers where residences exist next to the track.
 Policy N 9-4: Work with rail operators to install and maintain noise mitigation features where operations adversely impact existing or planned residential and other noise-sensitive land uses.  Policy N 9-5: Require future rail projects under the City’s control to analyze noise impacts and to identify and incorporate noise and vibration reducing features in the project design.  Policy N 9-6: Work with Metro to provide that the design and operation of the Blue Line tracks, crossings, and station area use approaches that will minimize noise impacts associated with train operations on the community.
 Policy N 9-7: Coordinate with affected agencies including California Public Utilities Commission, rail operators, and Federal Railroad Administration to evaluate potential locations for Quiet Zone improvements (reduced train horn areas) and implement recommended safety improvements to result in reduced need and frequency of train horn use.  Policy N 9-8: Explore Port to Alameda Corridor “Quiet Zone” implementation.  Policy N 9-9: Continue to assess new methods and apply appropriate technologies to reduce rail-related noise such as application of sound-deadening matting (as opposed to wood) leading to, from and between the rails where public roads cross tracks in residential areas.

Strategy No. 10: While the operations of airports and airport related uses are noisy by nature, the adverse effects of aircraft-related noise should be minimized.  Policy N 10-1: Ensure that new development can be made compatible with the noise environment by using noise/land use compatibility standards and the airport noise contour maps as guides to future planning and development decisions.  Policy N 10-2: When making land use decisions, give careful consideration to the type and density of land use and its cumulative impacts so that appropriate decisions are made for the airport, its context, and its environment. Specific consideration should be given for all development within two miles of an airport.
 Policy N 10-3: Support efforts of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other responsible agencies to require the development of quieter aircraft.  Policy N 10-4: Utilize information provided by the Long Beach Airport Quarterly Environmental Reports, specifically noise contours, to advise land owners of special noise considerations associated with their development.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-25  Policy N 10-5: Continue to work with the FAA, airport staff and aircraft operators to ensure that future operations are in compliance with the City’s noise goals, where possible.  Policy N 10-6: Require private heliports/helistops to comply with the City noise ordinances and Federal Aviation Administration standards.
 Policy N 10-7: Work with interest groups to reduce helicopter noise impacts and direct helicopter operators to perform any training exercises over non-populated portions of the City, not over residential areas.
 Policy N 10-8: Continue open communications with citizens through continued outreach.

Continued use of WebTrak or a similar system will allow the ability for residents to give feedback to the City on noise impacts experienced such that further meaningful communication can continue with Federal and airport staff.
 Policy N 10-9: Continue to evaluate potential noise impacts and compatibility through analysis and mitigation required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Strategy No. 11: Minimize watercraft noise level impacts to residential areas and in other locations near noise-sensitive uses, where possible.
 Policy N 11-1: Continue to require the Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine Department to enforce the noise requirements within the California Harbors and Navigation Code.  Policy N 11-2: Enforce speed limits near the coastline and on the existing water channels.  Policy N 11-3: Continue communications with the Marine Department on responding to and documenting noise complaints.
 Policy N 11-4: Ensure that boat owners receive information on proper noise management practices, especially those leasing City slips or with City-registered docks. Strategies include informational signage and education.

Strategy No. 12: Minimize construction noise and vibration levels in residential areas and in other locations near noise-sensitive uses where possible.
 Policy N 12-1: Reduce construction, maintenance, and nuisance noise at the source, when possible, to reduce noise conflicts.
 Policy N 12-2: Limit the allowable hours for construction activities and maintenance operations near sensitive uses.
 Policy N 12-3: As part of the City’s Municipal Code, establish noise levels standards based on PlaceType and time of day, to which construction noise shall conform.

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -26  Policy N 12-4: Encourage off-site fabrication to reduce needed onsite construction activities and corresponding noise levels and duration.
 Policy N 12-5: Encourage the following construction best practices:
○ Schedule high-noise and vibration-producing activities to a shorter window of time during the day outside early morning hours to minimize disruption to sensitive uses. ○ Grading and construction contractors should use equipment that generates lower noise and vibration levels, such as rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment. ○ Construction haul truck and materials delivery traffic should avoid residential areas whenever feasible.
○ The construction contractor should place noise- and vibration-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses whenever feasible.
○ All residential units located within 500 ft of a construction site should be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 ft should also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs should indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for a “noise disturbance coordinator.”
○ A “noise disturbance coordinator” should be established. The disturbance coordinator should be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator should determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and should be required to implement reasonable measures to reduce noise levels.
 Policy N 12-6: Continue to provide information bulletins dispersing information on municipal code requirements and recommended best practices.
 Policy N 12-7: Work together with the AQMD to encourage the retirement of older construction equipment in favor of newer, quieter, and less polluting equipment.

Strategy No. 13: Balance the needs of special events while prioritizing the well-being of residents.  Policy N 13-1: Ensure consistency and clear communication between the various City departments involved in noise. Strategies may include posting an online calendar of special events and providing information bulletins.
 Policy N 13-2: Provide an efficient and standardized process for special events permitting in order to increase predictability for residents and applicants.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-27  Policy N 13-3: Implement and enforce procedures related to noise level requirements for large special events.
 Policy N 13-4: Communicate regularly with residents about the special events that may impact them through appropriate channels to increase transparency and timely information.  Policy N 13-5: Consider geographic distribution of special events throughout the City by managing frequency and intensity of events.
 Policy N 13-6: Stay up-to-date with sound mitigation technology for special events.

Strategy No. 16: Continue to actively enhance the regulation and management of noise to improve procedures and minimize noise impacts.
 Policy N 16-5: Update the Noise Ordinance to carry out the Noise Element and periodically update based on community input and updates in technology and best practices.  Policy N 16-6: Regularly evaluate and update strategies for management of nuisance noise such as:
○ Updating leaf blower requirements to encourage use of electric leaf blowers versus gaspowered machines. ○ Enhancing methods for managing animal noise (such as from dogs and birds). ○ Improving communications and enforcement for house parties and other neighborhood disturbances.
○ Support business owners by providing information on useful tools and best practices and clarifying requirements.
 Policy N 16-7: Evaluate the development of a mitigation program to provide sound-attenuating improvements (such as updated windows) to older buildings and residences using funds from noise fines, grants or other sources.
 Policy N 16-8: Ensure adequate resources are provided for enforcement of City noise regulations.

4.2.7 Thresholds of Significance
Threshold 4.2.1: Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
Threshold 4.2.2: Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels; or

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -28 Threshold 4.2.3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

A 3 dBA increase is considered to be perceptible by the human ear in an outdoor environment.

Therefore, the significance criteria define a significant impact to occur if the project would result in a substantial (3 dBA or greater) permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.

The proposed project includes the adoption of the new General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City of Long Beach (City) Noise Ordinance (Long Beach Municipal Code [LBMC] Section 8.80), which are considered policy/planning actions and which do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development. CEQA generally does not require analysis or mitigation of the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project, including a project's future users or residents. However, as with other laws and regulations enforced by other agencies that protect public health and safety, the City, as the lead agency, has the authority other than CEQA to require measures to protect public health and safety. Therefore, this Draft EIR includes a discussion of the proposed project’s potential to result in impacts to existing sensitive receptors and future sensitive receptors.

4.2.8 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.2.1: Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Short-Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact.

Short-Term Construction-Related Noise Impacts. The proposed project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance, which are considered policy/planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development.

The proposed project does not result in any changes to the maximum construction noise criteria (except to update the boundaries of the Noise Districts to better align with higher intensity, mixeduse PlaceTypes in the LUE and to add Mixed Use as a land use type in the Noise District tables found in Long Beach Municipal Code Sections 8.80.160 and 8.80.170) (see Chapter 3.0, Project Description, for further discussion and Figure 3-5, Proposed Noise District Map, for a map of the proposed boundaries). The proposed project does not alter the allowable hours of construction. However, since construction noise is regulated by the Noise Ordinance, noise impacts associated with construction activities are discussed below.

Construction activities considered under the proposed Noise Element would occur throughout the planning period to the horizon year of 2040. Construction activities associated with future development could result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at development sites throughout the City. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-29 that are intended to provide protection for land uses, from excessive noise and vibration sources, as well as to implement the vision of a healthy, livable noise environment in the City.

Neither the proposed Noise Element nor Municipal Code amendments would result in physical improvements or development. However, future development activities would result in two types of short-term noise impacts would occur during demolition, site preparation, and construction activities. The first type would result from the increase in traffic flow on local streets, associated with the transport of workers, equipment, and materials to and from the project site. The transport of workers, construction equipment, and materials to the project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the sites of future project. The second type would result from equipment use and activities associated with demolition, site preparation, and construction of future projects. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These phases would change the character of the noise generated on future project sites and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the sites as construction progresses.

Table 4.2.5 lists typical maximum noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment, as measured at a distance of 50 ft from the operating equipment. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading, tends to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as pile driving, backhoes, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders.

Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Typical maximum noise levels during the site preparation phase of construction can range up to 86 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from multiple pieces of operating equipment.

Construction activities as part of future projects are expected to require the use of earthmoving equipment, dozers, and water and pickup trucks. Besides pile driving, which is not common on most construction sites, a scraper is one of the loudest pieces of construction equipment. The estimated noise level generated by each scraper on future project sites would be approximately 84 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from the scraper. Each dozer, another common piece of construction equipment, would generate approximately 82 dBA Lmax at 50 ft. The estimated noise level generated by water and pickup trucks would be approximately 75 dBA Lmax at 50 ft from these vehicles. Each doubling of the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, the worst-case combined noise level during this phase of anticipated future construction would be 86 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 ft from the active construction area. In addition, some construction projects could require pile driving, which would have an estimated noise level of approximately 101 dBA Lmax at 50 ft.

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -30 Table 4.2.5: Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors Equipment Description Acoustical
Usage Factor1
Predicted Lmax at
50 feet (dBA, slow)2
Actual Measured Lmax at
50 feet (dBA, slow)3
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 50 85 N/A4
Backhoe 40 80 78
Compactor (ground) 20 80 83
Compressor (air) 40 80 78
Crane 16 85 81
Dozer 40 85 82
Dump Truck 40 84 76
Excavator 40 85 81
Flat Bed Truck 40 84 74
Front-End Loader 40 80 79
Generator 50 82 81
Gradall 40 85 83
Grader 40 85 N/A
Impact Pile Driver 20 95 101
Man Lift 20 85 75
Paver 50 85 77
Pickup Truck 40 55 75
Roller 20 85 80
Scraper 40 85 84
Tractor 40 84 N/A
Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Construction Noise Handbook, Table 9.1 (August 2006).

Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 Usage factor is the percentage of time during a construction noise operation that a piece of construction equipment is operating at full power.
2 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Specification (Spec.) 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project. 3 The maximum noise level was developed based on the average noise level measured for each piece of equipment during the CA/T program in Boston, Massachusetts.
4 Since the maximum noise level based on the average noise level measured for this piece of equipment was not available, the maximum noise level developed based on Spec 721.560 would be used. dBA = A-weighted decibel
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
N/A = not applicable
Noise-sensitive receptors include residences, schools, hospitals, churches, and similar uses that are sensitive to noise. Construction activities as part of future projects could adversely affect nearby noise-sensitive land uses. Proposed changes to the Noise Ordinance maintain current standards for interior noise levels for residential uses and schools and add a “mixed-use” land use type with corresponding maximum daytime and nighttime decibel levels to Table C in Section 8.80.170 of the City’s Municipal Code. Changes to exterior standards only consist of the addition of the “Mixed Use” land use type to District 2 in Table A in Section 8.80.160 of the City’s Municipal Code and would not result in any changes to the maximum noise criteria outlined in Section 8.80.160. Therefore, any future construction activities and development would be required to adhere to the same exterior and interior noise standards for noise-sensitive receptors as required under the City’s existing Municipal Code regulations.

Construction noise is permitted by the City’s Municipal Code when activities occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and federal holidays, and between 9:00 a.m. and

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-31 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction would be permitted on Sundays. Short-term noise impacts would occur during future construction and demolition activities. Construction-related noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels where they occur throughout the City. However, construction-related noise impacts are temporary in nature and would cease once construction is completed.

Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that would reduce construction noise impacts. Strategy No. 12 minimizes construction noise and vibration levels in residential areas and other locations near noise-sensitive uses where possible. Policies N 12-1 though N 12-7 include measures to reduce construction noise at the sources, reduce noise conflicts, limit the allowable hours for construction activities near sensitive uses, establish noise level standards based on PlaceType as part of the City’s Municipal Code, and encourage construction best practices that reduce noise.

Construction activities as part of future projects would be subject to compliance with the Noise Ordinance to ensure that noise impacts from construction sources are reduced. Specific construction project data, including location and noise levels at surrounding sensitive receptors, are unknown at this time because future projects are also unknown. Some projects may have unusual or extremely loud construction activities (e.g., pile driving, nighttime construction work, or unusually long construction duration, etc.). However, as discussed above, the construction activities as part of future projects would be required to include measures to minimize construction noise near noisesensitive areas to reduce potential construction-period noise impacts for nearby sensitive receptors.

The proposed Noise Element and amendments to the Noise Ordinance serve to reduce constructionrelated noise impacts and do not include any physical development. Although the proposed project does not change the exterior and interior noise standards for the various land uses, the boundaries of the Noise Districts have been updated to better align with higher intensity, mixed-use PlaceTypes in the LUE and to add Mixed Use as a land use type in the Noise District tables found in Long Beach Municipal Code Sections 8.80.160 and 8.80.170 (see Chapter 3.0, Project Description, for further discussion and Figure 3-5, Proposed Noise District Map, for a map of the proposed boundaries). The proposed project does not alter the hours of construction from that which is currently mandated.

Therefore, short-term construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Long-Term Stationary-Source Noise Impacts: Less Than Significant Impact.

Long-Term Stationary-Source Noise Impacts. As stated previously, the proposed project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance, which are considered policy/planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development. However, since the City’s overall noise environment is considered by the proposed Noise Element, noise impacts associated with stationary sources are described below.

Future development projects may include the installation or creation of new stationary sources of noise, or could include the development of new sensitive land uses in the vicinity of existing noise sources. For commercial or industrial uses, these noise sources could include loading/unloading operations, generators, and outdoor speakers; for residential uses, stationary noise sources may

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -32 include air conditioners or pool pumps. These stationary sources of noise would have the potential to disturb adjacent sensitive receptors.

The proposed Noise Element includes policies and strategies to protect sensitive receptors from stationary noise sources and encourage land use compatibility. Strategy No. 1 applies site planning and other design standards to reduce noise impacts, especially within the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhoods, Multifamily Residential—Low and Moderate, and NeighborhoodServing Centers and Corridors – Low and Moderate PlaceTypes. Policies N 1-1 through N 1-9 integrates noise considerations into the land use planning process to prevent new noise conflicts, requires noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into all development and redevelopment of sensitive receptors, and ensures that project site design and function minimize noise. In addition, any new noise-generating sources would be subject to compliance with Chapter 8.80, Noise (including the amendments proposed as part of the project), which sets exterior and interior noise standards for the various land uses within the City. The proposed project includes amendments to the Noise Ordinance to update the boundaries of the Noise Districts and add Mixed Use as a land use type in existing Table A in Section 8.80.160 and Table C in Section 8.80.170 of the City’s Municipal Code; these amendments would establish exterior and interior noise standards for this land use type and better reflect and be consistent with the recently adopted LUE PlaceTypes.

Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in increased railroad operations within the City. However, the TOD PlaceType included in the LUE allows future multi-family developments to be located along the Metro Blue Line fixed rail route. Locating multi-family developments near the light-rail corridor could expose sensitive land uses to operational rail noise.

The proposed Noise Element includes Policy N 9-2, which encourages all active railroads within the City to schedule trains during daylight hours when possible. Policy N 9-7 also requires coordination with affected agencies to evaluate potential locations for Quiet Zone Improvements (reduced train horn areas) and implement recommended safety improvements to result in reduced need and frequency of train noise. These policies would reduce the potential for developments near the lightrail corridor to expose sensitive land uses to operational rail noise.

The proposed Noise Element includes policies and strategies that would ensure future development projects incorporate site planning and project design strategies to protect sensitive receptors from stationary noise sources in excess of acceptable levels. Additionally, the proposed project includes amendments to the Noise Ordinance to better reflect and be consistent with the recently adopted LUE PlaceTypes. Finally, although the proposed project does not change the exterior and interior noise standards for the various land uses, the boundaries of the Noise District have been updated to better align with higher intensity, mixed-use PlaceTypes in the LUE and to add Mixed Use as a land use type in the Noise District tables found in Long Beach Municipal Code Sections 8.80.160 and

8.80.170 (see Chapter 3.0, Project Description, for further discussion and Figure 3-5, Proposed Noise District Map, for a map of the proposed boundaries). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project, which includes no physical development, would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of applicable standards, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-33 Long-Term Traffic Noise Impacts: Less than Significant Impact.

Long-Term Traffic Noise Impacts. As stated previously, the proposed project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance, which are considered policy/planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development. However, since the City’s overall noise environment is considered by the proposed Noise Element, noise impacts associated with traffic are considered below.

Potential sources causing a permanent increase in ambient noise include noise resulting from increased traffic on roadways in the planning area. It is projected that traffic volumes on some streets within the City would increase due to the growth envisioned under the recently approved LUE. This increase in traffic volumes would result in increased traffic noise levels compared to existing conditions. The significance criteria define a significant impact to occur if the project would result in a substantial (3 dBA or greater) permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. For traffic noise to increase by 3 dBA, traffic volumes would have to double. As noted in Section 4.2.4, Existing Environmental Setting, noise increases of 3 dBA or more are generally considered to be the smallest increases in noise levels readily perceptible in suburban or urban outdoor environments. The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (LSA 2019) prepared for the LUE and UDE General Plan Amendment EIR determined that the traffic noise increase under the recently adopted LUE would be up to 2.1 dBA, which is considered less than the threshold of perceptibility for humans (i.e., 3 dBA). Therefore, traffic noise regulated under the proposed project would not be readily perceptible in suburban or urban outdoor environments.

Figures 4.2-1(a) through 4.2-1(e) show the detailed future traffic noise contours included in the proposed Noise Element. The noise contours would be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. The future noise contours presented in the proposed Noise Element are consistent with assumptions made in the LUE and the Mobility Element. Additionally, the proposed Noise Element would include allowable interior and exterior noise exposure levels from transportation sources for various land uses proposed by the Noise Element as shown on Table 3.1, Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Transportation Sources, in Section 3.0, Project Description. These allowable noise exposure levels from transportation sources are intended to be used as a guide to establish a pattern of land uses that minimizes exposure of residents to excessive noise. Adherence to allowable interior and exterior noise exposure levels from transportation sources identified in Table 3.1 would ensure that noise impacts resulting from transportation sources would be less than significant.

Additionally, Strategy Nos. 6 through 8, included in the proposed Noise Element, are aimed at managing traffic-related noise. Strategy No. 6 would minimize vehicular traffic noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses. Policies N 6-1 through N 6-11 would ensure noisecompatible land uses along existing and future roadways, highways, and freeways, would establish Noise Standards or other measures that are acceptable to the City, and encourage site planning and building design measures that minimize the effects of traffic noise in residential zones. Strategy No. 7 would promote multimodal mobility and reduce noise generated from vehicular traffic.

Policies N 7-1 though N 7-4 encourage the use of active transportation modes, micro-mobility, and transit as stipulated in the Mobility Element to minimize traffic noise, and would provide

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -34 transportation services that reduce traffic and associated noise. Strategy No. 8 would implement street design and maintenance practices to minimize vehicular noise impacts. Policies N 8-1 through N 8-5 employ noise mitigation practices when designing future streets and highways and consider traffic calming design.

The proposed Noise Element includes future noise contours, allowable interior and exterior noise exposure levels from transportation sources for various land uses, and strategies and policies to better reflect the recently adopted LUE PlaceTypes and reduce long-term transportation noise impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not allow the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of applicable standards, and impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation would be required.

Threshold 4.2.2: Would the project generate excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance, which are considered policy/planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development. However, future construction activities considered by the proposed Noise Element could result in the generation of ground-borne vibration. As such, vibration impacts are described below.

As previously described, common sources of ground-borne vibration and noise include trains and construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy earthmoving equipment.

Typically, the main effect of ground-borne vibration and noise is to cause annoyances for occupants of nearby buildings. Future construction activities could result in the generation of ground-borne vibration. However, Chapter 8.80 of the City’s Noise Ordinance would continue to limit the operation of any device that creates vibration, including pile driving, that is above the vibration perception threshold. Any future construction activities would be required to comply with the Noise Ordinance requirements. Therefore, future construction activities would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive ground-borne vibration or noise levels.

The proposed Noise Element also includes policies and strategies that protect sensitive receptors from vibration in excess of acceptable levels including Strategy No. 12, which minimizes construction noise and vibration levels in residential areas and other locations near noise-sensitive uses where possible. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons to excessive ground-borne vibration and/or ground-borne noise levels, and impacts would be considered less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

Threshold 4.2.3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. As previously described, aircraft noise in the City of Long Beach is primarily related to aircraft operations at Long Beach Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, and John Wayne

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» 4.2-35 Airport. Long Beach Airport is located centrally within the City, approximately 3 miles northeast of downtown.

As stated in Section 16.43.050 of the Municipal Code, it is the goal of the City that Incompatible Property in the vicinity of the Airport shall not be exposed to noise above 65 dBA CNEL. The proposed Noise Element includes Strategy No. 10, which requires measures to minimize the adverse effects of aircraft-related noise. The proposed Noise Element also includes Policy N 10-1, which ensures that new development can be made compatible with the noise environment by using noise/land use compatibility standards and the airport noise contour maps as guides to future planning and development decisions. Further, the proposed project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance, which are considered policy/planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development that would have the potential to expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels from aircraft noise sources. No mitigation measures are required.

4.2.9 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
There would be no potentially significant impacts related to noise.

4.2.10 Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features

4.2.10.1 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not require any mitigation measures related to noise.

4.2.10.2 Project Design Features
The proposed project does not include any project design features related to noise. Although there are no project design features related to noise, the Proposed Noise Element Strategies and Policies, listed in Section 4.2.6, are intended to reduce noise and vibration impacts of future development within the City.

4.2.11 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Project implementation would not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to noise.

4.2.12 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. A cumulative noise or vibration impact would occur if multiple sources of noise and vibration combine to create impacts in close proximity to a sensitive receptor. Therefore, the cumulative area for noise impacts is the planning area and any sensitive receptors within the planning area. However, as noted above, the proposed project is a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development that would result in noise or vibration.

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -36 Cumulative growth within the City could result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at development sites throughout the City. However, construction-related noise would be temporary and would no longer occur once construction of individual future projects is completed.

In addition, future construction activities would be subject to compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and proposed amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance to ensure that noise impacts from construction sources are reduced. In addition, the proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies that would reduce construction noise impacts. Strategy No. 12 minimizes construction noise and vibration levels in residential areas and other locations near noise-sensitive uses where possible. Policies N 12-1 though N 12-7 include measures to reduce construction noise at the sources, reduce noise conflicts, limit the allowable hours for construction activities near sensitive uses, establish noise level standards based on PlaceType as part of the City’s Municipal Code, and encourage construction best practices that reduce noise. Because implementation of the proposed project does not result in any physical construction activities that would produce noise, the proposed project would not be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the total noise environment in the City.

The proposed project would not create a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional noise conditions as it does not include any physical improvements or development. For traffic noise to increase by 3 dBA, traffic volumes would have to double. Implementation of the proposed project would not impact traffic volumes and would not generate a significant impact under cumulative noise conditions. Additionally, implementation of the proposed Noise Element strategies and policies would require the City to consider noise and land use compatibility issues when evaluating individual future development proposals. Additionally, the future noise contours and allowable interior and exterior noise exposure levels from transportation sources for various land uses included in the proposed Noise Element as described above are intended to be used as a guide to establish a pattern of land uses that minimizes exposure of residents to excessive noise.

For the reasons stated above, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial cumulative increase in noise. Further, the proposed project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance, which are considered policy/planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development that would potentially result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Therefore, noise impacts associated with the proposed project would be considered less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would be required.

LEGEND
Long Beach City Boundary
Future 2040 Traffic Noise Contours
70 dBA Ldn
75 dBA Ldn
80 dBA Ldn
85 dBA Ldn
1 3
2 4
FIGURE 4.2-1a
Detailed Future Traffic Noise Contours
I:\CLB1901\G\Detailed Future Noise Contours.cdr (5/29/2019) Long Beach General Plan
Noise Element
N
55 dBA Ldn
60 dBA Ldn
0 1 2
65 dBA Ldn
MILES
SOURCE: City of Long Beach General Plan Noise Element, Dec. 2019

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -38 This page intentionally left blank
N
FIGURE 4.2-1b
Detailed Future Traffic Noise Contours
I:\CLB1901\G\Detailed Future Noise Contours.cdr (5/29/2019) Long Beach General Plan
Noise Element
SOURCE: City of Long Beach General Plan Noise Element, Dec. 2019 0 2000 4000
FEET
LEGEND
Long Beach City Boundary
Long Beach City Centerlines
Future 2040 Traffic Noise Contours
55 dBA Ldn
60 dBA Ldn
65 dBA Ldn
70 dBA Ldn
75 dBA Ldn
80 dBA Ldn
85 dBA Ldn
13 24

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -40 This page intentionally left blank
N
FIGURE 4.2-1c
Detailed Future Traffic Noise Contours
I:\CLB1901\G\Detailed Future Noise Contours.cdr (5/29/2019) Long Beach General Plan
Noise Element
SOURCE: City of Long Beach General Plan Noise Element, Dec. 2019 0 2000 4000
FEET
LEGEND
Long Beach City Boundary
Long Beach City Centerlines
Future 2040 Traffic Noise Contours
55 dBA Ldn
60 dBA Ldn
65 dBA Ldn
70 dBA Ldn
75 dBA Ldn
80 dBA Ldn
85 dBA Ldn
13 24

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -42 This page intentionally left blank
N
FIGURE 4.2-1d
Detailed Future Traffic Noise Contours
I:\CLB1901\G\Detailed Future Noise Contours.cdr (5/29/2019) Long Beach General Plan
Noise Element
SOURCE: City of Long Beach General Plan Noise Element, Dec. 2019 0 2000 4000
FEET
LEGEND
Long Beach City Boundary
Long Beach City Centerlines
Future 2040 Traffic Noise Contours
55 dBA Ldn
60 dBA Ldn
65 dBA Ldn
70 dBA Ldn
75 dBA Ldn
80 dBA Ldn
85 dBA Ldn
13 24

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -44 This page intentionally left blank
N
FIGURE 4.2-1e
Detailed Future Traffic Noise Contours
I:\CLB1901\G\Detailed Future Noise Contours.cdr (5/29/2019) Long Beach General Plan
Noise Element
SOURCE: City of Long Beach General Plan Noise Element, Dec. 2019 0 2000 4000
FEET
LEGEND
Long Beach City Boundary
Long Beach City Centerlines
Future 2040 Traffic Noise Contours
55 dBA Ldn
60 dBA Ldn
65 dBA Ldn
70 dBA Ldn
75 dBA Ldn
80 dBA Ldn
85 dBA Ldn
13 24

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.2 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.2 Noise.docx «03/12/21» -46 This page intentionally left blank

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» 4.3-1

4.3 TRANSPORTATION
This section analyzes the existing and planned transportation/traffic and circulation conditions for the planning area, and identifies circulation impacts that may result from implementation of the proposed General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City of Long Beach (City) Noise Ordinance (Long Beach Municipal Code [LBMC] Section 8.80) (proposed project). The key focus of the analysis is the potential for the proposed Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance to conflict with relevant transportation policy and planning documents. The consistency analysis in this section was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d). Information presented in this section is based on information provided in the following documents: the proposed General Plan Noise Element (December 2019) (Appendix B of this Draft EIR) and the City of Long Beach’s (City) existing General Plan (as amended).

4.3.1 Scoping Process
The City received a total of 53 public comment letters during the public review period of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP). For copies of the IS/NOP comment letters, refer to Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Many of the comment letters received were related to a separate study that was concurrently being prepared regarding noise associated with special events taking place within the City and did not contain comments related to the scope and content of the Draft EIR. Two comment letters included comments related to transportation impacts related to the Draft EIR. Several letters state that the transportation analysis in the Draft EIR should include an analysis of changes to traffic patterns and hours of extended traffic noise related to special events, specifically in the Downtown/ Waterfront area.

Analysis of special events is not within the scope of this Draft EIR. Special events are temporary and often seasonal in nature; as such, they do not represent typical traffic patterns or typical noise sources. This Draft EIR analyzes the impacts associated with adoption of the new Noise Element and amendments to the existing Noise Ordinance as contained in Chapter 8.80 of the Municipal Mode.

Neither of these planning/policy documents set specific noise levels for special events. However, the Noise Element includes policies aimed at balancing the needs of special events while prioritizing the well-being of City residents (refer to Strategy No. 13 and Policies N 13-1 through N 13-6 detailed in Section 4.3.6, Proposed Noise Element Strategies and Policies, below).

4.3.2 CEQA Baseline
The City’s adopted General Plan Mobility Element (2013) and the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) (Metro, 2010) form the baseline for addressing project-related impacts with applicable transportation planning documents. This provides a baseline that reflects current conditions related to transportation at the time the Draft EIR was prepared.

During the preparation of the Initial Study (IS), the City was in the process of updating and adopting a new proposed Land Use Element (LUE) and Urban Design Element (UDE). Since the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published (May 2019), the Long Beach City Council adopted the new Land Use Element (2019) and Urban Design Element (2019) at a public hearing on December 3, 2019. The new LUE, which replaced the previous 1989 LUE, introduced the concept of “PlaceTypes,” which

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.3 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» -2 replaced the previous land use approach of segregating property within the City through traditional land use designations and zoning classifications. The LUE establishes 14 primary PlaceTypes that aim to divide the City into distinct neighborhoods, thus allowing for greater flexibility and a mix of compatible land uses within these areas. The new UDE replaced the 1975 Scenic Routes Element.

The UDE defines the physical aspects of the urban environment. Specifically, the UDE aims to further enhance the City’s PlaceTypes established in the LUE by creating great places; improving the urban fabric, and public spaces; and defining edges, thoroughfares, and corridors.

The new LUE and UDE have been incorporated into the analysis of the Draft EIR for the purpose of evaluating transportation impacts associated with project implementation.

4.3.3 Methodology
The impact analysis of this section considers the physical impacts of the proposed project related to transportation and considers whether or not there are potential inconsistencies of the proposed project with applicable transportation planning documents from the City and other agencies with relevant plans or policies. However, it should be noted that the proposed project is a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development. Consistency of a project with an applicable plan is made by the Lead Agency when it acts on the project. The analysis in this Draft EIR discusses the findings of policy review and is meant to provide a guide for decision-makers during policy interpretation.

A project’s inconsistency with a policy is only considered significant if such inconsistency would cause significant physical environmental impacts. This Draft EIR section determines whether any project inconsistencies with transportation policies and documents, such as the General Plan Mobility or Land Use Elements, would be significant and whether mitigation is feasible. Under this approach, a policy conflict is not in and of itself considered a significant environmental impact. An inconsistency between a proposed project and an applicable plan is a legal determination that may or may not indicate the likelihood of environmental impact. In some cases, an inconsistency may be evidence that an underlying physical impact is significant and adverse, while in other cases such an inconsistency may not result in significant physical impacts.

4.3.4 Existing Environmental Setting

4.3.4.1 Existing Circulation System
The City has adopted a context-sensitive street classification plan emphasizing mobility for different roadway users. These classifications run from regional corridors designed for intraregional travel to local streets discouraging high volumes of through traffic to enhance the ability to serve bicycles and pedestrians. The circulation system forms a grid network that is denser in the downtown area where a greater density of land uses require support from a greater density of roadways.

4.3.4.2 Existing Transit Service
Long Beach is served by a robust network of transit options from multiple operators, including rail, fixed-route bus service, shuttles, and boats. Long Beach has a municipal transit agency, Long Beach Transit (LBT) (which provides 34 fixed-route bus routes), the free Downtown Passport circulator, demand-response transit, the AquaLink water bus between Alamitos Bay Landing and downtown

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» 4.3-3 Long Beach, and the AquaBus water taxi between marinas and docks along the downtown waterfront.

Other transit operators in Long Beach include the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Torrance Transit, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). Metro operates fixed-route local and express bus service on a limited number of routes within Long Beach. Metro also operates the Blue Line passenger rail service between downtown Long Beach and downtown Los Angeles. The Blue Line connects to the larger and expanding Metro Rail system, providing a convenient transit link between Long Beach and the larger metropolitan region.

4.3.4.3 Existing Bicycle Network
As previously explained, it is the stated priority of the City to provide alternative modes of transportation in place of private automobiles. As part of this effort, the City has established a bicycle transportation network and has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan (2001), which was updated in 2017 at which time it became an appendix to the Mobility Element (2013) of the General Plan.

The City has 127.1 miles of different types of bike paths, including 34.7 miles of Class 1 bikeways,

59.9 miles of Class II bikeways, 28.1 miles of Class III bike routes, and 4.4 miles of Class IV separated bikeways,
1 as described further below.
 Class I: Variously called a bike path or multi-use trail. Provides for bicycle travel on a paved right of way completely separated from any street or highway.  Class II: Referred to as a bike lane. Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or highway.
 Class III: Referred to as a bike route or sharrow. Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic.
 Class IV: These protected bike lanes provide a physical buffer between vehicle travel lanes and on-street bike lanes.

To provide connections to other transportation modes, bicycle racks are included at several of the transit stops within the City. In addition, the Long Beach Bikestation is located in downtown Long Beach, near the Metro Blue Line. The Bikestation provides valet bicycle parking, bicycle rentals, and other amenities.

1 City of Long Beach. Bicycle Master Plan Table 3-4. 2017. Website: http://longbeach.gov/globalassets/ pw/media-library/documents/resources/general/bicycle-master-plan/bicycle_master_plan (accessed March 25, 2020).

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.3 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» -4

4.3.4.4 Existing Pedestrian Network
The existing conditions within the City include an elaborate network of pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalk coverage, curb cuts, crosswalks, street lighting, landscaping, and signalized intersections that serve the needs of pedestrians.

In recent years, the City has made a concerted effort to improve the walkability of its Downtown and surrounding communities. After adoption of the Mobility Element in 2013, two pedestrian plans were developed as technical appendices to the new element. Adopted in 2016, the Downtown and TOD Pedestrian Master Plan2focuses on the transit rich Downtown and around Metro Blue Line transit stops to provide policies, guidelines, and standards that ensure best practices for pedestrian design and identify catalytic infrastructure projects. Adopted in 2016, the Communities of Excellence in Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Prevention (CX3) Pedestrian Plan3 was developed in collaboration with the Health Department to guide the improvement of the walking environment in low-income neighborhoods within Central and West Long Beach by connecting adopted City policies and plans, best practices, and the community’s voce for a safe, healthy, and beautiful City.

Buildings, sidewalk lighting, sidewalks, landscaping, and street furniture have been implemented to encourage walking between the transit stations, housing, shopping, employment centers, and nearby recreation uses.

4.3.5 Regulatory Setting

4.3.5.1 Federal Regulations
There are no relevant federal traffic and circulation regulations applicable to the proposed project.

4.3.5.2 State Regulations
Congestion Management Program. In Los Angeles County, the CMP is the program by which County agencies have agreed to monitor and report on the status of regional roadways. In June 1990, the passage of the Proposition 111 gas tax increase required urbanized areas in the State with a population of 50,000 or more to adopt a CMP. The CMP is intended to link transportation, land use, and air quality decisions, as well as address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system. State legislation requires that the CMP contain a process to analyze the impacts of land use decisions by local governments on the regional transportation system. For CMP purposes, the regional transportation system is defined by the legislation as all State highways and principal arterials. The identification and analysis of impacts along with estimated mitigation costs are determined with respect to this CMP Highway System.

2 City of Long Beach. Downtown and TOD Pedestrian Master Plan. 2016. Website: http://www.longbeach. gov/lbds/planning/advance/general-plan/mobility/dt-tod-ped-master-plan/ (accessed March 25, 2020). 3 City of Long Beach. 2016. Communities of Excellence in Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Prevention (CX3) Pedestrian Plan. Website: http://www.longbeach.gov/globalassets/health/media-library/ documents/healthy-living/individual/nutrition-and-physical-activity/cx3-pedestrianplan (accessed March 25, 2020).

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» 4.3-5 As the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County, Metro is responsible for the preparation of the CMP. The latest CMP (Metro 2010) states that a significant impact would occur if intersection level of service (LOS) with the project is LOS F and the proposed project causes a 0.02 or greater increase in volume-to-capacity ratio. The CMP includes 10 monitored intersections within the City of Long Beach.

These intersections are as follows:
 (8) Santa Fe Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway
 (52) Orange Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway
 (54) Alamitos Avenue/7th Street
 (58) Alamitos Avenue/Shoreline Avenue-Ocean Boulevard  (76) Redondo Avenue/7th Street
 (80) Lakewood Boulevard/Carson Street
 (84) Lakewood Boulevard/Willow Street
 (85) Pacific Coast Highway/Ximeno Avenue
 (92) Pacific Coast Highway/7th Street
 (100) Pacific Coast Highway/2nd Street
SB 743. On December 28, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law cleared the revised State CEQA Guidelines for use. Among the changes to the State CEQA Guidelines was removal of vehicle delay and LOS from consideration under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Lead agencies are allowed to opt in to the revised transportation guidelines, but the new guidelines must be used starting July 1, 2020.

The City’s Mobility Element (discussed in further detail in Section 4.3.5.3, below) began a departure from considering vehicle level of service (LOS) as the only measure of a transportation system’s effectiveness. The City is currently in the process of establishing thresholds related to VMT.

However, the State law provides guidance to evaluate the proposed project’s impacts related to VMT prior to adoption of such thresholds.

California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 15064.3(b)(4) states (in part) that:

A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure.

4.3.5.3 Local and Regional Policies and Regulations
City of Long Beach General Plan. The City’s General Plan establishes goals, policies, and strategies that combine to serve as a “blueprint” directing future growth in the City. The current General Plan consists of the Historic Preservation, Open Space and Recreation, Housing, Air Quality, Mobility, Land Use, Seismic Safety, Noise, Public Safety, Conservation, Urban Design, and Mobility Elements.

The Land Use Element (2019) and Urban Design Element (2019) are the most recent General Plan

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.3 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» -6 elements to be adopted, as part of the City’s larger effort to update older elements of its General Plan.

City of Long Beach General Plan Mobility Element. The Mobility Element, which was adopted in 2013, addresses the movement of people and goods via automobiles, transit, bicycles, and other modes. It addresses key issues such as trip reduction; parking, bicycle, and pedestrian access; traffic flow; transportation improvements and funding; and traffic safety.

The Mobility Element establishes several goals aimed at improving the existing transportation system so that it is responsive to all travel modes. These goals would also be consistent with the intent of Senate Bill (SB) 375 and the Climate Protection Act of 2008, which mandates closer linkage between land use and transportation infrastructure and SB 743, which reduces the emphasis on preserving vehicle level of service in favor of reductions in VMT.

As stated previously, the Bicycle Master Plan (2017), the Downtown and TOD Pedestrian Master Plan (2016), and the Communities of Excellence in Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Prevention (CX3) Pedestrian Plan (2017) are included as appendices to the Mobility Element.

4.3.6 Proposed Noise Element Strategies and Policies
The following proposed strategies and policies contained in the proposed Noise Element are applicable to the analysis of transportation and would replace existing policies and strategies outlined in the City’s existing Noise Element following project approval:

Strategy No. 1: Apply site planning and other design strategies to reduce noise impacts, especially within the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhoods, Multifamily Residential—Low and Moderate, and Neighborhood-Serving Centers and Corridors – Low and Moderate PlaceTypes.  Policy N 1-2: Require noise attenuation measures to be incorporated into all development and redevelopment of sensitive receptor uses, including residential, health care facilities, schools, libraries, senior facilities, and churches in close proximity to existing or known planned rail lines.  Policy N 1-8: Require new development to provide facilities which support the use of multimodal transportation, including, walking, bicycling, carpooling and, transit.

Strategy No. 2: Create a balance of business practices within dynamic, active, and engaging areas such as the Transit-Oriented Development – Low and Moderate, Downtown, and Waterfront PlaceType areas to promote activity while respecting adjacent sensitive uses.

Strategy No. 6: Minimize vehicular traffic noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.
 Policy N 6-1: Ensure noise-compatible land uses along existing and future roadways, highways, and freeways.
 Policy N 6-2: Use the “Land Use Compatibility Guidelines” and established Noise Standards or other measures that are acceptable to the City, to guide land use and zoning reclassification,

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» 4.3-7 subdivision, conditional use and use variance determinations and environmental assessment considerations, especially relative to sensitive uses, as defined by this chapter within a line-ofsight of freeways, major highways, or truck haul routes.  Policy N 6-3: Continue to work with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to install, maintain, and update freeway and highway rights-of-way buffers and sound walls.  Policy N 6-4: Work toward understanding and reducing traffic noise in residential neighborhoods with a focus on analyzing the effects of traffic noise exposure throughout the City.
 Policy N 6-5: Establish and enforce designated truck routes on specified arterial streets to minimize the negative impacts to noise sensitive uses throughout the City.  Policy N 6-6: For future noise sensitive land uses proposed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours, a qualified acoustical consultant shall conduct a noise analysis to determine appropriate measures are implemented to meet the necessary exterior and interior noise standards.
 Policy N 6-7: Enforce regulations that address noise generated by motorcycles and support education efforts to create awareness and encourage compliance (such as posting signs along Ocean Boulevard).
 Policy N 6-8: Work with transit providers to evaluate and update fleet vehicle characteristics and operations to minimize noise.
 Policy N 6-9: Encourage site planning and building design measures that minimize the effects of traffic noise in residential zones.
 Policy N 6-9: Encourage site planning and building design measures that minimize the effects of traffic noise in residential zones.
 Policy N 6-10: Evaluate the tone and pitch of emergency vehicle sirens and truck backup sounds to promote the least impactful approach.
 Policy N 6-11: Support and promote the Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) program for retirement of older vehicles, as they tend to generate more noise than newer, more fuelefficient vehicles.

Strategy No. 7: Promote multimodal mobility to reduce noise generated from vehicular traffic.  Policy N 7-1: Encourage the use of active transportation modes (walking, bicycling), micromobility (electric vehicles) and transit as stipulated in the Mobility Element to minimize traffic noise in the City.

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.3 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» -8  Policy N 7-2: Work with local and regional transit agencies and businesses to provide transportation services that reduce traffic and associated noise as stipulated in the Mobility Element.
 Policy N 7-3: Evaluate private development proposals to ensure provisions for multimodal mobility where feasible.
 Policy N 7-4: Factor multimodal mobility as part of decisions affecting use and priority of public right-of- way.

Strategy No. 8: Implement street design and maintenance practices to minimize vehicular noise impacts.
 Policy N 8-1: Employ noise mitigation practices, as necessary, when designing future streets and highways, and when improvements occur along existing road segments. Mitigation measures should emphasize the establishment of buffers or setbacks between the arterial roadways and adjoining noise-sensitive areas.
 Policy N 8-2: Consider traffic calming design, such as “road diets,” traffic control measures, and low-noise pavement surfaces that minimize motor vehicle traffic noise.  Policy N 8-3: Consider the noise impacts on adjacent residential uses associated with establishing stop signs or other traffic control or traffic calming devices.  Policy N 8-4: Maintain roadways so that the paving is in good condition to reduce noisegenerating cracks, bumps, and potholes and ensure steel plates are properly installed where needed.
 Policy N 8-5: Consider using roadway sound attenuation techniques for resurfacing projects that use “quiet” pavement or noise-reducing rubberized asphalt.

Strategy No. 9: Minimize train noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.  Policy N 9-1: Encourage noise-compatible land uses and incorporate noise-reducing design features within transit-oriented, mixed-use development near rail corridors.  Policy N 9-2: Encourage all active railroads within the City to schedule trains during daylight hours when possible.
 Policy N 9-3: Encourage the rail operators, both freight and passenger, to minimize the level of noise produced by train movements and horn noise within the City by reducing the number of night time operations, improving vehicle system technology, and developing improved sound barriers where residences exist next to the track.
 Policy N 9-4: Work with rail operators to install and maintain noise mitigation features where operations adversely impact existing or planned residential and other noise-sensitive land uses.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» 4.3-9  Policy N 9-5: Require future rail projects under the City’s control to analyze noise impacts and to identify and incorporate noise and vibration reducing features in the project design.  Policy N 9-6: Work with Metro to provide that the design and operation of the Blue Line tracks, crossings, and station area use approaches that will minimize noise impacts associated with train operations on the community.
 Policy N 9-7: Coordinate with affected agencies including California Public Utilities Commission, rail operators, and Federal Railroad Administration to evaluate potential locations for Quiet Zone improvements (reduced train horn areas) and implement recommended safety improvements to result in reduced need and frequency of train horn use.  Policy N 9-8: Explore Port to Alameda Corridor “Quiet Zone” implementation.  Policy N 9-9: Continue to assess new methods and apply appropriate technologies to reduce rail-related noise such as application of sound-deadening matting (as opposed to wood) leading to, from and between the rails where public roads cross tracks in residential areas.

Strategy No. 10: While the operations of airports and airport related uses are noisy by nature, the adverse effects of aircraft-related noise should be minimized.  Policy N 10-1: Ensure that new development can be made compatible with the noise environment by using noise/land use compatibility standards and the airport noise contour maps as guides to future planning and development decisions.  Policy N 10-2: When making land use decisions, give careful consideration to the type and density of land use and its cumulative impacts so that appropriate decisions are made for the airport, its context, and its environment. Specific consideration should be given for all development within two miles of an airport.
 Policy N 10-3: Support efforts of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other responsible agencies to require the development of quieter aircraft.  Policy N 10-4: Utilize information provided by the Long Beach Airport Quarterly Environmental Reports, specifically noise contours, to advise land owners of special noise considerations associated with their development.
 Policy N 10-5: Continue to work with the FAA, airport staff and aircraft operators to ensure that future operations are in compliance with the City’s noise goals, where possible.  Policy N 10-6: Require private heliports/helistops to comply with the City noise ordinances and Federal Aviation Administration standards.
 Policy N 10-7: Work with interest groups to reduce helicopter noise impacts and direct helicopter operators to perform any training exercises over non-populated portions of the City, not over residential areas.

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.3 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» -10  Policy N 10-8: Continue open communications with citizens through continued outreach.

Continued use of WebTrak or a similar system will allow the ability for residents to give feedback to the City on noise impacts experienced such that further meaningful communication can continue with Federal and airport staff.
 Policy N 10-9: Continue to evaluate potential noise impacts and compatibility through analysis and mitigation required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Strategy No. 11: Minimize watercraft noise level impacts to residential areas and in other locations near noise-sensitive uses, where possible.
 Policy N 11-1: Continue to require the Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine Department to enforce the noise requirements within the California Harbors and Navigation Code.  Policy N 11-2: Enforce speed limits near the coastline and on the existing water channels.  Policy N 11-3: Continue communications with the Marine Department on responding to and documenting noise complaints.
 Policy N 11-4: Ensure that boat owners receive information on proper noise management practices, especially those leasing City slips or with City-registered docks. Strategies include informational signage and education.

Strategy No. 13: Balance the needs of special events while prioritizing the well-being of residents.  Policy N 13-1: Ensure consistency and clear communication between the various City departments involved in noise. Strategies may include posting an online calendar of special events and providing information bulletins.
 Policy N 13-2: Provide an efficient and standardized process for special events permitting in order to increase predictability for residents and applicants.  Policy N 13-3: Implement and enforce procedures related to noise level requirements for large special events.
 Policy N 13-4: Communicate regularly with residents about the special events that may impact them through appropriate channels to increase transparency and timely information.  Policy N 13-5: Consider geographic distribution of special events throughout the City by managing frequency and intensity of events.
 Policy N 13-6: Stay up-to-date with sound mitigation technology for special events.

Strategy No. 15: Reduce the disproportionate environmental noise burdens affecting low-income and minority populations.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» 4.3-11  Policy N 15-1: Require that proposals for new sensitive land uses are located adequate distances from freeways and major roadways based on an analysis of physical and meteorological conditions at the project site.
 Policy N 15-3: Provide adequate buffers between schools and industrial facilities and transportation corridors.
 Policy N 15-7: Support traffic and highway techniques and technologies that reduce noise impacts of vehicular traffic through traffic calming, noise barriers, pavement design and other measures.

4.3.7 Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Based on these thresholds, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact with respect to transportation if it would:

Threshold 4.3.1: Conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; Threshold 4.3.2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b);
Threshold 4.3.3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or
Threshold 4.3.4: Result in inadequate emergency access.

The IS (Appendix A) determined that the approval of the proposed project is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development. Additionally, the proposed project is not considered a land use or transportation project as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b). As such, the IS determined that implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to conflicts with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) (Threshold

4.3.2), changes in the exposure to hazards due to a design feature (Threshold 4.3.3), and inadequate emergency access (Threshold 4.3.4). Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, Thresholds 4.3.2 through 4.3.4 will not be discussed further in this Draft EIR.

4.3.8 Project Impacts
Threshold 4.3.1: Would the project conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.3 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» -12 Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance, which are considered policy/planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development that would result in impacts to traffic. However, since the proposed Noise Element is intended to manage transportation noise, general transportation impacts are discussed below.

The City of Long Beach General Plan Mobility Element and the Los Angeles County CMP, are applicable to the proposed project and consistency with these applicable local and regional plans is discussed below.

General Plan Mobility Element. The 2013 Mobility Element focuses on improving the quality of life for Long Beach residents and visitors through transportation and mobility planning. The planning area includes multiple sources of noise related to mobility, including vehicles, rail, aircraft, and watercraft (see Figure 3-4, Future Traffic Noise Contours (2040), in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, which shows the future traffic noise contours consistent with the Mobility Element assumptions).

For more detailed future traffic noise contours, see Figures 4.2-1(a) through 4.2-1(e) in Section 4.2, Noise.

Proposed Noise Element Strategy Nos. 6 through 11 are aimed at managing mobility-related noise.

Strategies include minimizing vehicular traffic noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses; promoting multimodal mobility to reduce noise generated from vehicular traffic; implementing street design and maintenance practices to minimize vehicular noise impacts; minimizing train noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses; minimizing the adverse effects of aircraft-related noise; and minimizing watercraft noise level impacts to residential areas and in other locations near noise-sensitive uses, where possible. These strategies and their associated policies further the goals of the Mobility Element. Therefore, the proposed Noise Element would be consistent with the overall intent of the City’s General Plan Mobility Element.

The proposed project involves the adoption of the proposed General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance. Proposed amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance are intended to create consistency between the existing Noise Ordinance and the proposed Noise Element. Additionally, the amendments to the Noise Ordinance would regulate noise and implement the policies of the Noise Element. As such, proposed amendments to the Noise Ordinance would not conflict with the Mobility Element because they are consistent with the intent of the proposed Noise Element.

For detailed discussion related to the proposed Noise Element’s consistency with adopted applicable elements of the City’s General Plan, refer to Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning, for the consistency analysis prepared for the project.

It is projected that traffic volumes on some streets within the City would increase due to the growth envisioned under the recently approved LUE. This increase in traffic volumes would result in increased traffic and associated noise levels compared to existing conditions.

Figures 4.2-1(a) through 4.2-1(e) in Section 4.2, Noise, show the detailed future traffic noise contours included in the proposed Noise Element. The noise contours would be used as a guide for

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» 4.3-13 establishing a pattern of land uses that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. The future noise contours presented in the proposed Noise Element are consistent with assumptions made in the LUE and the Mobility Element. Additionally, the proposed Noise Element includes allowable interior and exterior noise levels from transportation sources for various land uses, as shown on Table 3.1, Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Transportation Sources, in Section 3.0, Project Description. These allowable noise exposure levels from transportation sources are intended to be used as a guide to establish a pattern of land uses that minimizes exposure of residents to excessive noise.

For detailed discussion regarding project-related impacts associated with traffic noise, refer to Section 4.2, Noise, of this Draft EIR.

The proposed Noise Element includes future noise contours, allowable interior and exterior noise exposure levels from transportation sources for various land uses, and strategies and policies aimed at managing long-term transportation noise impacts. Overall, the proposed Noise Element is consistent with assumptions made in, and the intent of, the Mobility Element. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Mobility Element.

Congestion Management Program. As stated previously, the CMP is the program by which Los Angeles County agencies have agreed to monitor and report on the status of regional roadways. The CMP is intended to link transportation, land use, and air quality decisions, as well as address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system. The latest CMP (Metro 2010) states that a significant impact would occur if intersection LOS with the project is LOS F and the proposed project causes a 0.02 or greater increase in volume-to-capacity ratio.

The proposed project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance, which are considered policy/planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development that would result in an increase in traffic or LOS conditions. Since implementation of the project would not result in increases in volume-tocapacity ratio, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts with respect to the CMP.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Los Angeles County CMP.

Summary. The proposed project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

4.3.9 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
There would be no potentially significant impacts related to transportation.

4.3.10 Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features

4.3.10.1 Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not require any mitigation measures related to transportation.

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

4.3 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\4.3 Transportation.docx «03/12/21» -14

4.3.10.2 Project Design Features
The proposed project does not include and project design features related to transportation.

Although there are no project design features related to noise, the Proposed Noise Element Strategies and Policies, listed in Section 4.3.6, are intended to reduce noise impacts related to transportation.

4.3.11 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Project implementation would not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to transportation. No mitigation is required.

4.3.12 Cumulative Impacts
As defined in Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts are the incremental effects of an individual project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects within the cumulative impact area for transportation. The cumulative impact area for transportation for the proposed project is the planning area. Several development projects are approved and/or pending within the City. Each of these projects, as well as all proposed discretionary development in the City, would be subject to its own transportation consistency analysis and would be reviewed for consistency with adopted programs, plans, ordinances or policies addressing the circulation system. For this reason, cumulative impacts associated with inconsistency of future development with adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system would be less than significant. Further, the proposed project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance, which are considered a policy/planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development that would potentially result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Therefore, transportation impacts associated with the proposed project would be considered less than cumulatively significant, and no mitigation would be required.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/10/21» 5-1

5.0 ALTERNATIVES

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

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

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021
5 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/10/21» -2 • For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (15126.6[f][2][A]). • If the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion and should include the reasons in the EIR. For example, in some cases there may be no feasible alternative locations for a geothermal plant or mining project, which must be in close proximity to natural resources at a given location (15126.6[f][2][B]). • An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative (15126.6[f][3]).

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

5.2 PROPOSED PROJECT

5.2.1 Project Characteristics
As described in further detail in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, the proposed project includes the approval of an updated Noise Element for incorporation into the City’s General Plan. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies intended to provide protection for land uses, as identified in the LUE, from excessive noise and vibration sources, as well as to implement the vision of a healthy, livable noise environment in the City. The proposed Noise Element would replace the existing Noise Element that was adopted in 1975.

The proposed project also includes several amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance (Long Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 8.80, Noise). Amendments to the Noise Ordinance would include the following: (1) clarification and expansion of the capacity of the Noise Control Officer, which would streamline departmental responsibilities and administrative processes; (2) update to the Noise District Map, which would expand District Two boundaries to better reflect and be consistent with the recently adopted General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) PlaceTypes; (3) modification to expand the definition of District Two to include mixed-uses; (4) update of interior noise limits to include mixed uses.
1 Typically, discussion and conclusions regarding the alternative’s ability to avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project would be discussed; however, analysis provided in this Draft EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts as a result of project implementation.

Therefore, this topic is not included in the alternatives analysis.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/10/21» 5-3 It should be noted that the proposed project is a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development that would result in physical environmental impacts.

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

1. Create and maintain a healthy noise environment in Long Beach.

2. Balance business practices within dynamic, active, and engaging areas to promote activity, including special events, while respecting adjacent sensitive uses.

3. Create allowances associated with noise so that Long Beach can thrive as a dynamic, growing city.

4. Limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels in noise-sensitive areas and at noise-sensitive times of day.

5. Strive for a more equitable distribution of noise.

6. Apply site planning, building design, street design, and other design strategies to reduce noise impacts.

7. Continue to actively enhance the regulation and management of noise to improve procedures and minimize noise impacts.

8. Generally maintain the current allowable interior and exterior noise thresholds as identified in the City Municipal Code Chapter 8.80, while better accommodating mixed land uses as contemplated by the recently updated General Plan Land Use Element.

5.2.3 Project-Related Impacts
As described further in Chapter 2.0, Introduction, the proposed project would result in either no impacts or less than significant impacts related to the following topics: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

As described in Chapter 4.0, Existing Environmental Setting, Environmental Analysis, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to land use, noise, and transportation. No mitigation measures would be required to reduce projectrelated impacts, and the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021
5 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/10/21» -4

5.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

5.3.1 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration

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

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

The proposed project is the implementation of an updated General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance for the entire planning area of the City of Long Beach.

The planning area encompasses the entire boundaries of the City and cannot be located in a different planning area because the project has been draft/designed for incorporation in the City of Long Beach. Additionally, as the Lead Agency, the City would not have the authority to implement the proposed project within an alternative planning area because they do not have discretionary power to make decisions for another jurisdiction. Because the City does not have jurisdiction over areas outside of its boundaries and cannot impose General Plan policies and Municipal Code ordinances on such areas, no alternative planning areas are feasible. Further, an alternative site or project location would be inconsistent with all Project Objectives. Therefore, this alternative was rejected from further consideration and is not analyzed further in this Draft EIR.

5.3.1.2 Reduced Project Alternative
This alternative considers a reduced project in which the proposed Noise Element would be included but amendments to the Noise Ordinance would not be included. Under this alternative, the current Noise Ordinance would continue to guide and regulate the City’s noise environment. This alternative is infeasible because the City’s Noise Ordinance regulates noise within the planning area, and proposed amendments to the Noise Ordinance would implement the strategies and policies contained in the proposed Noise Element. As such, the amendments to the Noise Ordinance as proposed by the project are necessary in order to create consistency between the two regulatory documents.

No other reduced project alternatives exist as this project is the adoption of a new General Plan Noise Element. It is not feasible to adopt only portions of the proposed Noise Element; all components contained in the Noise Element work together to balance goals to maintain a healthy

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/10/21» 5-5 noise environment with the ability to achieve the objectives contained in the recently updated LUE, which includes sustainable development patterns and economic development derived from mixed land uses and accommodating an array of regional and visitor-serving uses. In addition, the Noise Element, as a whole, is designed to establish and ensure internal consistency with the other General Plan Elements, as required by Government Code Section 65300.5. Further, a reduced project alternative would be inconsistent with all Project Objectives. Therefore, reduced project alternatives were rejected from further consideration and are not analyzed further in this Draft EIR.

5.3.2 Selection of Alternatives
Section 21100 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to identify and discuss a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project and that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts. As described above, there are no feasible alternatives other than the No Project Alternative, which is required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][1]). The following alternative is considered in this Draft EIR:
• Alternative 1: No Project Alternative. This alternative would involve no amendments to the City of Long Beach’s (City) General Plan or the Long Beach Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. The existing General Plan Noise Element (1975) and the current Noise Ordinance would continue to guide and regulate the City’s noise environment.

Overall, environmental impacts with regard to land use, noise, and transportation associated with the proposed project were found to be less than significant. No mitigation was required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, and no significant and unavoidable impacts would result from project implementation. The main objective of an alternatives analysis is to consider a range of alternatives that would substantially lessen any significant effects of a project. Since the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts, the No Project Alternatives is presented even though it does not represent a significant reduction in project-related impacts.

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

5.3.3 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative

5.3.3.1 Description
Consistent with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative assumes continued implementation of the existing General Plan Noise Element (1975) instead of the proposed Noise Element update. The No Project Alterative would also not include any amendments to the Long Beach Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. The existing General Plan Noise Element and the current Noise Ordinance would continue to guide and regulate the City’s noise environment.

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021
5 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/10/21» -6 Table 5.1: Summary of Project and Alternative
Alternative Description
Basis for Selection and
Summary Analysis
Proposed Project  Approximately 50-square-mile planning area
 Updated Noise Element
 Amendments to LBMC Chapter 8.80, Noise
Ordinance
 Meets all Project Objectives
 Requires General Plan Update/Amendment,
and amendments to LBMC Chapter 8.80,
Noise Ordinance
 No significant and unavoidable projectrelated impacts  Consistent with all Project Objectives
 Refer to Chapters 3.0 and 4.0 of this Draft
EIR
Alternative 1:

No Project
Alternative
 Continuation of the City’s existing General
Plan Noise Element (1975)
 No amendments to the current LBMC
Chapter 8.80, Noise Ordinance
 Required by CEQA
 Does not require General Plan Update/
Amendment and amendments to LBMC
Chapter 8.80, Noise Ordinance
 Would increase project-related land use
impacts because no changes to the General
Plan or Municipal Code would occur,
resulting in internal inconsistency with the
General Plan Land Use Element, updated in
2019
 Would have slightly greater project-related
noise impacts because new strategies and
policies aimed at minimizing noise impacts
would not be adopted
 Inconsistent with all of the Project
Objectives
LBMC = Long Beach Municipal Code

5.3.3.2 Environmental Analysis and Impacts
Land Use. The No Project Alternative would allow for noise regulation within the planning area to remain unchanged, consistent with the existing Noise Element and Noise Ordinance.

The No Project Alternative would not include updates to the Noise Element or Noise Ordinance as proposed under the project. As such, the No Project Alternative would result in an inconsistency between the existing Noise Element, adopted in 1975, and the Land Use Element, updated and adopted in 2019, which is the guiding land use document for development within the City.

Therefore, the No Project Alternative would be inconsistent with an existing land use plan for the planning area. As discussed in Section 3.2.2 in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, State law mandates that General Plan Elements be internally consistent. This internal inconsistency between General Plan Elements would remain under the No Project Alternative. As such, the No Project Alternative would conflict with State law.

Because no changes to the General Plan or Municipal Code would occur, it should be noted that this alternative would also result in conflicts with State recommendations provided by the State Office of the Attorney General. Specifically, the No Project Alternative would conflict with the State’s

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/10/21» 5-7 recommendation that General Plans be updated “periodically” (typically every 10 to 20 years) in order to address changes to State law; reflect current community values; update technical information (e.g., Census data); and respond to changing conditions in the environment, economy, and community. Specifically, the proposed project includes amendments to the Noise Ordinance to better reflect and be consistent with PlaceTypes established with the recently adopted Land Use Element (LUE) (December 2019); without amendments to the Noise Ordinance proposed as part of the project, the existing Noise Ordinance would not reflect current land use regulation envisioned under the LUE and the two regulatory documents would be internally inconsistent. For the reasons above, land use and planning impacts would be greater under the No Project Alternative as compared to the proposed project.

Land use impacts associated with the proposed project were determined less than significant. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts related to land use would be greater than those identified for the proposed project.

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

Under the No Project Alternative, short-term and long-term noise impacts would remain unchanged as analyzed under the proposed project. Since development of future projects is not controlled by the proposed project or the No Project Alternative, construction noise would continue to be produced as new projects are developed. Construction activities as part of future projects would continue to have the potential to adversely affect nearby noise-sensitive land uses, including residences, schools, hospitals, churches, and similar uses that are sensitive to noise. Any future construction activities and development would be required to adhere to the same exterior and interior noise standards for noise-sensitive receptors as required under the City’s existing Municipal Code regulations. However, strategies and policies aimed at reducing construction noise impacts, including Strategy No. 12 and Policies N 12-1 through N 12-7 as proposed under the project, would not exist under the No Project Alternative.

Under the No Project Alternative, future development projects may include the installation or creation of new stationary sources of noise, or could include the development of new sensitive land uses in the vicinity of existing noise sources. These stationary sources of noise would have the potential to disturb adjacent sensitive receptors. Although stationary sources of noise would remain unchanged, strategies and policies aimed at protecting sensitive receptors from stationary noise sources, including Strategy No. 1 and Policies N 1-1 through N 1-9 as proposed under the project, would not exist under the No Project Alternative.

Potential sources causing a permanent increase in ambient noise include noise resulting from increased traffic on roadways in the planning area. Under both the proposed project and the No Project Alternative, it is projected that traffic volumes on some streets within the City would increase due to the growth envisioned under the recently approved LUE. This increase in traffic volumes would result in increased traffic noise levels compared to existing conditions. Similar to the

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021
5 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/10/21» -8 proposed project, traffic noise under the No Project Alternative would not be expected to exceed 3 dBA and therefore would not be readily perceptible in suburban or urban outdoor environments.

However, strategies and policies aimed at managing traffic-related noise, including Strategy Nos. 6 through 8 and Policies N 6-1 through N 6-11, N 7-1 through 7-4, and N 8-1 to N 8-5 as proposed under the project, would not exist under the No Project Alternative. Additionally future traffic noise contours provided under the project would not be available for use as a guide to minimize the exposure of residents to excessive noise.

Common sources of ground-borne vibration and noise include trains and construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. Under the No Project Alternative, similar to the proposed project, future construction activities could result in the generation of ground-borne vibration. However, Chapter 8.80 of the City’s Noise Ordinance would continue to limit the operation of any device that creates vibration, including pile driving, that is above the vibration perception threshold. Any future construction activities would be required to comply with the Noise Ordinance requirements, similar to the proposed project. Although vibration impacts would remain unchanged, strategies and policies aimed at protecting sensitive receptors from vibration in excess of acceptable levels, including Strategy No. 12 as proposed under the project, would not exist under the No Project Alternative.

Under the No Project Alternative, similar to the proposed project, aircraft noise in the City of Long Beach would continue from aircraft operations at Long Beach Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, and John Wayne Airport. Although impacts from aircraft noise would remain unchanged, strategies and policies aimed at minimizing the adverse effects of aircraft-related noise, including Strategy No. 10 and Policy N 10-1 as proposed under the project, would not exist under the No Project Alternative.

Noise impacts associated with the proposed project were determined less than significant. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts related to noise would be similar to, although slightly greater than, those identified for the proposed project because new strategies and policies aimed at minimizing noise impacts would not be adopted.

Transportation. The No Project Alternative would allow for noise regulation within the planning area to remain unchanged, consistent with the existing Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. It is projected that traffic volumes on some streets within the City would increase due to the growth envisioned under the recently adopted LUE. This increase in traffic volumes would result in increased traffic and associated noise levels compared to existing conditions, similar to the proposed project.

The No Project Alternative would not result in impacts related to transportation. The No Project Alternative would not conflict with the General Plan Mobility Element, as the existing General Plan Noise Element is required to be consistent with all other existing General Plan Elements. Since the No Project Alternative would not result in transportation impacts, it would not conflict with the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) (Metro 2010). Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not conflict with existing transportation programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system, similar to the proposed project.

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
\\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/10/21» 5-9 Transportation impacts associated with the proposed project were determined less than significant.

Under the No Project Alternative, impacts related to transportation would be similar to those identified for the proposed project.

5.3.3.3 Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the eight Project Objectives. Because the No Project Alternative would not include the various strategies and policies proposed by the Noise Element, this alternative would not achieve any of the following Project Objectives: help the City achieve its goal of creating a healthy noise environment in Long Beach (Project Objective 1); balance business practices within dynamic, active, and engaging areas to promote activity, including special events, while respecting adjacent sensitive uses (Project Objective 2); create allowances associated with noise so that Long Beach can thrive as a dynamic, growing city (Project Objective 3); limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels in noise-sensitive areas and at noise-sensitive times of day (Project Objective 4); strive for a more equitable distribution of noise (Project Objective 5); apply site planning, building design, street design, and other design strategies to reduce noise impacts (Project Objective 6); actively enhance the regulation and management of noise to improve procedures and minimize noise impacts (Project Objective 7); nor would it generally maintain the current allowable interior and exterior noise thresholds as identified in the City Municipal Code Chapter 8.80, while better accommodating mixed land uses as contemplated by the recently updated General Plan LUE (Project Objective 8). Therefore, as compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.

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

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

No Project Alternative Impacts
Land Use Less Than Significant Impact Greater impacts
Noise Less Than Significant Impact Similar, but slightly greater impacts Transportation Less Than Significant Impact Similar impacts Attainment of Project Objectives Meets all of the Project Objectives Meets none of the Project Objectives The No Project Alternative has greater land use impacts than the proposed project because, without amendments to the Noise Ordinance proposed as part of this project, the existing Noise Ordinance would be inconsistent with land use regulation envisioned under the LUE and would conflict with State recommendations provided by the State Office of the Attorney General related to the update of General Plans. Additionally, the No Project Alternative has slightly greater noise impacts than the

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021
5 \\vcorp12\projects\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\5.0 Alternatives.docx «03/10/21» -10 proposed project because new strategies and policies aimed at minimizing noise impacts would not be adopted. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have slightly greater impacts as compared to the proposed project. Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the eight Project Objectives.

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

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx «03/12/21» 6-1

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

1. Significant short- and long-term environmental effects associated with project implementation (Section 6.1, Short-and Long-Term Implications);

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

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

4. Significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of the proposed project (Section 6.4, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes); and

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

6.1 SHORT- AND LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS
Section 15126.2(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify and focus on the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment. Specifically, Section 15126.2(a) states that an EIR shall:
“Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects. The discussion should include relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, and changes induced in population distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land (including commercial and residential development), health and safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other aspects of the resource base such as water, historical resources, scenic quality, and public services. The EIR shall also analyze any significant environmental effects the project might cause or risk exacerbating by bringing development and people into the area affected.” The proposed project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance, which are considered policy/planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development. The proposed Noise Element, together with

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021
6 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx «03/12/21» -2 the recently adopted General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) and Urban Design Element (UDE), would serve to guide the overall development and urban form of the entire City through the horizon year 2040. The proposed project would not include any physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, or induce changes in population distribution, population concentration, and the human use of the land. The proposed project would not result in or exacerbate any significant environmental effects by bringing development and people into the area affected because the project does not regulate land use. The proposed project would only serve to regulate the noise environment within the City and would not include or facilitate any new physical improvements or development.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create potential short-term or longterm direct or indirect significant effects.

6.2 ENERGY IMPACTS
According to Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “[i]f analysis of the project’s energy use reveals that the project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, the EIR shall mitigate that energy use.”
As described in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) (Appendix A of this Draft EIR), the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to energy use. The proposed project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance, which are considered policy/planning actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development that would require energy consumption. Therefore, no energy impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.

6.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided. Specifically, Section 15126.2(c) states that an EIR shall:
“Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described.”
Chapter 1.0, Executive Summary, of this Draft EIR contains a detailed summary that identifies the proposed project’s environmental impacts as compared to existing conditions, proposed mitigation measures, and the level of significance of any impacts after mitigation. All environmental issues analyzed in this Draft EIR were determined to result in less than significant impacts. Therefore, as determined in the contents of this Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. Further, no mitigation measures are required to reduce project-related impacts.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx «03/12/21» 6-3

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

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

The proposed General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance are considered planning/policy actions and do not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development. The commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources required for construction and operation of future development would limit the availability of these resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the project. However, the proposed project would not result in an irreversible commitment of these resources, as the proposed project would not, in itself, result in any direct physical improvements or development. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, and thus, would not result in significant irreversible changes.

6.5 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR analyze growthinducing impacts and state that an EIR should discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth or construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) also requires a discussion of the characteristics of projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. A project that meets any of these criteria may be considered growth-inducing. The potential growth-inducing impacts associated with the proposed project are evaluated below.

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

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

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021
6 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\6.0 Other CEQA Considerations.docx «03/12/21» -4 Approval of the proposed General Plan Noise Element and amendments to the City’s Noise Ordinance is considered a planning/policy action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements or development. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies intended to provide protection for land uses, as identified in the LUE, from excessive noise and vibration sources, as well as to implement the vision of a healthy, livable noise environment in the City. The Noise Ordinance regulates the noise environment in the City and implements the policies of the proposed Noise Element. The proposed project would not, in itself, facilitate or allow any physical improvements or development that would induce population, housing, or employment growth. Implementation of the proposed project would not remove obstacles to growth or foster growth because the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance do not facilitate or allow physical development. Additionally, the proposed project does not include any policies or regulations which would directly foster economic growth and would not involve any characteristics that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment. For the reasons stated above, the proposed project is not considered to be growth-inducing, and therefore, the proposed project would not result in any growth-inducing impacts.

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\7.0 List of Preparers and Persons Consulted.docx «03/12/21» 7-1

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED

7.1 CITY OF LONG BEACH
The following individuals from the City of Long Beach were involved in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR):
 Patricia Diefenderfer, Advance Planning Officer, Development Services Department  Jennifer Ly, Planner, Development Services Department

7.2 CONSULTANT TEAM
The following firms were involved in the preparation of the Draft EIR and/or the proposed General Plan Noise Element. The nature of their involvement is summarized below.

7.2.1 LSA Associates, Inc.

The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the Draft EIR and/or the proposed General Plan Noise Element:
 Ashley Davis, Principal in Charge
 Shelby Cramton, Project Manager/Senior Environmental Planner  J.T. Stephens, Associate/Senior Noise Specialist
 Marlene Watanabe, Assistant Environmental Planner
 Gary Dow, Associate, Graphics
 Lauren Johnson, Technical Editor
 Chantik Virgil, Senior Word Processor

7.2.2 RRM Design Group
The following individuals were involved in the preparation of the proposed General Plan Noise Element:
 Jami Williams, Principal
 Diane Bathgate, Principal
 Lance D. Wierschem, Associate Designer

7.3 PERSONS CONSULTED
The following individuals were consulted during the preparation of this Draft EIR:
 Andrew Salas, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation  Anthony Morales, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians  Robert Dorame, Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council  Sandonne Goad, Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation
 Charles Alvarez, Gabrieleno-Tongva Tribe

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021
7 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\7.0 List of Preparers and Persons Consulted.docx «03/12/21» -2  Joseph Ontiveros, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
 Michael Mirelez, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians  Linda Candelaria, Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/12/21» 8-1

8.0 REFERENCES
The following references were used in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Long Beach General Plan Noise Element Project (proposed project).

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
City of Long Beach. General Plan (as amended). Website: http://www.lbds.info/planning/advance_ planning/general_plan.asp
_____. 1973. General Plan Conservation Element. April.
_____. 1975a. General Plan Noise Element. March.
_____. 1975b. General Plan Scenic Routes Element (Scenic Highways). May. _____. 1978. General Plan Public Safety Element. May.
_____. 1988. General Plan Seismic Safety Element. October. _____. 1996. General Plan Air Quality Element.
_____. 2002. Open Space Element. October.
_____. 2013. General Plan Mobility Element. October.
_____. 2019. General Plan Land Use Element. December.
_____. 2019a. Draft General Plan Noise Element. December. (Appendix B of this Draft EIR). _____. 2019b. General Plan Urban Design Element. December. _____. City of Long Beach Municipal Code. Website: https://www.municode.com/library/ca/long_ beach/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=16115
State of California. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Website: http://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/
CHAPTER 2.0, INTRODUCTION
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2011. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. Los Angeles County. September 2011.

California Fish and Game Code. Section 5303.

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021
8 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/12/21» -2 City of Long Beach. Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Discharges from the City of Long Beach (City of Long Beach MS4 Permit), Order No. R4-2014- 0024, NPDES No. CAS004003.

Long Beach Water Department (LBWD). Water Sources. Website: https://lbwater.org/watersources/ (accessed March 25, 2020).

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2017. 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP).

United States Code (USC). Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 16 USC 703 – 712.

United States Department of Labor. 2017. Appendix A TO §1910.1200—Health Hazard Criteria, Section A.4 Respiratory or Skin Sensitization. Website: https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/ hazcom-appendix-a.html (accessed March 25, 2020).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). National Wetlands Inventory. Website:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed March 25, 2020).

SECTION 4.1, LAND USE AND PLANNING
LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2019. Special Events Noise Analysis. April.

Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 1991. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). December.

Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 1975, Amended 2016. Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) at Los Alamitos.

SECTION 4.2, NOISE
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook, Table 9.1. August.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2012. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. September.
_____. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123.

September.

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

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

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/12/21» 8-3 SECTION 4.3, TRANSPORTATION
City of Long Beach. 2016a. Communities of Excellence in Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Prevention (CX3) Pedestrian Plan. October.
_____. 2016b. Downtown and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Pedestrian Master Plan. May. _____. 2017. Bicycle Master Plan. February.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2010. Congestion Management Program (CMP).

DR A F T EN V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T RE P O R T

GE N E R A L P L A N NO I S E EL E M E N T

C I T Y O F L O N G BE A C H
MA R C H 2021
8 P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\8.0 References.docx «03/12/21» -4 This page intentionally left blank
element
City of Long Beach General Plan
creating livable environments
NOISE
2040
Volume II: Appendices to the Draft Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2019050009
March 2021
This page intentionally left blank
VOLUME II:

APPENDICES TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019050009

GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT AND
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S NOISE ORDINANCE

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Submitted to:

City of Long Beach
Development Services, Planning Bureau
411 West Ocean Boulevard, Third Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Prepared by:

March 2021
This page intentionally left blank

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\Appendix A.docx «03/12/21»

APPENDIX A

INITIAL STUDY, NOTICE OF PREPARATION, AND

PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\Appendix A.docx «03/12/21» This page intentionally left blank

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\Appendix A.docx «03/12/21»

INITIAL STUDY

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\Appendix A.docx «03/12/21» This page intentionally left blank
May 2019
DRAFT

INITIAL STUDY

GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
This page intentionally left blank
May 2019
DRAFT

INITIAL STUDY

GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Submitted to:

City of Long Beach
Development Services, Planning Bureau
333 West Ocean Boulevard, Fifth Floor
Long Beach, California 90802
Prepared by:

LSA
20 Executive Park, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92614
(949) 553-0666
Project No. CLB1901
This page intentionally left blank

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................ iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Contact Person.................................................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project location and setting .............................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Long Beach General Plan................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 State General Plan Requirements.......................................................................................2-2

2.2.2 General Plan Consistency ...................................................................................................2-3

2.2.3 Comprehensive Nature of the General Plan.......................................................................2-5

2.3 Project History................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.3.1 Current Noise Element .......................................................................................................2-5

2.3.2 Noise Element Update........................................................................................................2-6

2.4 Proposed Project............................................................................................................... 2-6

2.4.1 Project Summary ................................................................................................................2-6

2.4.2 Project Strategies................................................................................................................2-7

2.4.3 Administration and Implementation..................................................................................2-8

2.4.4 Noise Plan...........................................................................................................................2-8

2.5 Discretionary Actions, Permits, and Other Approvals.....................................................2-13

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED........................................ 3-1

4.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................... 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.2 Agricultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 4-7

4.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 4-10

4.4 Biological Resources........................................................................................................ 4-13

4.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 4-17

4.6 Energy.............................................................................................................................. 4-19

4.7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................ 4-20

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................4-25

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................4-27

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .........................................................................................4-31

4.11 Land Use Planning ........................................................................................................... 4-35

4.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................... 4-36

4.13 Noise................................................................................................................................ 4-38

4.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 4-39

4.15 Public Services................................................................................................................. 4-40

4.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 4-43

4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 4-45

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 4-47

4.19 Utilities/Service Systems................................................................................................. 4-50

4.20 WIldfire............................................................................................................................ 4-56

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
«05/14/19» ii

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................................ 4-59

5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 5-1

FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Project Location.............................................................................................................. 2-15 Figure 2-2: Existing Major Sources of Noise ..................................................................................... 2-17 Figure 2-3: Proposed Land Use Element PlaceTypes........................................................................ 2-19 Figure 2-4: Future Traffic Noise Contours (2040) ............................................................................. 2-21 TABLES
Table 2.A: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Transportation Sources............................... 2-11

APPENDICES
A: Noise Element

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AB Assembly Bill
Action Plan Sustainable City Action Plan
af acre feet
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
Basin South Coast Air Basin
BMP best management practices
CAAP Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
California Register California Register of Historical Resources CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CC Community Commercial PlaceType
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Long Beach
CH4 methane
City City of Long Beach
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
County Los Angeles County
dBA A-weighted decibel(s)
DOC California Department of Conservation
DT Downtown PlaceType
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FCN Founding and Contemporary Neighborhood PlaceType
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
«05/14/19» iv
GCC global climate change
GHG greenhouse gas(es)
GPG General Plan Guidelines
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
I Industrial PlaceType
I-405 Interstate 405
I-605 Interstate 605
I-710 Interstate 710
IS Initial Study
JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
LACSD Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
L.A. River Los Angeles River
LBFD Long Beach Fire Department
LBPD Long Beach Police Department
Ldn day-night average level
LBPL Long Beach Public Library
LBPRM Long Beach Parks, Recreation, and Marine Department LBUSD Long Beach Unified School District
LBWD Long Beach Water Department
LCP Local Coastal Program
LUE General Plan Land Use Element
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority MFR-L Multi-Family Residential - Low PlaceType
MFR-M Multi-Family Residential - Moderate PlaceType
mgd million gallons per day
MRZs Mineral Resource Zones
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC National Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
ND Negative Declaration

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» v
NI Neo-Industrial PlaceType
NSC-L Neighborhood-Serving Centers and Corridors – Low PlaceType NSC-M Neighborhood-Serving Centers and Corridors – Moderate PlaceType NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
O3 ozone
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OS Open Space PlaceType
PCH Pacific Coast Highway
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PRC Public Resources Code
project proposed adoption of a new General Plan Noise Element RSF Regional-Serving Facility PlaceType
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SEASP Southeast Area Specific Plan
SERRF Southeast Resource Recovery Facility
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
State State of California
SR-1 State Route 1
SR-22 State Route 22
SR-47 State Route 47
SR-91 State Route 91
SR-103 State Route 103
TOD-L Transit-Oriented Development – Low PlaceType
TOD-M Transit-Oriented Development – Moderate PlaceType UDE General Plan Urban Design Element
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
vi «05/14/19»
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management District
VHFHSZ very high fire hazard severity zone
WF Waterfront PlaceType
Working Group Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group WRP Water Reclamation Plant

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study (IS) has been prepared for the proposed General Plan Noise Element (proposed project) in Long Beach, California. Pursuant to Section 15063(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the Lead Agency, the City of Long Beach (City) is required to undertake the preparation of an IS to determine whether the proposed action will have a significant effect on the environment. The purposes of this IS are to: (1) identify potential environmental impacts; (2) provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or other CEQA document; (3) enable the Lead Agency to modify the project (through mitigation of adverse impacts); (4) facilitate assessment of potential environmental impacts early in the design of the project; and (5) provide documentation for the potential finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment or can be mitigated to a less than significant level (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063[c]). This IS is also an informational document providing an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions that could be required from other Responsible Agencies.

This IS evaluates the potential environmental impacts that may result from development of the project. Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15050, the City is the Lead Agency under CEQA and is responsible for adoption or certification of the environmental document and approval of the project.

1.1 CONTACT PERSON
Any questions or comments regarding the preparation of this IS, its assumptions, or its conclusions should be referred to:

Jennifer Ly, Planner
City of Long Beach Development Services, Planning Bureau 333 West Ocean Boulevard, Fifth Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 570-6368
Email: [email protected]

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
1 «05/14/19» -2
This page intentionally left blank

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 2-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
As illustrated by Figure 2-1, Project Location, the location for the Noise Element project (also referred to as the “planning area”) encompasses the entire 50 square miles within the limits of the City of Long Beach (excluding the City of Signal Hill, which is completely surrounded by the City of Long Beach) in Los Angeles County (County), California. The City is bordered on the west by the Cities of Carson and Los Angeles (including Wilmington and the Port of Los Angeles); on the north by the Cities of Compton, Paramount, and Bellflower, and the unincorporated community of Rancho Dominguez; and on the east by the Cities of Lakewood, Hawaiian Gardens, Cypress, Los Alamitos, and Seal Beach, and the unincorporated community of Rossmoor. The Pacific Ocean borders the southern portion of the City, and as such, portions of the City are located within the California Coastal Zone.

Regional access to the City is provided by Interstate 710 (I-710, which traverses the western portion of the City from north to south), Interstate 405 (I-405, which traverses the central portion of the City from northwest to southeast), State Route 91 (SR-91, which traverses the northernmost portion of the City from east to west), State Routes 103 and 47 (SR-103 and SR-47, respectively, which traverse the western border of the City from north to south), and State Route 1 (SR-1, which traverses the central portion of the City from east to west), commonly referred to as Pacific Coast Highway (PCH or SR-1). In addition, Interstate 605 and State Route 22 (I-605 and SR-22, respectively, located northeast and east of the City) provide access to the eastern portion of the City.

In addition, a variety of transit routes maintained by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the Long Beach Transit, and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provide both regional and local access to and within the City. A variety of bicycle lanes and paths serve the City, including regional connections along PCH, the San Gabriel River pathway, and the Los Angeles River pathway.

2.2 LONG BEACH GENERAL PLAN
The proposed project is a new General Plan Noise Element (included as Appendix A of this IS), which would replace the City’s existing 1975 Noise Element. As required by Section 65302 of the California Government Code, the Noise Element is a required element of a City’s General Plan.

The Long Beach General Plan represents a comprehensive approach for managing the community’s future. The Long Beach General Plan also reflects the City’s long-term strategy for directing physical, economic, and cultural development. The General Plan is a legally binding policy document intended to serve as a guide for developers and communities and to inform decisions made by City officials regarding future development and the management of land and natural resources.

In relation to development, the Long Beach General Plan serves as a blueprint guiding the type of community the City desires for its future, and also provides the means by which that desired future can be attained. The General Plan establishes goals, policies, and a vision for the future and utilizes text, maps, and graphic illustrations to express the organization of the physical, environmental,

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
2 «05/14/19» -2
economic, and social environment sought by the community in order to achieve a healthful, functional, and desirable place in which to reside and work.

2.2.1 State General Plan Requirements
Government Code Section 65302 et seq. requires that every city and county in the State of California (State) prepare and adopt a “comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” As further mandated by the State, the General Plan must serve to:
• Identify land use, circulation, environmental, economic, and social goals and policies for the City and its surrounding planning area as they relate to land use and development; • Provide a framework within which both the City Planning Commission and the City Council can make land use decisions;
• Provide citizens the opportunity to participate in the planning and decision-making process affecting the City and its surrounding planning area; and • Inform citizens, developers, decision-makers, and other agencies, as appropriate, of the City's basic rules that will guide both environmental protection and land development decisions within the City and surrounding planning area.

State law requires that the General Plan include the following seven mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation1
, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. While these seven elements are required, State law also allows flexibility in how each local jurisdiction structures these elements. In addition to these seven elements, the existing Long Beach General Plan includes elements addressing the following issues beyond those required by State law: Historic Preservation, Air Quality, Seismic Safety, and Scenic Routes. While State law does not mandate discussion of these issues, once adopted, “optional” issues have the same force and effect as policies related to the General Plan elements required by the State. Currently, the City is preparing an updated Land Use Element (LUE), which is a mandatory element that would replace the existing LUE, and a new Urban Design Element (UDE), which is an optional element that would replace the Scenic Routes Element. In addition, the City also has a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) governing land use in coastal areas of the City. As required by the California Coastal Act, the City’s LCP is consistent with the land use plan, goals, objectives, and policies established in the City’s General Plan.

Government Code Section 65040.2 requires the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to adopt and periodically revise the General Plan Guidelines (GPG). The 2017 GPG are used to guide cities and counties in the State regarding the preparation and content of general plans. In order to streamline the process and reduce costs associated with adopting or amending a general plan, the 2017 GPG 1 The Circulation Element, as required by State law, is titled the Mobility Element in the City’s current General Plan.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 2-3
provides free online tools and resources, promotes increased use of online data, and includes templates and sample policies.

Government Code Section 65302(f) states that a Noise Element should identify and assess noise problems in the community. Specifically, the noise element should analyze and quantify current and projected noise levels for the following sources:
• Highways and freeways;
• Primary arterials and major local streets;
• Passenger and freight online railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems; • Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation;
• Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards; and • Other ground stationary noise sources, including, but not limited to, military installations, identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment.

Noise contours should be shown for the above sources and stated in terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day-night average level (Ldn). Additionally, the noise contours should be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the Land Use Element that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. Further, the Noise Element should include implementation measures and feasible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems. Once adopted, this Noise Element will carry the same legal weight as any of the seven mandatory elements and will be consistent with all the other elements, as required by Government Code Section 65300.5.

2.2.2 General Plan Consistency
In addition to providing a comprehensive strategy for directing future growth, State law mandates that the General Plan be internally consistent. Specifically, Government Code Section 65300.5 requires the various components of a General Plan to, “comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.” The three primary components required to maintain internal General Plan consistency are as follows:

1. Equal Status among General Plan Elements. All elements of a General Plan have equal status and no one General Plan element takes precedence over any other. As such, the General Plan elements must be consistent in order to avoid potential conflicts between or among the elements.

2. Consistency between Elements and within Individual Elements. All General Plan elements must be consistent with each other. For example, policies and implementation strategies outlined in

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
2 «05/14/19» -4
one General Plan element must not require or encourage an action that would be prohibited or discouraged by policies and implementation strategies in another General Plan element.

3. General Plan Text, Diagram, and Map Consistency. Text, diagrams, and maps must be consistent with one another and with goals and policies outlined in all elements of the General Plan.

The Noise Element interrelates with policies in other elements of the General Plan, including the proposed Land Use and Urban Design Elements, the Housing Element, the Mobility Element, and the Open Space Element. The interrelationship between the Noise Element and the five other elements should be acknowledged in order to prepare an integrated General Plan. The relationship between noise and the aforementioned elements is described below. • Proposed Land Use Element. The City is currently in the process of updating and adopting a new proposed Land Use Element (LUE), which would replace the existing 1989 LUE. The proposed updated LUE would introduce the concept of “PlaceTypes,” which would replace the current approach in the existing LUE of segregating property within the City through traditional land uses designations and zoning classifications. The updated LUE would establish 14 primary PlaceTypes that would divide the City into distinct neighborhoods, thus allowing for greater flexibility and a mix of compatible land uses within these areas. Each PlaceType would be defined by unique land use, form, and character-defining goals, policies, and implementation strategies tailored specifically to the particular application of that PlaceType within the City. When integrated with the Noise Element, the proposed LUE will show land uses in relation to existing and projected noise contours.
• Proposed Urban Design Element. The City is currently in the process of updating and adopting the proposed Urban Design Element (UDE), which would replace the existing 1975 Scenic Routes Element. The proposed UDE would define the physical aspects of the urban environment.

Specifically, the UDE aims to further enhance the City’s PlaceTypes established in the proposed LUE by creating great places; improving the urban fabric, and public spaces; and defining edges, thoroughfares, and corridors. In addition, the City intends to utilize the UDE to foster healthy, sustainable neighborhoods; promote compact and connected development; minimize and fill in gaps in the urban fabric of existing neighborhoods; improve the cohesion between buildings, roadways, public spaces, and people; and improve the economic vitality of the City. Proposed urban design techniques and policies, such as incorporation of noise attenuation methods, can be employed to mitigate noise impacts and are included in the proposed UDE and proposed Noise Element.
• Housing Element. The 2014 Housing Element covers an eight-year planning period (from October 15, 2013, to October 15, 2021) and includes discussion regarding adequate sites for new housing and standards for housing stock. The Housing Element identifies policies, programs, and objectives that focus on conserving and improving existing affordable housing; providing adequate sites for new housing; assisting in development of affordable housing; removing governmental constraints to housing development; and promoting equal housing opportunities.

Since residential uses are considered noise sensitive, the noise exposure and contour information

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 2-5
provided in the Noise Element can be utilized for future planning efforts, and helps to identity potential noise constraints.
• Mobility Element. The 2013 Mobility Element focuses on improving the quality of life for Long Beach residents through transportation and mobility planning. • Open Space Element. The 2002 Open Space Element covers four topic areas related to open space: the preservation of natural resources, the managed production of resources, public health and safety, and outdoor recreation. Excessive noise can adversely affect the enjoyment of recreation activities in designated open space. As such, noise exposure levels should be considered when planning open space. Conversely, open space can be used to buffer sensitive land uses from noise sources through the use of setbacks and landscaping.

It is also important to note that the General Plan aims to balance competing objectives and community priorities. As such, in interpreting goals, policies, and implementation strategies in the General Plan, care must be given to determine the “best fit” for the action to be taken, aimed towards achieving the City’s short-term and long-term priorities.

2.2.3 Comprehensive Nature of the General Plan
The Long Beach General Plan establishes goals, policies, and implementation strategies aimed at guiding the physical, social, environmental, and economic environments. In addition to addressing the State-mandated components of a General Plan, the Long Beach General Plan also responds to current and future issues the City faces. In order to fully address these issues, the Long Beach General Plan planning area encompasses the current City limits, while also keeping in mind the regional context of its planning efforts. For example, certain issues such as traffic, transit, air quality, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have both a local and regional component. In such cases, the General Plan addresses the degree to which the City’s interests, values, and concerns are congruent or conflict with existing regional policies. Furthermore, it is also the role of the Long Beach General Plan to define the extent to which the City can address local issues and those issues that require cooperative actions among several jurisdictions.

2.3 PROJECT HISTORY

2.3.1 Current Noise Element
The current 1975 Noise Element includes a comprehensive program for noise control and abatement in the City. The 1975 Noise Element includes an action program, which includes goals and policies aimed at implementing the noise control plan, inventories of existing noise levels, identification of potential problem areas, and an outline of the noise control ordinance. Specifically, the 1975 Noise Element focuses on four main categories: transportation, industrial, construction, and population noise.

The 1975 Noise Element concludes by recommending the following criteria for the maximum acceptable noise levels by major land use categories: (1) the reduction of noise to a harmless level where existing noise levels threaten the health and/or welfare of the public; (2) the elimination or reduction of environmental degradation where existing noise levels degrade the environment; and

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
2 «05/14/19» -6
(3) preservation of the quietness of the environment where existing ambient noise levels are low. The proposed Noise Element would replace the existing 1975 Noise Element. Approval of the new Noise Element would result in future updates to the City’s Zoning Code and the Noise Ordinance in the Municipal Code to resolve several specific inconsistencies. Additionally, the project may require additional amendments to the City’s Municipal Code, related to noise, to ensure consistency with the updated Noise Element.

2.3.2 Noise Element Update
The City’s Noise Element was last updated in 1975, and at that time, it was implemented through a 1977 Noise Ordinance. Since then, the City's physical development, population, regional context, and the regulatory guidance involving noise have changed significantly. In order to allow for increased flexibility in responding to such changes, the City proposes to update and replace the existing 1975 Noise Element with a new Noise Element. The decision to update and replace the Noise Element was made in part to accomplish the following:
• Guide physical development in the City based on the projected population increases through the year 2040;
• Provide a tailored approach to noise policy across neighborhoods, recognizing the unique characteristics of a mixed-use Downtown and major transportation corridor environments; • Limit noise exposure, particularly in areas with nearby housing, hospital, school or day care center uses;
• Improve the health of City residents through urban planning approaches; and • Respond to changing technologies.

2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is a new General Plan Noise Element, which would replace the City’s existing 1975 Noise Element. As required by Section 65302 of the California Government Code, the Noise Element is a required element of a City’s General Plan. The following discussion summarizes the key components of the proposed Noise Element.

2.4.1 Project Summary
The proposed project includes the approval of an updated Noise Element for incorporation into the City’s General Plan. The proposed Noise Element includes strategies and policies intended to provide protection for land uses, as identified in the proposed LUE, from excessive noise and vibration sources, as well as to implement the vision of a healthy, livable noise environment in the City.

The topics of noise and vibration are introduced with a discussion of the function of a Noise Element and its role within other planning and regulatory frameworks, the community engagement involved in shaping the element, and concepts for implementing the vision of the element. The Noise Element also includes information related to noise fundamentals, such as the characteristics of sound,

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 2-7
measurement of sound and definitions of acoustical terms, physiological effects of exposure to noise, and common sound levels and their noise sources.

2.4.2 Project Strategies
As part of the Noise Element, the City has established the following strategies related to noise, which would aid review of future projects and their associated environmental impacts:

1. Apply site planning and other design strategies to reduce noise impacts, especially within the Founding and Contemporary Neighborhoods, Multifamily Residential – Low and Moderate, and Neighborhood-Serving Centers and Corridors – Low and Moderate PlaceTypes.

2. Create a balance of business practices within dynamic, active, and engaging areas such as the Transit-Oriented Development – Low and Moderate, Downtown, and Waterfront PlaceType areas to promote activity while respecting adjacent sensitive uses.

3. Capitalize on urban design techniques and business operation strategies within business and employment center PlaceTypes (Community Commercial, Industrial, Neo-Industrial, RegionalServing Facility, Port of Long Beach) to minimize noise impacts on surrounding adjacent uses.

4. Protect and buffer noise sensitive areas and uses through effective building design and material selection.

5. Implement best practices to reduce impacts of noise from industrial sources.

6. Minimize vehicular traffic noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.

7. Promote alternative forms of mobility to reduce noise generated from vehicular traffic.

8. Implement street design and maintenance practices to minimize vehicular noise impacts.

9. Minimize train noise in residential areas and near noise-sensitive land uses.

10. While the operations of airports and airport related uses are noisy by nature, the adverse effects of aircraft-related noise should be minimized.

11. Minimize watercraft noise level impacts to residential areas and in other locations near noisesensitive uses, where possible.

12. Minimize construction noise and vibration levels in residential areas and in other locations near noise-sensitive uses where possible.

13. Balance the needs of special events while prioritizing the well-being of residents.

14. Ensure meaningful participation in the public process by all members of the community, especially historically excluded or marginalized groups.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
2 «05/14/19» -8

15. Reduce the disproportionate environmental noise burdens affecting low-income and minority populations.

16. Continue to actively enhance the regulation and management of noise to improve procedures and minimize noise impacts.

In addition to these 16 strategies, the proposed Noise Element contains numerous policies that work together to achieve the goals of creating a healthy, livable community with the equitable distribution of noise, minimizing exposures to excessive noise, and allowances for elements necessary for a dynamic, growing city. These citywide policies aim to provide a holistic and comprehensive guide for the City, whereas future projects facilitated by project approval would provide a refined direction for distinct areas within the City.

2.4.3 Administration and Implementation
The Noise Element includes implementation tools and strategies in order to effectively implement the goals and policies contained in the Noise Plan. Implementation tools are comprised of City regulatory process, such as zoning regulations, the Noise Ordinance, development review, building and housing codes, CEQA compliance, City noise procedures and management, interagency coordination, and enforcement. The implementation strategies summarize goals and policies from the Noise Plan and identify the responsible City departments and general timeframes for completion. Periodic progress reports will be prepared every two to three years to ensure the City is adhering to implementation strategies outlined in the Noise Element.

2.4.4 Noise Plan
The proposed Noise Element includes a Noise Plan, which addresses strategies and policies related to six topic areas describing sources of existing noise and vibration: (1) PlaceType Characteristics and Land Use Compatibility; (2) Mobility, including vehicular noise, rail, aircraft, and watercraft; (3) Construction; (4) Special Events; (5) Environmental Justice and Social Equity; and (6) Noise Management. Figure 2-2, Existing Major Sources of Noise, shows existing major sources of noise in the planning area.

2.4.4.1 PlaceType Characteristics and Land Use Compatibility PlaceTypes identified within the proposed LUE establish neighborhood form, character and community scaled districts structured around development patterns, streetscape design, and urban form. In addition, these PlaceTypes range in development intensity and activity. Policies in the proposed Noise Element correspond to the proposed LUE PlaceTypes that reflect differentiated area characteristics. Refer to Strategy Nos. 1 through 5 in Section 2.4.2, Project Strategies, related to PlaceType characteristics and land use compatibility.

The 14 PlaceTypes proposed by the LUE are illustrated on Figure 2-3, Proposed Land Use Element PlaceTypes, and described in further detail below.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 2-9

1. Open Space. The Open Space (OS) PlaceType aims to promote and conserve the emotional and physical health of the City’s residents through the provision of natural environments, which include recreational open space; scenic, natural, or cultural features; and utilities and/or infrastructure with environmentally sensitive resources. Allowable uses within this PlaceType include parks, beaches, golf courses, marinas, flood control channels and basins, rivers, utility rights-of-way, oil islands, inland bodies of water, nature preserves, marine habitats, estuaries, wetlands, lagoons, and limited commercial recreation uses that support existing programs and facilities.

2. Founding and Contemporary Neighborhood. The Founding and Contemporary Neighborhood (FCN) PlaceType represents the City’s low-density residential neighborhoods, from older street car urban neighborhoods (Founding Neighborhoods) to post-World War II suburban housing (Contemporary Neighborhoods), which are predominantly characterized by single-family uses separated by large commercial centers.
3–4. Multi-Family Residential—Low and Moderate. The Multi-Family Residential (MFR-L and MFRM) PlaceTypes aim to provide a variety of housing options (i.e., condominium duplex, triplex, and garden apartment uses) adjacent to neighborhood-serving commercial uses to meet the range of lifestyles of the City’s community members.
5–6. Neighborhood-Serving Centers and Corridors—Low and Moderate. Commercial corridors and centers are located throughout the City. As such, the Neighborhood-Serving Centers and Corridors (NSC-L and NSC-M) PlaceTypes aim to locate low- to moderate- intensity mixed-uses (i.e., residential/retail) near these areas in an effort to provide goods and services near housing. 7–8. Transit-Oriented Development – Low and Moderate. The City is currently served by bus, shuttle, and other transit services. In particular, the Metro Blue Line light rail has a significant presence along Long Beach Boulevard and the City’s Downtown area. As such, the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD-L and TOD-M) PlaceTypes aim to provide multi-family residential uses near areas adjacent to the Metro Blue Line and the continuation of mixed-uses (residential and community-serving commercial uses) at a higher intensity to promote a pedestrian-friendly, active streetscape.

9. Community Commercial. The Community Commercial (CC) PlaceType allows for auto-oriented commercial development along primary arterials in the City, with residential uses strictly prohibited. Allowable uses within this PlaceType include commercial uses that serve communitybased needs for goods and services.

10. Industrial. The Industrial (I) PlaceType would allow for light industrial research parks, warehousing or storage activities, industrial manufacturing, and machining operations in areas generally separated from residential uses. Allowable uses within this PlaceType include research and development activities, storage, industrial, and manufacturing activities, tank farms, and oildrilling activities.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
2 «05/14/19» -10

11. Neo-Industrial. The Neo-Industrial (NI) PlaceType encourages light industrial activities, particularly those related to innovative start-up businesses and creative design offices in the arts, engineering, sciences, technology, media, education, and information industries. Allowable uses within this PlaceType include light industrial, clean manufacturing, offices, commercial uses to support business endeavors, and repurposed buildings with live/work artist studios.

12. Regional-Serving Facility. Due to its size and location between the City of Los Angeles and the County of Orange, the City of Long Beach is home to a variety of regional-serving facilities that serve the sub-region and region. Primary examples of these facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: medical centers; the Port of Long Beach; Long Beach City College; the Long Beach Airport; California State University Long Beach; the Department of Motor Vehicles; the City’s Health Department; and Ability First (provides programs for children and adults with disabilities or special needs). Allowable uses within this Regional-Serving Facility (RSF) PlaceType include medical centers, higher education campuses, port services, airport uses, regional destination retail centers (i.e., Douglas Park) and recreation uses, public facilities, and the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) area.

13. Downtown. The Downtown (DT) PlaceType encompasses the area overlooking the Pacific Ocean where the Los Angeles River and the Port of Long Beach meet. In its existing setting, the Downtown area consists of offices, and government and tourism uses, and is home to several historic and cultural districts. The 2012 Downtown Plan currently serves as the land use plan guiding development in the Downtown area.

14. Waterfront. The Waterfront (WF) PlaceType includes three primary areas along the City’s shoreline, including the Downtown Shoreline Area waterfront, Alamitos Bay Marina, and the Belmont Pier and Pool Complex area. Specifically, the Waterfront PlaceType would encourage high-intensity, compact, and diverse uses (e.g., housing, offices, hotels, and tourism attractions) in the Downtown Shoreline Area (e.g., the Queen Mary and the Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific).

2.4.4.2 Mobility
The planning area includes multiple sources of noise related to mobility, including vehicles, rail, aircraft, and watercraft. Figure 2-4, Future Traffic Noise Contours (2040), shows the future traffic noise contours, which are consistent with the proposed LUE and Mobility Element assumptions. Table

2.A shows the maximum noise exposure from transportation sources allowable under the proposed Noise Element.

Strategy Nos. 6 through 11, in Section 2.4.2, Project Strategies, are aimed at reducing mobility-related noise.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 2-11
Table 2.A: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Transportation Sources PlaceType Uses
CNEL (dBA)
Interior¹
,
² Exterior³
Open Space
• Open Space (OS)
Playgrounds, neighborhood parks N/A 70
Golf Courses, riding stables, water
recreation, cemeteries

N/A N/A
Neighborhoods
• Founding and Contemporary Neighborhood (N)
• Multi-Family Residential-Low (MRF-L)
• Multi-Family Residential-Moderate (MRF-M)
Single-family, duplex and
multiple-family
45 65
Mobile home park N/A 65
Mixed-Use
• Neighborhood-Serving Center or Corridor – Low (NCL)
• Neighborhood-Serving Center or Corridor – Low
(NC-M)
• Transit-Oriented Development – Low (TOD-L)
• Transit-Oriented Development – Moderate (TOD-M)
Single-family 45 65
Mobile home park N/A 65
Multiple-family, mixed-use 45 654
Transient lodging-motels, hotels 45 65
Sports arenas, outdoor spectator
sports

N/A N/A
Auditoriums, concert halls,
amphitheaters
45 N/A
Office buildings, business, commercial
and professional
50 N/A
Employment
• Community Commercial (CC)
• Industrial (I)
• Neo-Industrial (NI)
Manufacturing, utilities, agriculture N/A N/A
Office buildings, business, commercial
and professional
50 N/A
Unique
• Regional Serving Facility (RSF)
• Downtown (DT)
• Waterfront (WF)
Schools, nursing homes, day care
facilities, hospitals, convalescent
facilities, dormitories
45 65
Government Facilities – offices, fire
stations, community buildings
45 N/A
Places of Worship, churches 45 N/A
Libraries 45 N/A
Multiple-family, mixed-use 45 654
Utilities N/A N/A
Cemeteries N/A N/A
Source: Proposed Long Beach General Plan Noise Element (May 2019). 1 Interior habitable environment excludes bathrooms, closets, and corridors. 2 Interior noise standards shall be satisfied with windows in the closed position. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided per Uniform Building Code requirements.
³ Exterior noise level standard to be applied at outdoor activity areas (e.g., private yards, private patio, or balcony of a multifamily residence). Where the location of an outdoor activity area is unknown or not applicable, the noise standard shall be applied inside the property line of the receiving land use. 4 Within the NC-M, TOD-L, TOD-M, DT and WF PlaceType designations, exterior space standards apply only to common outdoor recreational areas.

CNEL = community noise equivalent level
dBA = A-weighted decibels
N/A = not applicable

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
2 «05/14/19» -12

2.4.4.3 Construction
Construction activities are a recurrent source of noise throughout the planning area, the duration of which can range in length from a few hours to several months. The type of construction equipment and duration of activities greatly affect the amount of noise and vibration created. Typical construction activities include hauling materials, site preparation, grading, building erection, and other specialized construction activities. Construction activities are regulated by the City’s Municipal Code, which limits typical construction activities to daytime hours.

Strategy No. 12 in Section 2.4.2, Project Strategies, above, is aimed at reducing construction-related noise.

2.4.4.4 Special Events
Special events regularly occur within the planning area, including community festivals, runs/walks, holiday celebrations, the Long Beach Grand Prix, the Long Beach Marathon, the Long Beach Lesbian and Gay Pride Parade and Celebration, the Jazz Festival, film production, and events hosted at the Queen Mary. Special events provide benefits to the City, including economic development and tourism; however, noise may be a concern for residents living in close proximity to special events. As such, the Noise Element aims to manage the frequency and intensity of noise from special events in order to prioritize the wellbeing of residents.

Strategy No. 13, in Section 2.4.2, Project Strategies, above, is aimed at reducing noise related to special events.

2.4.4.5 Environmental Equity and Social Justice
Creating a more equitable distribution of noise is one of the three primary goals of the proposed Noise Element. Environmental justice ensures the equitable treatment and meaningful participation of marginalized groups, as well as enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies as they may disproportionately affect these groups. Environmental justice and social equity, as they relate to noise, are important aspects of planning for a healthy noise environment for all residents of the City.

Strategy Nos. 14 and 15, in Section 2.4.2, Project Strategies, above, are aimed at reducing noise impacts related to environmental justice and social equity.

2.4.4.6 Noise Management
The City is responsible for regulating noise and creating buffers from sources of noise to surrounding noise sensitive uses. Noise regulations can be managed and imposed through ensuring compliance with CEQA on a project-specific basis. Through the review of discretionary projects and in compliance with CEQA, noise mitigation measures are formulated to limit and reduce excessive noise.

Strategy No. 16, in Section 2.4.2, Project Strategies, above, discusses minimizing noise impacts through management and regulation.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 2-13

2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS, PERMITS, AND OTHER APPROVALS In accordance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the designated Lead Agency for the proposed project and has principal authority and jurisdiction for CEQA actions and project approval. Responsible Agencies are those agencies that have jurisdiction or authority over one or more aspects associated with the development of a proposed project and/or mitigation.

Trustee Agencies are State agencies that have jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a proposed project.

The discretionary actions to be considered by the City as a part of the proposed project include:
• General Plan Update/Amendment: The project would require amendments to the City’s General Plan to replace the existing General Plan Noise Element with a new General Plan Noise Element. • Noise Ordinance Amendment: The project would require adoption of an ordinance amending the City’s Noise Ordinance to ensure consistency with the updated Noise Element. • Municipal Code Amendment(s): The project may require ordinances amending additional sections of the City’s Municipal Code, related to noise, to ensure consistency with the updated Noise Element.
• Certification of the EIR.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
2 «05/14/19» -14
This page intentionally left blank
City of
Downey
City of
Lynwood
City of
Santa Fe
Springs
City of
La Palma
City of
Artesia
City of
Bellflower
City of
Carson
City of
Cerritos
City of
Compton
City of
Hawaiian
Gardens
City of
Lakewood City of
Long
Beach
City of
Los Angeles
City of
Norwalk
City of
Paramount
City of
Seal
Beach
City of
Cypress
City of Los
Alamitos
City of
Huntington
Beach
ÄÆ22
ÄÆ47
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ19
ÄÆ91
§¨5
§¨605
§¨710
§¨405
Project Area (City of Long Beach)
SOURCE: Bing Maps (c. 2008); ESRI (2008)
FIGURE 2-1
Long Beach General Plan
Noise Element
Project Location
0 1 2
MILES
LEGEND
I:\CLB1901\G\Project_Loc.cdr (5/2/2019)
City of
Signal
Hill
County of
Los Angeles
City of
Signal
Hill

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
2 «05/14/19» -16
This page intentionally left blank
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE,
Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P,
NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong
Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community
§¨710
§¨710
§¨405
§¨405
§¨605
ÄÆ91
SOURCE: Esri (2016); LSA (5/2017)
LEGEND
Long Beach City Boundary
Long Beach Airport
Port of Long Beach
Industrial Area
Freeway
Metro Blue Line
Freight Line
0 0.75 1.5
MILES
FIGURE 2-2
Existing Major Sources of Noise
Long Beach General Plan
Noise Element
I:\CLB1901\G\Existing Noise Sources.cdr (5/13/2019)

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
2 «05/14/19» -18
This page intentionally left blank
Legend
OS - Open Space
N - Founding and Contemporary Neighborhood
Neighborhoods
Employment
Unique
Mixed Use
MFR -L - Multi-Family Residential - Low
MFR -M - Multi-Family Residential - Moderate
NSC-L - Neighborhood-Serving Center or Corridor - Low
NSC-M - Neighborhood-Serving Center or Corridor - Moderate TOD -L - Transit-Oriented Development - Low
TOD -M - Transit-Oriented Development - Moderate
CC - Community Commercial Metro Blue Line Station
I - Industrial and 1/4 Mile Radius
NI - Neo-Industrial
RSF - Regional-Serving Facility
DT - Downtown
WF - Waterfront
PlaceTypes Light Rail Transit
1/4 MI
1/4 MI
RADIUS :

UPRR
Metro Blue Line
Metro Blue Line
RADIUS :

ARTESIA FWY

ARTESIA
CHERRY
SOUTH

LONG BEACH BLVD

DEL AMO BLVD
DIEGO
SPRING
WILLOW

PACIFIC COAST
CHERRY

SANTA FE
BEACH

PACIFIC COAST
SPRING
LA
County

PARAMOUNT
DOWNEY

ATLANTIC
ORANGE
MARKET

DEL AMO
CARSON
ORANGE
CONANT
SAN

ANTONIO
SAN
FWY
RRY
ORANGE

ATHERTON
WILLOW

WARDLOW WARDLOW

STEARNS

CLARK CLARK

SAN DIEGO FWY
70TH

LOS ANGELES RIVER
RIVER

HARDING
City of
Carson
City of
Compton
City of
Signal Hill
City of
Paramount
City of
Bellflower
City of
Hawaiia
Gardens
n
City of
Lakewood
405 605
405
710
710
91 91
BIXBY

PACIFIC
City of
Los Alamitos
91 LOS COYOTES DIAGONAL
CARSON

STUDEBAKER

BELLFLOWER

LAKEWOOD

PALO VERDE

SAN GABRIEL
RIVER
Long Beach
Airport
MTA

ANAHEIM
7TH 7TH
PACIFIC COAST 2ND

BROADWAY
OCEAN
CHERR
OCEAN

HARBOR SCENIC
OCEAN
2ND

ELIOT LOYNES
XIMENO
PARK
APPIAN
4TH

PACIFIC

BROADWAY

SAN GABRIEL R

ALAMITOS
4TH
7TH
10TH

ANAHEIM
City of
Seal Beach
Los Angeles 710 605
405
22 405
47 103
TEMPLE
405 47
103
3RD

STUDEBAKER

REDONDO

TERMINO

JUNIPERO
CSULB
Port of Long Beach
City of
Proposed Land Use Element PlaceTypes
I:\CLB1901\G\Project Placetypes.cdr (5/2/2019)
N
Long Beach General Plan
Noise Element MILE
0 .5 1
SOURCE: Proposed Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element, March 2018 FIGURE 2-3

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
2 «05/14/19» -20
This page intentionally left blank
LEGEND
Long Beach City Boundary
Future 2040 Traffic Noise Contours
70 dBA Ldn
75 dBA Ldn
80 dBA Ldn
85 dBA Ldn
FIGURE 2-4
Future Traffic Noise Contours (2040)
I:\CLB1901\G\Future Noise Contours.cdr (5/2/2019)
Long Beach General Plan
Noise Element
N
55 dBA Ldn
60 dBA Ldn
0 0.75 1.5
65 dBA Ldn
MILES
SOURCE: City of Long Beach General Plan Noise Element, April 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
2 «05/14/19» -22
This page intentionally left blank

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
3 «05/14/19» -2
This page intentionally left blank

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-1

4.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced, as discussed below).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063 (c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -2

8. This is only a suggested form, and Lead Agencies are free to use different formats; however, Lead Agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-3

4.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
(c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point).

If the project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. A scenic vista is the view of an area that is visually or aesthetically pleasing from a certain vantage point. It is usually viewed from some distance away. Aesthetic components of a scenic vista include (1) scenic quality, (2) sensitivity level, and (3) view access. A scenic vista can be impacted in two ways: a development project can have visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or “vista” of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether a proposed project would block scenic vistas include the project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel corridors.

The City of Long Beach (City) General Plan Scenic Routes Element (1975b) identifies scenic routes in the City and surrounding cities in an effort to preserve views of scenic vistas. Scenic vistas afforded to the City include views of the Pacific Ocean and the Port of Long Beach to the south, distant views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north, and distant views of the Santa Ana Mountains to the east. Specifically, the Scenic Routes Element classifies the following four categories of scenic routes: (1) Recreational Scenic Route, which spans 33 miles and offers views of parks and recreational amenities (2) Historical-Cultural Scenic Route, which spans 21 miles and connects the City’s historic and cultural resources (3) Industrial-Educational Scenic Route, which traverses the southwestern portion of the City and highlights industrial areas and transport activity nodes, including the Port of Long Beach, and (4) Bicycle Scenic Route, which spans 52 miles and utilizes the Los Angeles River (L.A. River) Bikeway, flood control channels, beach and park easements, railroad and utility rights-of-way, and other routes deemed suitable for cyclists.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -4
The City’s Draft General Plan Urban Design Element (Draft UDE) is currently under preparation and when adopted, would replace the currently adopted Scenic Routes Element. The Draft UDE identifies existing scenic vistas in the City. Scenic vistas identified in the Draft UDE include viewsheds visible to and from public vantage points, including public rights-of-way and other public places. Examples of these scenic vistas include the following: views along Alamitos Avenue south to Villa Riviera; El Dorado Park; 3rd Street to the Port of Long Beach cranes; Ocean Boulevard; Bluff Park to the Pacific Ocean and Belmont Pier; Queensway Bay and Shoreline Park to the Queen Mary and cruise ships; Downtown; the marinas; the L.A. River corridor; and Los Coyotes Diagonal to the distant San Gabriel Mountains. Although the Draft UDE identifies several examples of existing scenic vistas in the City, these scenic vistas are not officially designated by the City nor has the City officially adopted the Draft UDE.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to scenic vistas. Each future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed.

Therefore, approval of the proposed Noise Element would not result in substantial adverse impacts to scenic vistas. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Landscape Architecture Program administers the State Scenic Highway Program, contained in the Streets and Highway Code, Sections 260-263. State Scenic Highways are classified as either Officially Listed or Eligible.

There are no State-designated scenic routes in the City. However, State Route 1 (i.e., Pacific Coast Highway [PCH]), which traverses the southern portion of the City from northwest to southeast, is currently designated as an Eligible State Scenic Highway.1 Although the Scenic Routes Element and the proposed UDE identify several scenic routes within the planning area for which view protection should be considered, there are no Officially Listed State-designated scenic highways in the City.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to scenic resources. Further, the project would not result in changes to height or density, and consequently, the project would not impact views of scenic resources in the planning area. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impact scenic resources within a State scenic highway. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. 1 California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highways. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/ LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed April 30, 2019).

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-5
(c) In nonurbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No Impact. The planning area includes the entire 50 square miles within the limits of the City, which is an urbanized area. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As a result of implementation of the proposed project, the existing scenic quality of the planning area would remain unchanged. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing scenic quality of the planning area and its surroundings. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact. The impact of nighttime lighting depends upon the type of use affected, the proximity to the affected use, the intensity of specific lighting, and the background or ambient level of the combined nighttime lighting. Nighttime ambient light levels may vary considerably depending on the age, condition, and abundance of point-of-light sources present in a particular view. The use of exterior lighting for security and aesthetic illumination of architectural features may contribute to ambient nighttime lighting conditions.

Spill light occurs when lighting standards, such as streetlights, parking lot lighting, exterior building lighting, and landscape lighting are not properly aimed or shielded to direct light to the desired location and light escapes and partially illuminates a surrounding location. The spillover of light onto adjacent properties has the potential to interfere with certain activities, including vision, sleep, privacy, and general enjoyment of the natural nighttime condition. Light-sensitive uses include residential, some commercial and institutional uses, and, in some situations, natural areas. Changes in nighttime lighting may become significant if a proposed project substantially increases ambient lighting conditions beyond its property line and project lighting routinely spills over into adjacent light-sensitive land use areas.

Reflective light (glare) is caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces (e.g., window glass) or other reflective materials. Glass and other materials can have many different reflectance characteristics. Buildings constructed of highly reflective material from which the sun reflects at a low angle commonly cause adverse glare. Reflective light is common in urban areas.

Glare generally does not result in the illumination of off-site locations, but results in a visible source of light viewable from a distance.

The proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a planning/policy action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -6
result in impacts to day or nighttime views in the area. Upon project implementation, sources of light and glare in the planning area would remain the same as existing conditions. There would not be any new sources of substantial light or glare as a result of project implementation. Further, should any new sources of light be proposed as part of future projects, each future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-7

4.2 AGRICULTURAL 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 Dept. 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:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code [PRC] Section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by PRC 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 nonagricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No Impact. The proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is a policy/planning action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to agriculture uses. The planning area is almost entirely developed and is not used for agricultural or forestry purposes. No properties within the planning area are designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor are there areas zoned for agricultural use according to the City’s Municipal Code. As a result, the proposed project will not impact designated farmlands, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -8
analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to agriculture uses. As stated in Response 4.2 (a), according to the City’s Municipal Code, no properties within the planning area are zoned for agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to forestland uses. The City’s Municipal Code does not zone any properties within the planning area for forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As stated in Response 4.2 (c), approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to forestland uses. According to the City’s Municipal Code, there are no forestland resource zones in the planning area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the loss of forestland or the conversion of forestland to non-forest uses, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-9
improvements that would result in impacts to farmland or forestland uses. The proposed project would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use or convert forestland to a non-forest use.

Likewise, the proposed project would not contribute to environmental changes that could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to a non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts to farmland or forestland would occur as a result of project implementation, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potentially significant impact is presented during the scoping process.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -10

4.3 AIR QUALITY
(Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations.)
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
(b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is nonattainment under an applicable
federal or State ambient air quality standard?
(c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The planning area includes the entirety of the City of Long Beach, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin includes all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Air quality within the Basin is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) in March 2017.

The main purpose of an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is to describe air pollution control strategies to be taken by a city, county, or region classified as a nonattainment area. A nonattainment area is considered to have air quality worse than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and/or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The Basin is in nonattainment for the federal and State standards for ozone (O3), and particulate matter less than

2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment for the State particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) standard, and attainment/maintenance for the federal PM10, carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standards.

Consistency with the 2016 AQMP for the Basin would be achieved if a project 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 (April 1993, currently being revised), 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

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-11
exceed the 2016 AQMP’s assumptions for 2030 or yearly increments based on the year of project build out 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.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would conflict with the 2016 AQMP. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP.

No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
No Impact. The South Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for the federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5. In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment for the State PM10 standard, and in attainment/maintenance for the federal PM10, CO, and NO2 standards. However, no exceedance of SCAQMD criteria pollutant emission thresholds would be anticipated as a result of project implementation because the project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements.

The projected emissions of criteria pollutants would not change as a result of the proposed project, and would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP, as discussed in Response 4.3 (a). Further, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 AQMP established for the region. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, there would be no cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutants that are in nonattainment status in the Basin as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation is required.

This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in increased short- or long-term emissions within the planning area. Further, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an exacerbation of existing conditions. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as a result of project implementation. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -12
EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) identifies various secondary significance criteria related to odorous air contaminants. Substantial odor-generating sources include land uses such as agricultural activities, feedlots, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, or heavy manufacturing uses. Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, these sources shall include a quantitative assessment of potential odors and meteorological conditions.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people, such as odors.

Therefore, there would be no adverse air quality impacts with respect to objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-13

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
(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 CDFW or USFWS?
(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community
Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? No Impact. In its existing setting, the planning area is almost entirely developed and is located in an urban area of Los Angeles County. These urban areas do not contain mapped habitat for any sensitive biological species as identified on local/regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Although the majority of the planning area is urban in nature, the City contains a number of open space areas (e.g., El Dorado Regional Park, the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, Los Cerritos Wetlands, beaches along the Pacific Ocean shoreline, rights-of-way, marinas, bays, riparian habitat, and wetlands) that have the potential to support sensitive biological resources.

However, the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is a policy/planning action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -14
result in impacts to biological resources. Existing habitat and species would not be affected as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact any candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(b) Would the project 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 CDFW or USFWS?
No Impact. As discussed in Response 4.4 (a), the planning area is almost entirely developed and is located in an urban area. According to the National Wetlands Inventory managed by the USFWS, although the majority of the planning area is urban in nature, the planning area does contain riparian habitat that has the potential to support sensitive biological resources. 1 However,
approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to biological resources. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. As discussed in Response 4.4 (a), the planning area is almost entirely developed and is located in an urban area. According to the National Wetlands Inventory managed by the USFWS, although the majority of the planning area is urban in nature, the planning area does contain State and federally protected wetlands that have the potential to support sensitive biological resources.
2 However, approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to biological resources. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impact state or federally protected wetlands, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
1 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). National Wetlands Inventory. Website:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed May 1, 2019). 2 Ibid.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-15
(d) Would the project 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? No Impact. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code 3503 protect most native bird species from destruction or harm. This protection extends to individuals, as well as any part, nest, or eggs of any bird listed as migratory. Most native North American bird species are on the MBTA list.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts related to interference with the movement of species within wildlife corridors. As stated previously, the project is a planning/policy action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact biological resources. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The City of Long Beach Municipal Code (Ordinance C-7642) regulates the care and removal of trees on public property and is intended to preserve and protect the community’s urban forest and to promote the health and safety of City trees. The City’s Municipal Code requires that a municipal permit from the City of Long Beach Director of Public Works be obtained prior to the removal of trees on City-owned property. The City’s Tree Maintenance Policy also requires a 1:1 replacement ratio and payment of a fee that is equivalent to a City-approved 15- gallon tree.

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s tree preservation policies. As stated previously, the project is a planning/policy action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact biological resources. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process
(f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), Natural Communities Conservation Plans (NCCP), or other similar plans within the City. Therefore, the project would

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -16
not conflict with any plan related to the protection of biological resources. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-17

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
(c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Impact. CEQA defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by a project’s Lead Agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]).

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considering a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to historical resources. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Impact. While archaeological resources are not addressed in the City’s current General Plan, the proposed Land Use Element aims to minimize potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources through compliance with applicable federal, State, and local guidelines. In its existing setting, the planning area is almost entirely developed and is located in an urban area of Los Angeles County. Consequently, much of the planning area has been previously disturbed as a result of past construction activities in the City.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact archaeological resources. The proposed project would not involve any ground-

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -18
disturbing activities, and therefore, would not have the potential to disturb any previously unknown archeological resources. As a result of implementation of the proposed project, the existing archaeological setting would remain unchanged. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
No Impact. As stated previously, the planning area is almost entirely developed and much of the planning area has been previously disturbed as a result of past construction activities in the City.

Further, approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements or ground-disturbing activities that would have the potential to encounter human remains. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not disturb any human remains. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-19

4.6 ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
(b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
No Impact. The planning area includes the entirety of the City of Long Beach. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would require energy consumption. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources because the project would not require energy consumption. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact. As stated previously, the proposed project is a policy/planning action with no proposed physical development that would require energy consumption. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -20

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(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 onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
(f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Impact Analysis:
(a) (i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact. Given the City’s location in the seismically active area of Southern California, portions of the planning area are located within a Fault Zone, as designated by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) and United States Geological Survey (USGS). According to the City’s General Plan Seismic Safety Element (1988), the most prominent fault zone in the City is the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, which transverses the City from the northwest to the southeast.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-21
Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. Future individual projects subject to discretionary approval would be required to be consistent with City requirements established in the Seismic Safety Element and would be required to comply with current applicable building codes. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, no impacts would occur related to the rupture of a known earthquake fault, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(a) (ii) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. The planning area has previously experienced seismic activity associated with the Newport-Inglewood Fault system, which traverses the southern portion of City at a northwest to southeast angle. In the event a major earthquake was to occur, the result could range from moderate to severe ground shaking. As with most areas in the Southern California region, damage to development and infrastructure associated with the surrounding areas could be expected as a result of ground shaking. However, approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking. Future individual projects subject to discretionary approval would be required to be consistent with City requirements established in the Seismic Safety Element and would be required to comply with current building codes. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (a) (iii) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
No Impact. Liquefaction most commonly occurs when three conditions are present simultaneously: (1) high groundwater; (2) relatively loose, cohesionless (sandy) soil; and (3) earthquake-generated seismic waves. The presence of these conditions has the potential to result in a loss of shear strength and ground settlement, causing the soil to behave as a fluid for a short period of time. Liquefaction can potentially cause foundation-bearing failure due to ground softening and near failure in bearing.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action. Although there is the potential for liquefaction throughout the City, the proposed project does not include or facilitate any physical

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -22
developments that would result in impacts related to liquefaction. Future individual projects subject to discretionary approval would be required to be consistent with City requirements established in the Seismic Safety Element and would be required to comply with current building codes. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving liquefaction. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (a) (iv) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides? No Impact. Landslides are most common where slopes are steep, soils are weak, and groundwater is present. The planning area is relatively flat and lacks natural slopes.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts related to landslides. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. As a result of project implementation, no soil would be exposed and there would not be increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (c) Would the project 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?
No Impact. Refer to Responses 4.6 (a)(iii) and 4.6 (a)(iv), above. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that could be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. Future individual projects subject to discretionary approval would be

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-23
required to be consistent with City requirements established in the Seismic Safety Element and would be required to comply with current building codes. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts related to unstable soils or geologic units that would become unstable, resulting in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo substantial volume changes (shrinking or swelling) due to variations in moisture content as a result of precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors. The City’s General Plan Seismic Safety Element (1988) identifies four predominant soil profiles within the City, referred to as Profiles A through D, and notes that expansive soils are found throughout California.

Based on the identified soil profiles, there is the potential for expansive soils within the planning area. However, approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that could be located on expansive soil. Future individual projects subject to discretionary approval would be required to be consistent with City requirements established in the Seismic Safety Element and would be required to comply with current building codes.

Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to expansive soils, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. The City is currently served by an existing sewer system. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -24
(f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site of unique geologic feature?
No Impact. In its existing setting, the planning area is almost entirely developed and is located in an urban area of Los Angeles County. Consequently, much of the planning area has been previously disturbed as a result of past construction activities in the City.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact paleontologicalresources. The proposed project would not involve any grounddisturbing activities, and therefore, would not have the potential to disturb any previously unknown paleontological resources. As a result of implementation of the proposed project, the existing paleontological setting would remain unchanged. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a paleontological resource as defined in Section 15064.5. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-25

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Technical Background:

Global climate change (GCC) describes alterations in weather features (e.g., temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) that occur across the Earth as a whole. Global temperatures are modulated by naturally occurring components in the atmosphere (e.g., water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and N2O) that capture heat radiated from the Earth’s surface, which in turn warms the atmosphere. This natural phenomenon is known as the “greenhouse effect.” That being acknowledged, excessive human-generated GHG emissions can and are altering the global climate.

The principal GHGs of concern contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is the largest naturally occurring GHG; however, it is not identified as an anthropogenic constituent of concern.

The City’s General Plan has also adopted a broad spectrum of policies related to climate change, as shown in the Air Quality Element. This element was adopted in 1996 and sets forth the goals, objectives, and policies that guide the City on the implementation of its air quality improvement programs and strategies. The City has also adopted a Sustainable City Action Plan (February 2010).

Further, the City is currently in the beginning stages of developing a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), which will aim to provide a framework for creating and updating policies related to the reduction of GHG emissions, and introduce programs, practices, and incentives for residents and businesses to reduce the City's GHG footprint.

Impact Analysis:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
No Impact. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would directly or indirectly generate GHG emissions. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, approval of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly result in the generation of GHG emissions. No mitigation would be required.

This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -26
(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, because the proposed project does not include any physical improvements that would introduce new sources of GHG emissions within the City, approval of the project would not result in conflicts with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted with the intention of reducing GHG emissions. No mitigation would be required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-27

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(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 reasonable foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
(e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area?
(f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact. Hazardous materials are chemicals that could potentially cause harm during an accidental release or mishap, and are defined as being toxic, corrosive, flammable, reactive, and an irritant or strong sensitizer.1 Hazardous substances include all chemicals regulated under the United States Department of Transportation “hazardous materials” regulations and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s “hazardous waste” regulations. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the 1 A “sensitizer” is a chemical that can cause a substantial proportion of people or animals to develop an allergic reaction in normal tissue after repeated exposure to a chemical (U.S. Department of Labor, 2017.

Appendix A TO Sections 1910.1200—Health Hazard Criteria, Section A.4, Respiratory or Skin Sensitization.

Website: https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/hazcom-appendix-a.html [accessed April 30, 2019]).

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -28
environment. The probable frequency and severity of consequences from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is affected by the type of substance, the quantity used or managed, and the nature of the activities and operations.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. No mitigation would be required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (b) Would the project 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?
No Impact. As stated previously, approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action. Project implementation does not include or facilitate any physical improvements or activities that could create a hazard to the public or the environment through the release of hazardous materials. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident condition related to the release of hazardous materials, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. As stated previously, approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action. Project implementation does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that could emit hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of any school. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the emission of hazardous materials or acutely hazardous substances within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-29
(d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 67962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a planning/policy action and does not include any physical improvements or facilitate development on known hazardous materials sites. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to a known hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65965.5 and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No mitigation is required.

This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Long Beach Municipal Airport is located within the planning area. As such, a portion of the planning area is located within the Airport Influence Area.1 Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action. Project implementation does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would interfere with air traffic patterns, conflict with established Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) flight protection zones, or conflict with building height standards established by the FAA for structures on and adjacent to the Long Beach Airport. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. The proposed project does not propose physical improvements, and therefore, would not result in safety hazards for people living or working in the area different than would occur under existing conditions. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The City’s Emergency Operations Plan (August 2015) outlines the City’s emergency response organization and policies. This plan also identifies ways in which the City and its residents can minimize risk and prevent loss from natural hazard events. Emergency events addressed in this plan include those associated with earthquakes, flooding, windstorm, tsunamis, public health events, technological and human-caused events, and drought. 1 Los Angeles County. Department of Regional Planning. Airport Land Use Commission. Long Beach Airport.

Website: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-long-beach.pdf (accessed May 1, 2019).

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -30
The proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Further, future individual projects subject to discretionary approval would be required to comply with all policies set forth in the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and the General Plan Public Safety Element (1978). Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury of death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The City is generally urban and built out, and because there are no properties adjacent to wildlands, wildland fires are of little concern in the City. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts related to wildland fires would occur, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-31

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER

QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or,
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
(d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
(e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? No Impact. The City is subject to the requirements of the Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Discharges from the City of Long Beach (City of Long Beach MS4 Permit), Order No. R4-2014-0024, NPDES No. CAS004003.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Further, future projects would be designed to implement Storm Water Prevention Plans, Construction BMPs, Low Impact Development Plans, and other mitigation, where necessary, to mitigate adverse impacts related to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would not violate

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -32
any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Impact. The City is highly urbanized, with infrastructure in place to accommodate future development projects. Approximately 60 percent of the City’s existing water supply consists of groundwater extracted from the local Central Basin of the Los Angeles groundwater basin, with the remaining 40 percent consisting of imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.1
Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in the depletion of groundwater supplies. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action that does not involve any physical development that would result in the alteration of existing drainage patterns or alterations to the course of a stream or river. Additionally, the proposed project does not include or facilitate physical improvements 1 Long Beach Water Department (LBWD). Frequently Asked Questions. Website: http://www.lbwater.org/ frequently-asked-questions (accessed May 1, 2019).

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-33
that would alter the amount of impervious surfaces. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in erosion or siltation; would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff; would not create or contribute runoff water; and would not impede or redirect flood flows. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the planning area, and no mitigation is required. These topics will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying them as potential impacts is presented during the scoping process. (d) Would the project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. The planning area includes the entire 50 square miles within the limits of the City.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that cover the planning area, portions of the City are located within a 100-year floodplain.

Tsunamis are generated wave trains generally caused by tectonic displacement of the sea floor associated with shallow earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rockfalls, and exploding volcanic islands. According to the Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning for the Long Beach Quadrangle (March 1, 2009), the coastal portion of the planning area is subject to potential risks associated with a tsunami. However, in the event of a tsunami, the City has established response procedures as described in the City’s Hazards Mitigation Plan (February 2017).

Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground shaking induces standing waves (seiches) inside water retention facilities such as reservoirs and water tanks. Such waves can cause retention structures to fail and flood downstream properties. According to the City’s Seismic Safety Element and the California Emergency Management Agency, the majority of the City is not located within a zone of seiche.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate physical improvements that would be at risk of inundation in the event of flood, tsunami, or seiche events. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to these issues, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying them as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. The Noise Element addresses the noise environment in the City and does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Any future discretionary project within the City would be

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -34
evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to this topic, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying them as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-35

4.11 LAND USE PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Physically divide an established community?
(b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in the division of any established communities. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, because the project is a policy/planning action and does not involve physical improvements, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying them as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Potentially Significant Impact. The main documents guiding development and regulating land uses in the City are the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The City is currently in the process of updating and replacing the existing Land Use Element with an entirely new LUE that would guide future development in the City through the year 2040.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements.

However, Government Code Section 65300.5 requires the various components of a General Plan to be internally consistent and provide a compatible statement of policies. The City’s proposed LUE establishes land uses by PlaceTypes throughout the planning area, and the proposed Noise Element presents information related to existing and projected noise contours that could impact land uses. Therefore, a consistency analysis will be included in the EIR to demonstrate the project’s consistency with the proposed LUE. Additionally, analysis will be provided showing the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Land use impacts associated with the consistency between the project and City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance will be addressed in the EIR and mitigation proposed if necessary.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -36

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the State?
(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
No Impact. In 1975, the California Legislature enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, which, among other things, provided guidelines for the classification and designation of mineral lands. Areas are classified on the basis of geologic factors without regard to existing land use and land ownership. The areas are categorized into four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs):
• MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-3: An area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated. • MRZ-4: An area where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone.

Of the four categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance. Such areas are underlain by demonstrated mineral resources or are located where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are present. MRZ-2 areas are designated by the State of California Mining and Geology Board as being “regionally significant.” Such designations require that a Lead Agency’s land use decisions involving designated areas are to be made in accordance with its mineral resource management policies, and that it consider the importance of the mineral resource to the region or the State as a whole, not just to the Lead Agency’s jurisdiction.

According to the City’s General Plan Conservation Element (1973), the mineral resources within the City have historically consisted of oil and natural gas. However, over the last century, oil and natural gas extractions have diminished as the resources have become increasingly depleted.

Although extraction operations continue, they are on a reduced scale as compared to past historic levels.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-37
Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact the availability of a known mineral resource of value. As a result of project implementation, the availability of existing mineral resources in the planning area would remain unchanged. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.

This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. As discussed above in Response 4.12 (a), approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. As a result of project implementation, the availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site would remain unchanged.

Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and projectspecific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -38

4.13 NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
(b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Impact. The City of Long Beach regulates noise and vibration standards based on the criteria presented in the Municipal Code Noise Ordinance and the Noise Element of the General Plan (1975). Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the new General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. However, implementation of the proposed Noise Element could result in potentially significant impacts related to proposed noise and vibration policies and standards. As such, impacts related to noise as presented in the Noise Element will be addressed in the EIR. The EIR will also include a discussion of standards established in the City’s Noise Ordinance and the proposed Noise Element. Potential impacts related to noise exceeding established thresholds as presented in the Noise Element will be analyzed further in the EIR and mitigation proposed if necessary.
(b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.12 (a). Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the new General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. However, implementation of the proposed Noise Element could result in potentially significant impacts related to proposed noise and vibration policies or standards. As such, impacts related to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise as presented in the Noise Element will be addressed in the EIR. Potential vibration and groundborne noise impacts as presented in the Noise Element will be analyzed further in the EIR and mitigation proposed if necessary.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-39

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. The planning area includes the entire 50 square miles within the limits of the City. In its existing condition, the City is urbanized and includes a range of housing types and land uses that provide housing and employment opportunities to its residents. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and would not directly or indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth. No physical improvements are proposed as part of the project, and therefore, no new homes, businesses, roads, or other infrastructure would be constructed within the City as a result of project implementation. Each future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce direct or indirect unplanned population growth. No mitigation would be required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. As previously stated in Response 4.14 (a), the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a planning/policy action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to population and housing.

As a result of project implementation, no existing people or housing would be displaced, and the construction of replacement housing would not be necessary. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people or housing, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -40

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of or
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
(i) Fire Protection?
(ii) Police Protection?
(iii) Schools?
(iv) Parks?
(v) Other public facilities?
Impact Analysis:
(a) (i) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? No Impact. Fire protection services are provided to the planning area by the Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD). The LBFD provides fire protection, emergency medical and rescue services, hazard inspection and response, and public education activities to the City’s approximately 469,000 residents. Currently, the LBFD has a total of 25 stations in the City.1 Currently, LBFD has approximately 527 full-time equivalent uniformed and civilian personnel budgeted.2
The proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is a policy/planning action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that may require fire protection services. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impact fire protection services and would not necessitate the need for new fire protection facilities. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. 1 Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD). Station Locations. Website: http://www.longbeach.gov/fire/stationlocations/ (accessed May 1, 2019). 2 LBFD. Home page. Website: http://www.longbeach.gov/fire/ (accessed May 1, 2019).

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-41
(a) (ii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? No Impact. Police protection and law enforcement services are provided to the City by the Long Beach Police Department (LBPD). The LBPD is currently divided into four primary patrol bureaus: one specialized Field Support Division and the East, West, and North Divisions.1 The proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is a policy/planning action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that may require police protection services. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impact police protection services and would not necessitate the need for new police protection facilities. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (a) (iii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? No Impact. The City is served by the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD).

Approximately 72,200 students from preschool to high school are currently enrolled in one of LBUSD’s 85 public schools. The LBUSD currently operates schools located within the City of Long Beach, as well as schools located in the Cities of Lakewood, Signal Hill, and Avalon (on Catalina Island). More than 12,000 full-time and part-time employees work at the school district, making it the largest employer in Long Beach.2 The proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is a policy/planning action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would generate new students or impact schools. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impact schoolservices and would not necessitate the need for new school facilities. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. 1 Long Beach Police Department (LBPD). Patrol Bureau. Website: http://www.longbeach.gov/police/aboutthe-lbpd/bureaus/patrol-bureau/patrol-bureau/ (accessed May 1, 2019). 2 Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). About. Website: http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/District/ (accessed May 1, 2019).

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -42
(a) (iv) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? No Impact. The Long Beach Parks, Recreation, and Marine Department (LBPRM) oversees the operation and maintenance of public recreational facilities within the City, including parks, community centers, marinas, golf courses, and swimming pools. The planning area currently contains 100 public parks with 25 community centers, 2 tennis centers, 5 municipal golf courses, and a marina system. Overall, the citywide total of recreation uses is approximately 2,750 acres. According to the General Plan Open Space Element (2002), the City’s parklandto-resident ratio goal is to provide 8 acres per 1,000 residents. As such, the City is not currently meeting its parkland goal.

The proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is a policy/planning action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to recreational facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the increased use and subsequent deterioration of recreational facilities, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(a) (v) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is a policy/planning action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to public facilities. Implementation of the project would not generate new visitors or residents to the planning area, and therefore, would not result in an increase in the use of existing public facilities. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the increased use and subsequent deterioration of public facilities, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-43

4.16 RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact. The Long Beach Parks, Recreation, and Marine Department (LBPRM) oversees the operation and maintenance of public recreational facilities within the City, including parks, community centers, marinas, golf courses, and swimming pools. According to the proposed Land Use Element, the planning area currently contains 100 public parks with 25 community centers, 2 tennis centers, 5 municipal golf courses, and a marina system. Overall, the citywide total of recreation uses is approximately 2,750 acres. According to the General Plan Open Space Element (2002), the City’s parkland-to-resident ratio goal is to provide 8 acres per 1,000 residents. As such, the City is not currently meeting its parkland goal.

The proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is a policy/planning action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to recreational facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the increased use and subsequent deterioration of recreational facilities, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an adverse

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -44
physical effect on recreational facilities, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-45

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
(b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Potentially Significant Impact. The City’s Mobility Element (2013) focuses on improving the quality of life for Long Beach residents through transportation and mobility planning. The transportation facilities throughout the City are a major source of noise. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. However, Government Code Section 65300.5 requires the various components of a General Plan to be internally consistent and provide a compatible statement of policies. As such, a consistency analysis will be included in the EIR to demonstrate the project’s consistency with the Mobility Element, as well as the proposed LUE. Transportation impacts associated with the consistency between the project and City’s General Plan will be addressed in the EIR and mitigation proposed if necessary. (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No Impact. Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines codifies that project‐related transportation impacts are typically best measured by evaluating the project’s vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Specifically, subdivision (b) focuses on specific criteria related to transportation analysis and is divided into four subdivisions: (1) land use projects, (2) transportation projects, (3), qualitative analysis, and (4) methodology. Subdivision (b)(1) provides guidance on determining the significance of transportation impacts of land use projects using VMT; projects located within

0.5 mile of an existing high-quality transit corridor should be considered to have a less than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(2) addresses VMT associated with transportation projects and states that projects that reduce VMT, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects, should be presumed to have a less than significant impact. Subdivision (b)(3) acknowledges that Lead Agencies may not be able to quantitatively estimate VMT for every project type; in these cases, a qualitative analysis may be used. Subdivision (b)(4) stipulates that Lead Agencies have the discretion to formulate a methodology that would appropriately analyze a project’s VMT.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -46
The proposed project is not a land use project or a transportation project, as defined by Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). In addition, VMT is a system-wide disclosure of the amount of travel and its distance. As a system-wide indicator, the analysis is not specific to a path or segment, and therefore, would not be useful to assess effects or impacts related to traffic noise along a specific roadway. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) because the project does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. As stated previously, approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan is considered a policy/planning action.

Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and projectspecific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to hazards associated with a design feature or incompatible uses, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access because the project does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. As stated previously, approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to emergency access, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-47

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
(b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project be listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, Response 4.5 (a), the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or PRC Section 5020.1(k) because the project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element. As a planning/policy action, the proposed project does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to historical resources. Any future discretionary projects within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not be listed or be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical resources or in a local register of historical resources, and would not be determined to be a resources of significance. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(b) Would the project be a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be required to comply with AB 52 and SB 18 regarding tribal consultation.

Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include sites, features, places,

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -48
cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources (PRC Section 21074). AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource falling outside the definition stated above nonetheless qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.” Also, per AB 52 (specifically, PRC Section 21080.3.1), as Lead Agency, the City must consult with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project and have previously requested that the Lead Agency provide them with notice of such projects.

SB 18 requires cities and counties acting as Lead Agency to contact and consult with California Native American tribes before adopting or amending a General Plan. The intent of SB 18 is to establish meaningful consultation between tribal governments and local governments at the earliest possible point in the planning process and to enable tribes to manage “cultural places.” Cultural places are defined as a Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (PRC Section 5097.9), or a Native American historic, cultural, or sacred site, that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the California Register, including any historic or prehistoric ruins, any burial ground, or any archaeological or historic site (PRC Section 5097.993).

As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, Response 4.5 (a), the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines or PRC Section 5020.1(k) because the project involves the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element. As a planning/policy action, the proposed project does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to historical resources.

In compliance with AB 52 and SB 18, letters will be distributed to the following local Native American tribal representatives:
• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Andrew Salas • Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Anthony Morales • Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Robert Dorame • Gabrieleno/Tongva Nation, Sandonne Goad
• Gabrieleno-Tongva Tribe, Charles Alvarez
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Joseph Ontiveros
• Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Michael Mirelez • Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe, Linda Candelaria
The letters provide each tribe the opportunity to request consultation with the City regarding the project. In compliance with AB 52, tribes have 30 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation on the project. SB 18 mandates that tribes receive 45 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation on the project. Tribal consultation is ongoing as part of the CEQA process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-49
Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to tribal cultural resources. Any future discretionary projects within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. However, as stated above, tribal consultation is ongoing as part of the CEQA process in compliance with AB 52 and SB 18. In the event that tribal cultural resources are identified during the tribal consultation process, the City will work with the tribes to address their concerns. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -50

4.19 UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
(b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
(c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
(d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
(e) Comply with federal, State, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid wastes?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact.

Water. The Long Beach Water Department (LBWD) provides domestic water service in the City. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, approximately 60 percent of the City’s existing water supply consists of groundwater extracted from the local Central Basin of the Los Angeles groundwater basin, with the remaining 40 percent consisting of imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which originates from the Colorado River Aqueduct and the Northern California Delta region.1 Additionally, reclaimed water is treated at the Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) 1 LBWD. Sources of Water. Website: http://www.lbwater.org/sources-water (accessed May 1, 2019).

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-51
and is used for the irrigation of schools, golf courses, parks, and greenbelts. The WRP currently has a capacity of 25 million gallons per day (mgd).1
Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact water facilities. Implementation of the project would not require water usage and does not include any utility improvements related to water.

Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water treatment facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No mitigation is required.

Wastewater. The LBWD operates and maintains 765 miles of sanitary sewer lines in the City.

LACSD is the primary agency responsible for treatment operations once the wastewater passes through the City’s system. The LBWD delivers more than 40 mgd of wastewater to LACSD facilities for treatment. LACSD is responsible for the collection, treatment, and disposal of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater generated by more than 5.6 million people living and working in Los Angeles County. Wastewater generated in the City is currently delivered to the JWPCP, which treats an average of 350 mgd. 2 Wastewater generated in the City is currently delivered to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) of LACSD.3 LACSD facilities are required to meet all wastewater treatment requirements from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The proposed project is not a wastewater treatment facility and is not subject to Los Angeles RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact wastewater facilities. Implementation of the project would not generate wastewater and does not include any utility improvements related to wastewater. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No mitigation is required.

Stormwater. Within the City of Long Beach Public Works Department, the Stormwater/ Environmental Compliance Division is responsible for maintaining the storm drain system and monitoring stormwater quality.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact stormwater drainage facilities. Implementation of the 1 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD). Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant. Website: http:// www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/joint_outfall_system_wrp/long_beach.asp (accessed May 1, 2019). 2 LBWD. Sewage Treatment. Website: http://www.lbwater.org/sewage-treatment (accessed May 1, 2019). 3 Ibid.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -52
project would not generate stormwater and does not include any utility improvements related to stormwater. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No mitigation is required.

Electric Power. Southern California Edison provides electricity to the City. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact electric power facilities. Implementation of the project would not require electricity usage and does not include any utility improvements related to electric power.

Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No mitigation is required.

Natural Gas. Natural gas service is provided by the Long Beach Utilities Department. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact natural gas facilities. Implementation of the project does not require natural gas usage and does not include any utility improvements related to natural gas. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded natural gas facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No mitigation would be required.

Telecommunications. While there are a number of cable and telephone service providers available to residents in the planning area, the primary service providers in the planning area are Spectrum, AT&T U-Verse, and Frontier. Together, these three service providers hold a franchise issued by the State’s Public Utilities Commission to provide services to residents in the City.1
Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact telecommunication facilities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the construction or relocation of existing telecommunications facilities, and no mitigation is required.

Summary. As stated previously, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new of new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, impacts to these utility facilities would be less than significant, and no 1 City of Long Beach. Cable Television and Telephone Service. Website: http://www.longbeach.gov/ ti/telecommunications (accessed May 1, 2019).

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-53
mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No Impact. The City’s water-supply system provides reliable service to a population of nearly half a million people within its service area. According to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the total projected water demand for the retail customers served by the City is approximately 55,206 acre-feet (af) annually. Industrial water demand is projected to decrease from 271 af in 2014 to 122 af in 2040. The City consumed approximately 59,542 af in 2015, and the projected water demand for 2020 is 59,106 af per year. According to the UWMP, the City’s water supplies are projected to meet full service demands due to projected increases in efficiency and water conservation.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact water supplies. Implementation of the project would not require water usage and does not include any utility improvements related to water. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact water supplies, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. As stated previously, approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact wastewater facilities. Implementation of the project would not generate wastewater and does not include any utility improvements related to wastewater. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact wastewater demand, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No Impact. The Long Beach Public Works Department provides a wide range of services to the City, including waste collection, which is administered through the Environmental Services Bureau. Within the City, collection of solid waste is contracted to EDCO. EDCO collects solid waste, green waste (e.g., grass clippings and tree and shrub clippings), and items for recycling. The City

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -54
provides two different carts for automated collection of trash, recyclables, and green waste.1 Solid waste, excluding recyclables, is collected from residential, commercial, and industrial properties and delivered to the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF), located at 120 Pier S Avenue in Long Beach. SERRF is owned by a joint powers authority between LACSD and the City of Long Beach, but is operated by a private company under contract. Solid waste is sent to the facility, where it is processed through one of three boilers and incinerated in order to produce electricity.

The electricity is used to operate the facility and the remainder is sold to Southern California Edison. Using mass burn technology, the facility reduces the volume of solid waste by about 80 percent, while also recovering about 825 tons of recycled metal per year. SERRF processes and average of 1,290 tons of municipal solid waste per day; it has the capacity to process 1,380 tons of solid waste per day.2
Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would generate solid waste. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. The proposed project would not generate any solid waste. Moreover, the project would not otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, the project would not impact solid waste and landfill facilities, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.
(e) Would the project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid wastes?
No Impact. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) changed the focus of solid waste management from landfill to diversion strategies (e.g., source reduction, recycling, and composting). The purpose of the diversion strategies is to reduce dependence on landfills for solid waste disposal. AB 939 established mandatory diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000. AB 341 (2011) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring that it is the policy goal of the State that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source-reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020 and annually thereafter. In addition, AB 341 required the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop strategies to achieve the State’s policy goal.

CalRecycle has conducted multiple workshops and published documents that identify priority strategies to assist the State in reaching the 75 percent goal by 2020.

Refer to Response 4.18 (e), above. The proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would generate solid waste. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as 1 City of Long Beach. Environmental Services Bureau. Automated Refuse Collection. Website:
http://www.longbeach-recycles.org/refuse_collection/automated_collection.htm (accessed May 1, 2019). 2 LACSD. Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF) Brochure. Website: http://www.lacsd.org/ solidwaste/swfacilities/rtefac/serrf/brochure.asp (accessed May 1, 2019).

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-55
needed. Therefore, because the proposed project would not generate solid waste, it would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -56

4.20 WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
(c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
(d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Impact Analysis:
(a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. In its existing setting, the planning area is almost entirely developed and is located in an urban area of Los Angeles County. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) publishes maps that predict the threat of fire in individual counties in the State. Local responsibility areas and State or federal responsibility areas are classified as either very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ) or non-VHFHSZ based on factors including fuel availability, topography, fire history, and climate. The planning area is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area and does not include land classified as VHFHSZ as defined by CAL FIRE.1 Refer to Response (f) in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for discussion on project impacts related to adopted emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans.

The planning area includes the entire 50 square miles within the limits of the City, which is an urbanized area. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. Therefore, because the planning area is not located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as VHFHSZ, the proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan in such areas. No 1 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2011. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. Los Angeles County. September 2011.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-57
mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. As discussed in Response 4.20 (a), the planning area is not located in or near a state Responsibility Area and does include land classified as VHFHSZ as defined by Cal FIRE. The proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a planning/policy action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would be result in increased wildfire risk. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, wildfire risks would not be exacerbated as a result of the proposed project because the planning area is not located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as VHFHSZ. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. As discussed in Response 4.20 (a), the planning area is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area and does include land classified as VHFHSZ as defined by Cal FIRE. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a planning/policy action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. Each future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, because the planning area is not located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as VHFHSZ, the proposed project would not exacerbate fire risk due to the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure within such areas. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact. As discussed in Response 4.20 (a), the planning area is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area and does include land classified as VHFHSZ as defined by Cal FIRE. The proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, because the planning area is not located in

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -58
or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as VHFHSZ, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes within such areas. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19» 4-59

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects?)
(c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Impact Analysis:
(a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No Impact. As described in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, and Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to biological or cultural resources. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually regarding such resources, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the degradation of the quality of the environment or natural habitats, nor would the project result in impacts to fish and wildlife species or endangered plant or animal species because no physical improvements would occur. In addition, approval of the proposed project would not result in the elimination of important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
4 «05/14/19» -60
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project, when considered in conjunction with other approved or pending projects within the City, could potentially result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to noise. As such, the EIR will assess the potential for the proposed project to contribute to cumulative impacts for each of these environmental topics, and mitigation will be proposed if necessary. Potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project will be analyzed further in the EIR.
(c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact. The potential for the proposed project to have substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, will be evaluated in the Noise section of the EIR. Potential adverse noise impacts associated with the proposed project will be analyzed further in the EIR.

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19»

5.0 REFERENCES
California Emergency Management Agency. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning for the Long Beach Quadrangle. March 1. Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ Documents/Tsunami/Maps/Tsunami_Inundation_LongBeach_Quad_LosAngeles.pdf (accessed May 1, 2019).

California Department of Fish and Game. Code Section 5303.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2011. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. Los Angeles County. September 2011.

California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highways. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/ LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm (accessed April 30, 2019).

City of Long Beach. 1973. General Plan Conservation Element. April. _____. 1975a. General Plan Noise Element. March.
_____. 1975b. General Plan Scenic Routes Element (Scenic Highways). May. _____. 1978. General Plan Public Safety Element. May.
_____. 1988. General Plan Seismic Safety Element. October. _____. 1989. General Plan Land Use Element. July; revised April 1997. _____. 1996. General Plan Air Quality Element.
_____. 2002. Open Space Element. October.
_____. 2010. Sustainable City Action Plan. February.
_____. 2013. General Plan Mobility Element. October.
_____. 2017. City of Long Beach Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. February. _____. 2015. Emergency Operations Plan. August.
_____. 2018. Draft General Plan Land Use Element. March. _____. 2018. Draft General Plan Urban Design Element. March. _____. 2019. Draft General Plan Noise Element. May 2019. _____. City of Long Beach Municipal Code. Ordinance C-7642.

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
«05/14/19»
_____. City of Long Beach Municipal Code. Section 8.80. Noise Ordinance. _____. Cable Television and Telephone Service. Website: http://www.longbeach.gov/ti/telecomm unications (accessed May 1, 2019).
_____. Environmental Services Bureau. Automated Refuse Collection. Website: http://www.long beach- recycles. org/refuse_collection/automated_collection.htm (accessed May 1, 2019). _____. Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Discharges from the City of Long Beach (City of Long Beach MS4 Permit), Order No. R4-2014-0024, NPDES No.

CAS004003.

Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map Act (FIRM).

Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD). Station Locations. Website: http://www.longbeach.gov/fire/ station-locations/ (accessed May 1, 2019).
_____. Home page. Website: http://www.longbeach.gov/fire/ (accessed May 1, 2019).

Long Beach Police Department (LBPD). Patrol Bureau. Website: http://www.longbeach.gov/ police/about-the-lbpd/bureaus/patrol-bureau/patrol-bureau/ (accessed May 1, 2019).

Long Beach Public Library (LBPL). Locations. Website: http://www.longbeach.gov/library/visit/ locations/ (accessed May 1, 2019).

Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). About. Website: http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/District/ (accessed May 1, 2019).

Long Beach Water District. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June.

Long Beach Water Department (LBWD). Frequently Asked Questions. Website: http://www.lb water.org/frequently-asked-questions (accessed May 1, 2019). _____. Sewage Treatment. Website: http://www.lbwater.org/sewage-treatment (accessed May 1, 2019
_____. Sources of Water. Website: http://www.lbwater.org/sources-water (accessed May 1, 2019).

Los Angeles County. Department of Regional Planning. Airport Land Use Commission. Long Beach Airport. Website: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-long-beach. pdf (accessed May 1, 2019).

Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD). Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant. Website:
http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/joint_outfall_system_wrp/long_beach.asp (accessed May 1, 2019).

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA
«05/14/19»
_____. Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF) Brochure. Website: http://www.lacsd.org/solid waste/swfacilities/rtefac/serrf/brochure.asp (accessed May 1, 2019).

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993, currently being revised).
_____. Greenhouse Gases (GHG)—CEQA Significance Thresholds. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/ home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds/ page/2 (accessed May 1, 2019).
_____. 2017. 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP).

State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

U.S. Department of Labor. 2017. Appendix A TO §1910.1200—Health Hazard Criteria, Section A.4 Respiratory or Skin Sensitization. Website: https://www.osha.gov/dsg/hazcom/hazcomappendix-a.html (accessed April 30, 2019).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). National Wetlands Inventory. Website:
https://www.fws. gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed May 1, 2019).

GENERAL PLAN N OISE E LEMENT

LONG BEACH , C ALIFORNIA

INITIAL S TUDY
MAY 2019
«05/14/19»
This page intentionally left blank

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\Appendix A.docx «03/12/21»

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\Appendix A.docx «03/12/21» This page intentionally left blank
5/15/19 1

PUBLIC NOTICE OF SCOPING MEETING/NOTICE OF

PREPARATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Project: General Plan Noise Element
Lead Agency: City of Long Beach
In accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study (IS)
has been prepared for the proposed
General Plan Noise Element (proposed
project) in Long Beach, California. Pursuant
to Section 15063(a) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the City of Long Beach (City), as
the Lead Agency, is required to undertake
the preparation of an IS to determine
whether the proposed action will have a
significant effect on the environment. The
purposes of an IS are to: (1) identify
potential environmental impacts; (2)
provide the Lead Agency with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), or other
CEQA document; (3) enable the Lead
Agency to modify the project (through
mitigation of adverse impacts); (4)
facilitate assessment of potential
environmental impacts early in the design
of the project; and (5) provide
documentation for the potential finding
that the project will not have a significant
effect on the environment or can be
mitigated to a less than significant level
(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063[c]). The City has determined that an EIR will be prepared for the proposed project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City is the Lead Agency responsible for preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing potential environmental impacts associated with the General Plan Noise Element (proposed project). The proposed project is a new General Plan Noise Element, which would replace the City’s existing 1975 Noise Element. The location of the proposed project (also referred to as the “planning area”) encompasses the entire 50 square miles within the limits of the City of Long Beach (excluding the City of Signal Hill, which is completely surrounded by the City of Long Beach) in Los Angeles County, California.

Government Code Section 65302 et seq. requires that every city and county in the State of California (State) prepare and adopt a “comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” State law requires that the General Plan include the following seven mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety.

The City’s Noise Element was last updated in 1975, and at that time, it was implemented through a 1977 Noise Ordinance. Since then, the City's physical development, population, regional context, and the regulatory guidance involving noise have changed significantly. In order to allow for increased flexibility in responding to such changes, the City proposes to update and replace the existing 1975 Noise Element with a new Noise Element. 5/15/19 2
The proposed Noise Element includes a Noise Plan, which addresses strategies and policies related to six topic areas describing sources of existing noise and vibration: (1) PlaceType Characteristics and Land Use Compatibility; (2) Mobility, including vehicular noise, rail, aircraft, and watercraft; (3) Construction; (4) Special Events; (5) Environmental Justice and Social Equity; and (6) Noise Management.

Required discretionary actions associated with the project include a General Plan Update/Amendment for adoption of the proposed Noise Element, a Noise Ordinance Amendment, other Municipal Code Amendment(s) related to noise, and certification of the EIR.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The proposed project is a planning and policy action that does not include any physical development. The Draft EIR will examine potential environmental impacts generated by the proposed project in relation to the following Environmental Analysis categories: Land Use and Planning, Noise, Transportation, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. A more complete description of the proposed project and potential environmental impacts are included in the Initial Study, which is available at the reviewing locations listed below.

PROJECT SCOPING PROCESS: Circulation of this Notice of Preparation (NOP) starts a 32-day public review and comment period on the scope of the Draft EIR that begins on May 17, 2019, and ends on June 17, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. All interested parties, including the public, responsible agencies, and trustee agencies, are invited to provide comments and input on the scope of and content of the environmental analysis to be addressed in the Draft EIR. Responsible and trustee agencies should provide comments and input related to the agencies’ respective areas of statutory responsibility. Comments received during the scoping period will be considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. Public agencies and interested parties will have an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed project during the 45-day public review period to be held after the publication and circulation of the Draft EIR.

SCOPING MEETING: The City will conduct a Public Scoping Meeting in order to present the proposed Noise Element and the EIR process and to receive public comments. The City invites interested parties to the following public scoping meeting for the proposed project in order to learn more about the project, ask questions, and submit comments:

DATE: May 30, 2019 TIME: 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. LOCATION: Bixby Park Social Hall, 130 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach

INITIAL STUDY REVIEWING LOCATIONS
The Initial Study is available for public review from May 17, 2019 and ending June 17, 2019 at the following locations:

Online: http://www.lbds.info/planning/environmental_planning/environmental_reports.asp City of Long Beach Brewitt Neighborhood Library Mark Twain Neighborhood Library Development Services/Planning Bureau 4036 E. Anaheim Street 1401 E. Anaheim Street 333 West Ocean Boulevard, 5th Floor Long Beach, CA 90804 Long Beach, CA 90813 Long Beach, California 90802
Long Beach Public Library Burnett Neighborhood Library North Neighborhood Library 101 Pacific Avenue 560 E. Hill Street 5571 Orange Avenue Long Beach, CA 90822 Long Beach, CA 90806 Long Beach, CA 90805 Alamitos Neighborhood Library Dana Neighborhood Library Ruth Bach Neighborhood Library 1836 E. Third Street 3680 Atlantic Avenue 4055 Bellflower Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 Long Beach, CA 90807 Long Beach, CA 90808 Bay Shore Neighborhood Library El Dorado Neighborhood Library Address Comments to:
195 Bay Shore Avenue 2900 Studebaker Road City of Long Beach Long Beach, CA 90803 Long Beach, CA 90815 Attention: Jennifer Ly, Planner 333 West Ocean Boulevard, Fifth Floor
Bret Harte Neighborhood Library Los Altos Neighborhood Library Long Beach, CA 90802 1595 W. Willow Street 5614 E. Britton Drive Phone: (562) 570-6368 Long Beach, CA 90810 Long Beach, CA 90815 Email: [email protected]

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\Appendix A.docx «03/12/21»

PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT

GENERAL P LAN NOISE ELEMENT

C ITY OF L ONG BEACH
MARCH 2021
P:\CLB1904.03 - Noise Element\CEQA\Draft EIR\Appendix A.docx «03/12/21» This page intentionally left blank
1 Jennifer Ly
From: LINDA SCHOLL <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 2:28 PM
To: Council District 6; Council District 7; Council District 9; Council District 8; Council District 2; Council District 1; Council District 3; Council District 4; Council District 5; Robert Garcia; Mayor; Jeannine Pearce; Lena Gonzalez
Cc: Nelson Kerr; Tasha Day; Tom Modica; Linda Tatum; Jennifer Ly; Devin Ablard; [email protected]; Margaret Moustafa; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Deafening Noise at Pride Festival!
May 20, 2019
Dear Mayor Garcia and City Council Members Gonzalez, Pearce, Price, Supernaw, Mungo, Andrews, Uranga, Austin, Richardson:

The amplified noise at the Pride Festival was again deafening! It was multiple times the health and safety standards for residents living adjacent. Even Denise Newman, Pride Festival President, told our neighbor that Pride attendees on the ground could not listen to the music because the music was so loud.

Below, I am providing decibel readings taken at four (4) high-density residential buildings adjacent to the event areas during the Pride Celebration. With noise limits being 50 decibels for residences east of Alamitos and 60 decibels west of Alamitos-the actual levels on a logarithmic scale are shown in the photos to be 8 and 16 times the City health standards for residences. You may also note that 75 decibels is the point blood pressure is raised. The event exceeded 75 decibels for the entire weekend. The bass insulted our ears and bodies, forcing us to flee our homes to protect ourselves. This stress was further aggravated by the tear down noise of throwing metal posts on the ground and into trucks ALL NIGHT into today, disrupting our sleep and further threatening our health.

THE FIRST OBLIGATION OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS. We need all of you to fix this problem.

This problem is not unique to the Pride Celebration. As residents living on Ocean Boulevard downtown, we have complained to you many many times each year to reduce the events’ noise to healthy levels so that we can live inside our homes during the outdoor entertainment events at Alamitos Beach, Shoreline Drive, The Convention Center Parking lot, Marina Green, Rainbow Lagoon, the Harry Bridges Memorial Park, and the Catalina Parking Lot (all one acoustical area to us). While some individual events have gotten better, on the whole the problem has gotten worse. For example, this year the city supported expanding the over-the-top noisy Kaskade event from one to two days this coming July.

Our complaints are ALL referred back to the Special Events Office. Yes, the Mayor's office, the City Attorney's Office, the Health Department Noise Hotline, and the Police all refer us back to the Special Events Office for resolution. Then we are told that LBMC 8.80.280 exempts city-permitted outdoor entertainment from the city’s noise limits. No mention is made of California Noise Law 46000 that says that: (a) Excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health and welfare. ... (f) All Californians are entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment without the intrusion of noise which may be hazardous to their health or welfare.

As you know, last year on April 17, you passed a recommendation that the City Manager study the impact of outdoor entertainment noise on adjacent residents and report back to you by November 2018 with recommendations to address the problem. As you also know, this has yet to happen. 2 We look forward to your response and action. Our health depends on it.

Dr. Linda Scholl
Chair, Noise Committee
Ocean Residents Community Association
Pride Festival Noise as heard at Long Beach Tower, 600 E. Ocean Blvd 3 4
Pride Festival Noise as heard at International Tower, 700 E. Ocean Blvd 5 6
7 8
Pride Festival Noise as heard at The Villa Riviera, 800 E. Ocean Blvd 9 10
Pride Festival Noise as heard at The Pacific, 850 E. Ocean Blvd 11 12
13 14

1 Jennifer Ly
From: Robert Fox <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 3:19 PM
To: LBDS-EIR-Comments
Subject: Comments on the proposed Noise Ordinance for the General Plan Attachments: Noise Ordiance letter with input and requests..pdf Robert E. Fox
Executive Director of the Council of Neighborhood Organizations President: The Broadway Corridor Association
Dear Mr. Koontz and others,
I welcomed your responses during the Bixby Park Outreach Session. You all were friendly and engaging.  Thank you.

I did understand the general idea from your posters except for one distinct exception.   The poster with colors designating sound level, and then an upward curve denoting types of sound,( Like Emergency Sound Siren) which had a title, Subjective Noise.     I really could not find a consistency or relative common denominator in that graphic.   No one there seemed to be able to explain it to me.   Therefore, I am not yet convinced by the plan.  If things are not presented in a way that common folks, ( Like myself) can understand then it most likely has not be worked out well.

That being said,
I think it is imperative to measure noise from within a place with doors and windows closed, as that is the situation at the International Towers.  Since those units are all wall to wall glass, and cannot accommodate air conditioners, the residents would have to have the ability to either close out the excessive sound, and boil, or open windows for circulation and be overwhelmed by the noise.

I am sure we can come up with a reasonable standard for noise from within a Residence.

I would suggest we require a sound technician for medium sized events.   Small events will not generate too much noise, and such a requirement would be onerous for them.

I suggest that we hire a compliance office in the Health Department to monitor full time the noise from events. We are now booked 52 weeks in the year with medium or large events in the down town sector, and we have additional events at venues throughout all districts.

This expenditure should be made part of the budget request for this coming year for the Health Department.

I believe we should abandon the "exempt" category or temporary events.  That definition is simply obsolete and no longer expresses the nature of our City.  We are now a City full of action, events and interesting happenings.  All of those venues should be under the same rules across the board in our General Plan.

With the removal of exemption, we may also write specific language for the Grand Prix and Pride.  Those are the two major outstanding events in the city during the year.  A specific Contract with both would be advisable.

With the present bickering on the Price Board, I think it advisable to make a very specific contract with them, so that the intention is clear, the compliance issues will be out of their hands and that the enforcement can be easily accomplished.

I believe we should also add that all amplified sound should be directed away from the City and residents at all times.

A measurement of BASE level, woofers etc. should be part of our General Plan.   Lower level sound waves are just as dangerous and high level penetrating sound.  The use of appropriate measuring devices would be needed to make this determination, and I believe it is  well worth the money and the time to get this right.

On a side note,  Traffic and Parking are really important to any event in the City and we have almost no viable movement out of the Elephant Parcel below the City nor from Marina Green.    We should consider creating exit routing for cars, vans and buses to facilitate the movement of people safely and quickly from a venue.

Thank you in advance for your considerations.

Robert E. Fox
2 6‐04‐2019

1 Jennifer Ly
From: Patricia Diefenderfer
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 11:27 AM
To: Bob Kelton
Cc: James Goodin; Moustafa, Margaret; Linda Scholl; Kathy Kelton; Tom Vegors; Robert Fox; Jennifer Ly Subject: RE: Noise Element Comments
Hi Bob,
Hello All.

My Apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

It was a pleasure meeting you all at the Noise Element meeting a few weeks ago. It was good to hear your concerns directly, as a new person to the City, and I appreciate you taking the time to provide comments in writing.

As I mentioned at the meeting, we’re going to look at opportunities to update the policies of the draft Noise Element to better address issues related to special events, based on the feedback you’ve provided, as is appropriate given the Element’s role as a policy document that does not set regulations, but rather guides decisions. Per your input, one of the things we will be looking at is how the existing (1975) Noise Element incorporates noise thresholds and what edits we may consider in light of that. Finally, as I told you at the meeting, I will also be sharing this feedback with other entities within the City who are overseeing the preparation of the Special Events Study. I’ve already begun to reach out to the other City departments and to have follow up meetings to share this information with them.

Thanks for your patience as we continue to explore these issues. It will be some time before you see any revisions to the draft Noise Element, but we will steadily be working on them. Our next steps are to work on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and to simultaneously continue to research the issues and consider any revisions to the current draft of the Noise Element.

As it relates to someone taking photos of the sign‐in sheet, I did not see who it was and I’ve asked other staff who were in attendance and they had no further information. However, sign‐in sheets are part of the official public record of the planning process.  If necessary, I’m happy to discuss this matter further with you by phone. I can be reached at 562.570.6261.

Sincerely,
Patricia
From: Bob Kelton <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 1:54 PM
To: Patricia Diefenderfer <[email protected]> Cc: James Goodin <[email protected]>; Moustafa, Margaret <[email protected]>; Linda Scholl <[email protected]>; Kathy Kelton <[email protected]>; Tom Vegors <[email protected]>; Robert Fox <[email protected]>
Subject: Noise Element Comments
Hi Patricia,
2 Thanks for speaking to us at the Noise Element Open House at Bixby Park last week.  We appreciate how difficult it is to engage with residents on sensitive topics.

A couple of people noticed that someone was taking photos of the attendee sign‐in sheet.  We speculated that this individual may be an employee of a developer or other interested party who wants to gather information on their opposition.  This is completely inappropriate.  Please find out who was taking these photos and for what purpose were they taken.

The Long Beach Noise Element is defined to protect residents and visitors to Long Beach from excessive and intrusive noise.  To achieve this goal, the authors of the 1975 Noise Element included a number of specific restrictions in the document.  These restrictions included a table of maximum noise limits by neighborhood type, implementing sound limits based upon residential windows in the normal position and restricting permitted events to ‘occasional.’  Based upon our conversations and our reading of the proposed updated element, it appears a number of these restrictions have been removed.  It’s perplexing to me as to why these limitations would be removed or relaxed, since I have never heard anyone complain about any event not being loud enough.

In an update to a policy such as the Noise Element, an examination of where the existing policy has been effective and where it has been ineffective should be performed.  One aspect of examining Long Beach’s Noise Element is the city’s noise study.  This study is still incomplete and yet, the city is continuing with the Noise Element update.  This study should include residents’ feedback and provide the foundation for any modifications to the Noise Element.

Since the noise study is still incomplete and little effort has been made to meaningfully engage the residents, we believe that this is not a sincere effort to update the Noise Element for the benefit of residents and visitors, as much as it’s an effort to sneak in a relaxed version that will benefit event promoters.  If this had been a sincere effort, the City would have highlighted all of the proposed changes and described exactly how each change would benefit the people.

Noise pollution is a serious problem and is the number one complaint by residents across the country.  Currently, city ordinances framed by the Noise element, include a lot of protection from excessive noise from construction and unpermitted events.  The element provides NO protection from city permitted events.  The authors of the 1975 Noise Element couldn’t conceive of a Downtown Long Beach with more than a couple of permitted outdoor amplified events each year, so ‘occasional’ was defined as reasonable.   The number of permitted outdoor amplified events in the downtown waterfront area has increased from about four to 42 over the last 15 years.  Most of these are multi‐day events and including the setup and teardown, the noise from permitted events exceeds the Noise Element limits nearly every day from March through October.

The Noise Element should include new restrictions protecting people from loud permitted events by limiting the number of events per noise neighborhood that exceed the Noise Table limits and the term ‘occasional’ should be clearly defined.

Parallels to the Land Use Element (LUE).

Some of the city representatives at the meeting defended weakening the proposed Noise Element stating that it was deliberately vague to set a high‐level philosophy for future more detailed ordinances.  A similar philosophy was used in the initial version of LUE which met with stiff neighborhood opposition.  The draft LUE was later modified to reinstate the original restrictions.  The LUE defines specific height limits by location across the city.  The Planning and Zoning Department must zone within those limits.  For example, a 40‐foot building can be built in an area with a five‐floor limit, but a 60‐foot building would not be allowed.  Noise limits should be clearly defined, covering not only intensity and event duration, but the frequency of permitted amplified events as well.

We like events and want them to continue, but we need protection from noise that exceeds the City’s own limits.

Sincerely,
3 Bob Kelton
President, Aqua 488 HOA
VP, Ocean Residents Community Association

On 6/10/19, I spoke with Maria Gonzalez upon returning her voicemail about the Noise Element Open House. Ms. Gonzalez communicated the following:
1) Ms. Gonzalez is a resident of North Long Beach. From across Artesia Blvd, the freeway is very loud especially at night time. Can anything be done to reduce noise from the freeway, such as working with Caltrans, using sound walls, sheriff patrolling for speed? 2) Ms. Gonzalez also lives close to a fire station, where emergency sirens are very loud and sound at all hours of day and night. Is there any way to reduce sound from the fire stations during emergencies?
Contact: (213) 880-2805, [email protected]
Jennifer Ly
Noise Element Initial Study Comments - 6/12/19
Comments by:

Bob Kelton (BK)
488 E. Ocean Blvd. Unit 1601
Section

2.4.2 13. Balance the needs of special events while prioritizing the well-being of residents.

BK
This comment is insufficient. It is too vague to provide guidance or protection. This is a very highimpact topic that has not been seriously addressed. Limits to events are not defined. A resident escalation path of permitted noise issues is not defined. The needs of special events are far inferior to the well-being of residents.

14. Ensure meaningful participation in the public process by all members of the community, especially historically excluded or marginalized groups.

BK
The list of methodologies used to reach members of the community has been ineffective at reaching residents. Your primary community engagement methodology should use the more than 200 neighborhood associations registered with the City’s Neighborhood Resource Center and managed by city employee Margaret Madden ([email protected]). How can you possibly achieve item 13 above if you don’t reach members of the community?

16. Continue to actively enhance the regulation and management of noise to improve procedures and minimize noise impacts.

BK
Who is actively managing these issues? This is not defined, nor is a methodology of how to escalate issues with management. The community currently has a method to deal with excessive noise from illegal activities or unpermitted events. The police have jurisdiction and will respond. The management side comes into play when permitted events exceed legal limits. The police will not respond or intervene with permitted events. Define the escalation and appeals processes.

2.4.4.1 PlaceType Characteristics and Land Use Compatibility

13. Downtown. The Downtown (DT) PlaceType encompasses the area overlooking the Pacific Ocean where the Los Angeles River and the Port of Long Beach meet. In its existing setting, the Downtown area consists of offices, and government and tourism uses, and is home to several historic and cultural districts. The 2012 Downtown Plan currently serves as the land use plan guiding development in the Downtown area.

14. Waterfront. The Waterfront (WF) PlaceType includes three primary areas along the City’s shoreline, including the Downtown Shoreline Area waterfront, Alamitos Bay Marina, and the Belmont Pier and Pool Complex area. Specifically, the Waterfront PlaceType would encourage high-intensity, compact, and diverse uses (e.g., housing, offices, hotels, and tourism attractions) in the Downtown Shoreline Area (e.g., the Queen Mary and the Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific).

BK
It must be noted that the Downtown and Waterfront, specifically the Downtown Shoreline Area, overlap with regard to noise. An arbitrary line on a map is not a sound barrier. The Noise Element should be updated to define Acoustical Neighborhoods that are independent from Land Use. There are many industrial land uses that make little on no noise, so the LUE’s PlaceTypes should not drive Noise Element Acoustical Neighborhoods.

2.4.4.4 Special Events
Special events regularly occur within the planning area, including community festivals, runs/walks, holiday celebrations, the Long Beach Grand Prix, the Long Beach Marathon, the Long Beach Lesbian and Gay Pride Parade and Celebration, the Jazz Festival, film production, and events hosted at the Queen Mary. Special events provide benefits to the City, including economic development and tourism; however, noise may be a concern for residents living in close proximity to special events. As such, the Noise Element aims to manage the frequency and intensity of noise from special events in order to prioritize the wellbeing of residents.

Strategy No. 13, in Section 2.4.2, Project Strategies, above, is aimed at reducing noise related to special events.

BK
All of the events occur in the Downtown/Waterfront area. This is a complex issue and the strategy proposed in Strategy No. 13, in Section 2.4.2 is woefully insufficient. Based upon the partial list of events above, this obviously has a significant noise issue affect on the residents and visitors to these areas regardless of whether they are participating in the event or not.

Figure 2-1
Map of the ‘Noise Element Project Location’
BK
Does not include the boats docked in the Shoreline Marina. The outline includes only land areas. The Shoreline Marina is in the City’s jurisdiction and the area should be included within the project boundaries to protect the residents living in the marina.

Figure 2-2
Map of ‘Existing Major Sources of Noise’
BK
Does not show the Downtown and Waterfront areas affected by amplified event noise. This is obviously a major source of noise in these areas and must be clearly documented.

4.11 Land Use Planning
(b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Potentially Significant Impact. The main documents guiding development and regulating land uses in the City are the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The City is currently in the process of updating and replacing the existing Land Use Element with an entirely new LUE that would guide future development in the City through the year 2040.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements.

However, Government Code Section 65300.5 requires the various components of a General Plan to be internally consistent and provide a compatible statement of policies. The City’s proposed LUE establishes land uses by PlaceTypes throughout the planning area, and the proposed Noise Element presents information related to existing and projected noise contours that could impact land uses. Therefore, a consistency analysis will be included in the EIR to demonstrate the project’s consistency with the proposed LUE. Additionally, analysis will be provided showing the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Land use impacts associated with the consistency between the project and City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance will be addressed in the EIR and mitigation proposed if necessary.

BK
Land uses are not the same as acoustical neighborhoods. It is not necessary to merge these two concepts as land use is not necessarily noisy. From an Acoustical Neighborhood concept, the Downtown and Waterfront are the same.

4.13 Noise
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Impact. The City of Long Beach regulates noise and vibration standards based on the criteria presented in the Municipal Code Noise Ordinance and the Noise Element of the General Plan (1975). Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the new General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. However, implementation of the proposed Noise Element could result in potentially significant impacts related to proposed noise and vibration policies and standards. As such, impacts related to noise as presented in the Noise Element will be addressed in the EIR. The EIR will also include a discussion of standards established in the City’s Noise Ordinance and the proposed Noise Element. Potential impacts related to noise exceeding established thresholds as presented in the Noise Element will be analyzed further in the EIR and mitigation proposed if necessary.
(b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.12 (a). Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the new General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. However, implementation of the proposed Noise Element could result in potentially significant impacts related to proposed noise and vibration policies or standards. As such, impacts related to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise as presented in the Noise Element will be addressed in the EIR. Potential vibration and groundborne noise impacts as presented in the Noise Element will be analyzed further in the EIR and mitigation proposed if necessary.

BK
There are numerous issues directly related to permitted amplified events that must be addressed in this section of the EIR and the Noise Element. The Noise Element must include limits on noise levels, the maximum number of days permitted events can exceed limits by Acoustical Neighborhood and a clear methodology on how residents can escalate issues related to permitted events.

4.16 Recreation
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact. The Long Beach Parks, Recreation, and Marine Department (LBPRM) oversees the operation and maintenance of public recreational facilities within the City, including parks, community centers, marinas, golf courses, and swimming pools. According to the proposed Land Use Element, the planning area currently contains 100 public parks with 25 community centers, 2 tennis centers, 5 municipal golf courses, and a marina system. Overall, the citywide total of recreation uses is approximately 2,750 acres. According to the General Plan Open Space Element (2002), the City’s parkland-to-resident ratio goal is to provide 8 acres per 1,000 residents. As such, the City is not currently meeting its parkland goal.

The proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is a policy/planning action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to recreational facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the increased use and subsequent deterioration of recreational facilities, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

BK
This item should definitely be addressed in the EIR. The text in the proposed Noise Element will allow for numerous special events to be permitted in park areas. Massive crowds, multiple simultaneous uses and restricted park access is likely and must be addressed.

4.17 Transportation
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Potentially Significant Impact. The City’s Mobility Element (2013) focuses on improving the quality of life for Long Beach residents through transportation and mobility planning. The transportation facilities throughout the City are a major source of noise. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. However, Government Code Section 65300.5 requires the various components of a General Plan to be internally consistent and provide a compatible statement of policies. As such, a consistency analysis will be included in the EIR to demonstrate the project’s consistency with the Mobility Element, as well as the proposed LUE. Transportation impacts associated with the consistency between the project and City’s General Plan will be addressed in the EIR and mitigation proposed if necessary.

BK
This analysis must include an analysis of changes to traffic patterns, hours of extended traffic noise and additional traffic congestion related to permitted special events, particularly in the Downtown/Waterfront area.

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project, when considered in conjunction with other approved or pending projects within the City, could potentially result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to noise. As such, the EIR will assess the potential for the proposed project to contribute to cumulative impacts for each of these environmental topics, and mitigation will be proposed if necessary. Potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project will be analyzed further in the EIR.

BK
To be complete, this analysis must include an analysis of the effects of persistent noise from permitted amplified events.
(c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact. The potential for the proposed project to have substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, will be evaluated in the Noise section of the EIR. Potential adverse noise impacts associated with the proposed project will be analyzed further in the EIR.

BK
To be complete, this analysis must include an analysis of the effects of persistent noise from permitted amplified events.

4.4 Biological Resources
(d) Would the project 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? No Impact. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code 3503 protect most native bird species from destruction or harm. This protection extends to individuals, as well as any part, nest, or eggs of any bird listed as migratory. Most native North American bird species are on the MBTA list.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts related to interference with the movement of species within wildlife corridors. As stated previously, the project is a planning/policy action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact biological resources. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

BK
The analysis stating that the Noise Element will not impact wildlife is incorrect. The authors of the Initial Study felt that the act of updating a document won’t have an impact. The Downtown/Waterfront has numerous waterfowl and marine mammals living in close proximity to major event venues. Many are migratory birds that have not been audited for adverse effects from regular exposure to Long Beach’s special events permitted under the guidance of the 1975 Noise Element. Studies by the National Parks Service have found that even moderate noise has an adverse effect on the behavior of wildlife. (f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), Natural Communities Conservation Plans (NCCP), or other similar plans within the City. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any plan related to the protection of biological resources. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

BK
The analysis stating that the Noise Element will not impact wildlife is incorrect. The authors of the Initial Study felt that the act of updating a document won’t have an impact. The Downtown/Waterfront has numerous waterfowl and marine mammals living in close proximity to major event venues. And just because the city doesn’t currently have any HCPs or NCCPs, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have them.

The Noise Element allows for numerous permitted noisy events that will adversely affect wildlife.

Studies by the National Parks Service have found that even moderate noise has an adverse effect on the behavior of wildlife. Additional information is available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sound/effects_wildlife.htm.

June 12, 2019
Katherine Kelton
Long Beach Resident, Member Ocean Resident Council Association 488 E Ocean Blvd. Unit 1601
Long Beach, Ca. 90802
[email protected]
City of Long Beach
Attention: Jennifer Ly, Planner
333 West Ocean Boulevard, Fifth Floor
Long Beach, CA. 90802
[email protected]
Dear Ms. Ly,
This electronic letter is intended to provide comments regarding the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report related to environmental issues. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding the Environmental Impact Review. My comments are summarized below. I have pasted the specific section from the EIR for which I am commenting in italics. My comments are in regular non italicized print and follow each pertinent section for which my comment pertains.

Section 2.4.2 v

13. Balance the needs of special events while prioritizing the well-being of residents.

Kelton Resident Comment: This statement does not provide adequate guidance for noise ordinances or special events ordinances. The statement is a philosophical concept as opposed to representing a tangible plan that can effectively be implemented. As written, it can be interpreted many different ways and leaves the door wide open for abusive practices relative to noise. The residents are unprotected if this statement remains as is. More specific guidance is needed to ensure the developers of future ordinances protect the health and safety of residents.

The plan must address the minimum DB permitted, the maximum duration of specified DB and the maximum frequency of DB levels to ensure well-being is clearly defined. Failure to provide more tangible guidance will neutralize any protection the residents have under the current plan.

The needs of special events are also vague. What exactly are the ‘needs’ of special events? How do the “needs” of special events compare to the needs of residents? How will the city prioritize the well being of residents? How will the city enforce resident well being? If specific guidance is not provided, the residents will not have any recourse to protect themselves and will continue to be harmed unless they pursue litigation. Litigation will be costly for the city.

14. Ensure meaningful participation in the public process by all members of the community, especially historically excluded or marginalized groups.

Kelton Resident Comment: The list of methodologies used to reach members of the community has been ineffective at reaching residents. The primary community engagement methodology should use the 200 neighborhood associations registered with the City’s Neighborhood Resource Center and managed by city employee Margaret Madden ([email protected]).

16. Continue to actively enhance the regulation and management of noise to improve procedures and minimize noise impacts.

I strongly disagree with the lead in phrase “continue to actively enhance the regulation and management of noise” as the city has done little to enhance procedures or minimize noise impacts along the waterfront residential belt. In fact, it is apparent that the city is attempting to deteriorate and reduce regulation by removing tangible guidance around maximum DB levels and allowance for only occasional special events in the current plan. The city is replacing tangible guidance in the current plan with the vague language contained in this plan. While the city has made some modest attempts to manage noise issues, the steps are insufficient to consistently protect residents that are being driven out of our homes by excessive noise from frequently occurring events with sustained duration of excessive DB levels.

Who will actively managing these issues? This is not defined, nor is a methodology of how residents can escalate issues with management. The community currently has a method to deal with excessive noise from illegal activities or unpermitted events. The police have jurisdiction and will respond. Even the illegal activities are not adequately policed. A dog park was approved next to my building under the promise that excessive barking would not be permitted and access would be limited to sunrise and sunset. These rules are regularly broken. The ability of police to respond to low priority issues such as barking dogs and unlawful access to the dog zone area is nonexistent. There needs to be a concrete escalation process that provides a mechanism to shut down non-compliant uses when police enforcement is not feasible or practical. More care needs to be given when approving dog zones and parks to ensure rules can be enforced. Non-compliant dog zones and parks should be shut down.

The management side also comes into play when permitted events exceed legal limits. The police will not respond or intervene permitted events. To date the city council, mayor, city management and health department have not provided adequate protection from excessive noise events. We are referred to special events management and they try to get event staff to reduce the intensity of the DB levels but adjustments don’t last and the levels immediately escalate in a short period of time. The plan needs to define a tangible and enforceable escalation and appeals process for non-compliance of all noise events and more importantly an escalation plan is needed for permitted events.

The city cannot protect the health and well being of residents if permits continue to be provided in an uncontrolled manner with no clearly defined number of permits each year or maximum frequency of amplified noise events. This is demonstrated by the current abusive practice where the city has allowed these types of events to increase from the occasional few per year twelve years ago to an excessively loud noise event nearly every other week during the summer. Set up and break down of events generates ongoing sporadic banging, drilling and beeping. The health and well being of residents cannot be provided when the city continues to allow event sponsors to promote events with unrestricted amplified noise levels for an unrestricted duration. A clearly defined escalation path with steps toward resolution is necessary to generate public trust in the EIR.

2.4.4.1 PlaceType Characteristics and Land Use Compatibility

13. Downtown. The Downtown (DT) PlaceType encompasses the area overlooking the Pacific Ocean where the Los Angeles River and the Port of Long Beach meet. In its existing setting, the Downtown area consists of offices, and government and tourism uses, and is home to several historic and cultural districts. The 2012 Downtown Plan currently serves as the land use plan guiding development in the Downtown area.

14. Waterfront. The Waterfront (WF) PlaceType includes three primary areas along the City’s shoreline, including the Downtown Shoreline Area waterfront, Alamitos Bay Marina, and the Belmont Pier and Pool Complex area. Specifically, the Waterfront PlaceType would encourage high-intensity, compact, and diverse uses (e.g., housing, offices, hotels, and tourism attractions) in the Downtown Shoreline Area (e.g., the Queen Mary and the Long Beach Aquarium of the Pacific).

Kelton Resident Comment: How is promotion of more high intensity uses beneficial in the waterfront area that is already 97% built up and 100% residential? Does the city realize more than half of the waterfront area denoted on the waterfront sections and Ocean Boulevard are entirely residential? Does the city recognize we are your constituents and tax payers? The ongoing refusal to accept and acknowledge commercial use ends at the performing arts center and residential development begins adjacent to the performing arts center and continues beyond that for miles is part of the problem. The map lines do not mirror reality as the lines do not reflect the purely residential nature of the waterfront past the performing arts center nor does the figure reflect the increase in residential density within the downtown area. The effect of loud speakers and amplified noise in the downtown area, especially the elephant lot, beach, and marina green directly adjacent to high density residential development is not being addressed. The plan continues to reference potential harm. What is the city planning to do to address existing harm from the high intensity noise generating uses? How does the plan address the existing community outcry regarding the harmful effects of high intensity uses that generate amplified noise?
The proximity of the residential development to the downtown area, and the sustained increase in residential development within downtown, (a plan the city permitted to occur), must be considered. An arbitrary line on a map is not a sound barrier.

2.4.4.4 Special Events
Special events regularly occur within the planning area, including community festivals, runs/walks, holiday celebrations, the Long Beach Grand Prix, the Long Beach Marathon, the Long Beach Lesbian and Gay Pride Parade and Celebration, the Jazz Festival, film production, and events hosted at the Queen Mary. Special events provide benefits to the City, including economic development and tourism; however, noise may be a concern for residents living in close proximity to special events. As such, the Noise Element aims to manage the frequency and intensity of noise from special events in order to prioritize the wellbeing of residents.

Strategy No. 13, in Section 2.4.2, Project Strategies, above, is aimed at reducing noise related to special events.

Kelton Resident Comment: The paragraph above is indicative of the city’s failure to address harmful environmental noise impacts. The ambient noise at my home is 45DB. Special event noise ranges from 70DB to over 90 DB which is well above the current plan limits and consistently exceeds levels deemed unsafe for any duration in scientific journals. The noise issue is a complex issue and the strategy proposed in Strategy No. 13, in Section 2.4.2 is woefully insufficient. The unfettered ability of event promoters to promote events with unrestricted levels of amplified noise for unrestricted duration and no maximum permitting of any type for amplified noise events does cause harm and is causing harm.

There is no ‘may’ about it. I encourage the city to read some medical journals regarding the harmful effects of amplified noise so that there is no further ambiguity or confusion regarding the harmful environmental effects of the events the city continues to approve. Based upon the partial list of events above, this obviously has a significant noise issue affect on the residents and visitors to these areas regardless of whether they are participating in the event or not.

Figure 2-1
Map of the ‘Noise Element Project Location’
Kelton Resident Comment: The map does not include the boats docked in the Shoreline Marina. The outline includes only land areas. The Shoreline Marina is in the City’s jurisdiction and the area should be included within the project boundaries to protect the residents living in the marina.

Figure 2-2
Map of ‘Existing Major Sources of Noise’
The map does not show the entire range of noise sources as the city has recently expanded special events to the beach area. The map also needs to show all areas impacted by the noise as residents as far down as Belmont Shore can hear the events and feel the bass vibrations.

4.11 Land Use Planning
(b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Potentially Significant Impact. The main documents guiding development and regulating land uses in the City are the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The City is currently in the process of updating and replacing the existing Land Use Element with an entirely new LUE that would guide future development in the City through the year 2040.

Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements.

However, Government Code Section 65300.5 requires the various components of a General Plan to be internally consistent and provide a compatible statement of policies. The City’s proposed LUE establishes land uses by PlaceTypes throughout the planning area, and the proposed Noise Element presents information related to existing and projected noise contours that could impact land uses. Therefore, a consistency analysis will be included in the EIR to demonstrate the project’s consistency with the proposed LUE. Additionally, analysis will be provided showing the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Land use impacts associated with the consistency between the project and City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance will be addressed in the EIR and mitigation proposed if necessary.

Kelton Resident Comment: Land uses are not the same as noise neighborhoods. It is not necessary to merge these two concepts as land use is not necessarily noisy. From a Noise Neighborhood concept, the Downtown and Waterfront are the same.

4.13 Noise
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Potentially Significant Impact. The City of Long Beach regulates noise and vibration standards based on the criteria presented in the Municipal Code Noise Ordinance and the Noise Element of the General Plan (1975). Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the new General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. However, implementation of the proposed Noise Element could result in potentially significant impacts related to proposed noise and vibration policies and standards. As such, impacts related to noise as presented in the Noise Element will be addressed in the EIR. The EIR will also include a discussion of standards established in the City’s Noise Ordinance and the proposed Noise Element. Potential impacts related to noise exceeding established thresholds as presented in the Noise Element will be analyzed further in the EIR and mitigation proposed if necessary.
(b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.12 (a). Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the new General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. However, implementation of the proposed Noise Element could result in potentially significant impacts related to proposed noise and vibration policies or standards. As such, impacts related to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise as presented in the Noise Element will be addressed in the EIR. Potential vibration and groundborne noise impacts as presented in the Noise Element will be analyzed further in the EIR and mitigation proposed if necessary.

Kelton Resident Response: There are numerous issues directly related to permitted amplified events that must be addressed in this section of the EIR. As noted in my prior comments, the ambient noise on our balcony is 45 DB. The amplified noise levels for numerous downtown events ranges from 70Dba to 90 Dba and the percussion consistently exceeds 90DBc on our balcony. The percussion shakes the windows and vibrates our floor. There is no public trust to be gained from the vague wording and lack of objective concrete measures to be taken in the revised plan. The revised plan does not address the resident letters with pleas for help that we have sent over the last three years to the city regarding the environmental harm caused to us by the frequently occurring excessive noise from permitted events.

All I see are fluffy sales slogans with no real measures that address our pleas for help. I see no objective steps regarding enforcement. As a resident I have been forced out of my home due to excessive DBa and DBc levels. The cost to find alternate temporary lodging is due to the city’s failure to adequately address the negative and harmful environmental impact of noise issues on residents like me in the area.

4.16 Recreation
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact. The Long Beach Parks, Recreation, and Marine Department (LBPRM) oversees the operation and maintenance of public recreational facilities within the City, including parks, community centers, marinas, golf courses, and swimming pools. According to the proposed Land Use Element, the planning area currently contains 100 public parks with 25 community centers, 2 tennis centers, 5 municipal golf courses, and a marina system. Overall, the citywide total of recreation uses is approximately 2,750 acres. According to the General Plan Open Space Element (2002), the City’s parkland-to-resident ratio goal is to provide 8 acres per 1,000 residents. As such, the City is not currently meeting its parkland goal.

The proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is a policy/planning action that does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would result in impacts to recreational facilities. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. Any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to the increased use and subsequent deterioration of recreational facilities, and no mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

Kelton Resident Comment: I find or difficult to believe parks will not be affected given the city has steadily and increasingly been turning every inch of open space within and near the residential belt into a Coachella landfill that generates harmful environmental amplified noise and litters the green belts and beaches along this stretch with environmentally unsafe food trash and construction debris from the events. The city has shown little regard for green belts, resident health or any other environmental impacts as demonstrated by the current trend of increasing harmful amplified noise events, allowing parking on the marina green grass, allowing parking on the beach, recent promotion of special noise events on the beach, major stage and amphitheater construction for these events on the marina green and the beach, and approval of ever increasing events that attract massive crowds on the beach areas that residents and tourists currently use for recreation. There is an ongoing negative impact and restriction to the recreational beach areas and green belts due to expansion of special events that negatively impact the environment.

The fact that the revised plan denies these trends and their potential and existing effect on recreational areas and parks is indicative of failed environmental management by the City of Long Beach. Trash is not cleaned up in a timely manner. The amplified noise levels exceed those that are safe for humans.

The city ignores the fact that these events affect residents and our ability to enjoy recreational areas. In addition, the city has not addressed in the plan how these negative environmental issues affect the residents, tourists, families and children that bike down the recreational bike path that extends along the waterfront when special events on the beach and marina beach with harmful amplified noise occur.

The percussion from these Coachella type festivals and events is so dangerously pervasive it rocks all areas of the city with intense vibrations within a one to five mile radius. The city must address the three year history of constituent demands for action.

This item must be addressed in the EIR if any public trust is to be gained through the revised plan.

Depending on how the Noise Element is written or interpreted, numerous special events could be permitted in park areas. Massive crowds, multiple simultaneous use and restricted park access is likely and must be addressed.

4.17 Transportation
Impact Analysis:
(a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Potentially Significant Impact. The City’s Mobility Element (2013) focuses on improving the quality of life for Long Beach residents through transportation and mobility planning. The transportation facilities throughout the City are a major source of noise. Approval of the proposed project is the adoption of the General Plan Noise Element, which is considered a policy/planning action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements. However, Government Code Section 65300.5 requires the various components of a General Plan to be internally consistent and provide a compatible statement of policies. As such, a consistency analysis will be included in the EIR to demonstrate the project’s consistency with the Mobility Element, as well as the proposed LUE. Transportation impacts associated with the consistency between the project and City’s General Plan will be addressed in the EIR and mitigation proposed if necessary.

Kelton Resident Comment: This analysis must include an analysis of changes to traffic patterns, hours of extended traffic noise and additional traffic congestion related to permitted special events, particularly in the Downtown/Waterfront area.

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project, when considered in conjunction with other approved or pending projects within the City, could potentially result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to noise. As such, the EIR will assess the potential for the proposed project to contribute to cumulative impacts for each of these environmental topics, and mitigation will be proposed if necessary. Potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project will be analyzed further in the EIR.

Kelton Resident Comment: To be complete, this analysis must include an analysis of the effects of persistent noise from permitted amplified events. The ongoing increase in special event permits is having a cumulative effect on the health and well being of residents as shown by the three year history of our noise hotline phone calls, emails and letters pleading for the city to help us. (c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact. The potential for the proposed project to have substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, will be evaluated in the Noise section of the EIR. Potential adverse noise impacts associated with the proposed project will be analyzed further in the EIR.

Kelton Resident Comment: Same as above. To be complete, this analysis must include an analysis of the effects of persistent noise from permitted amplified events. As a resident I have been driven out of my home due to the negative environmental effect of excessive noise. I cannot always leave and that results in lost sleep, tinnitus from the noise, raised blood pressure and overall negative impact to my mental health and well being. There is no doubt there is potential for harm because the city has received cries for help for three years from the waterfront residents regarding existing harm. We have provided DB levels and notified the city of the effect to our bodies. Our cries for help are not being adequately addressed. Excessive amplified noise is moving in the wrong direction. As residents we need a credible and tangible EIR to protect us.

4.4 Biological Resources
(d) Would the project 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? No Impact. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code 3503 protect most native bird species from destruction or harm. This protection extends to individuals, as well as any part, nest, or eggs of any bird listed as migratory. Most native North American bird species are on the MBTA list.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts related to interference with the movement of species within wildlife corridors. As stated previously, the project is a planning/policy action and does not include or facilitate any physical improvements that would impact biological resources. Further, any future discretionary project within the City would be evaluated individually, and project-specific mitigation would be proposed as needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process. (f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), Natural Communities Conservation Plans (NCCP), or other similar plans within the City. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any plan related to the protection of biological resources. No mitigation is required. This topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR unless new information identifying it as a potential impact is presented during the scoping process.

Kelton Resident Comment: What scientific data has the city used to determine whether wildlife will be affected? The local residents have provided a three year history of how noise management has failed through our letters. We have informed the city that we have been forced to change our human habits to protect ourselves from harmful noise. We have temporarily moved during events and paid for other lodging at our own expense. We have done our best to hide in safe places to avoid the noise. This is all clearly documented in our three year history of letters to all levels of city officials and the health department.

If we as humans are affected, how can the city claim the wildlife are not affected? How can the city claim noise events will not affect the wildlife when there are no maximum DB levels in the plan, there are no maximum number of permits for amplified noise events, and there are no maximum duration restrictions in place? How can the city claim no effect when the city acknowledges traffic will increase due to these events and the national parks and recreation has papers stating urban noise such as increased traffic DOES and IS affecting wildlife in national parks? I am including the national park noise study for reference. Please explain why the city’s conclusions differ from the national government regarding the affect of urban noise on wildlife and why the city does not believe this needs to be addressed in the Long Beach environmental impact study. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sound/effects_wildlife.htm Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding the environmental impact report and noise plan for Long Beach.

Regards,
Katherine Kelton
[email protected]
RE: REPLY TO 2019 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING—EIR
General Plan Noise Element Project - Initial Study Comments Page | 1
DATE: June 11, 2019
NAME: Linda Scholl
ADDRESS: 700 E. Ocean Blvd Long Beach 90802
EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected]
Do you wish to be added to the Project Mailing List: YES The following comments are submitted for the record as “environmental issues” for the 2019 Noise Element EIR-Initial Study:

Summary:

The 2019 Noise Element EIR Initial Study, including the draft 2019 Noise Element (NE), is beautiful! But when it smiles, you see it’s missing teeth! The “residential” teeth have been knocked out. It needs a few dental implants inserted so that it can again speak clearly and authoritatively. The omitted standards must be added to the 2019 Initial Study and draft Noise Element documents in recognition that the needs of our ears and desire to enjoy our homes remain constant--no matter whether the year is 1975 or 2019.

Specifically:

1. Add back a Residential Noise Table for day and night, the rules for resolving noise conflicts of land use, and the location of residential sound measurement at the “windows in seasonal configuration”. They were included in the 1975 Noise Element:
o Table 11, Recommended Criteria for Acceptable Noise, 1975 NE, page 137) o "When the goals for adjacent areas are found to be in conflict with each other, at the boundary line between two zones, the presumed ambient noise level of the quieter zone shall be used.” 1975 NE, Page 200.)
o Because of the nature of Long Beach’s older construction, sound test measurements will be meaningless unless taken from inside and outside at residents’ balconies/”windows in seasonal configuration.”

2. Sound level and vibration guidelines for amplified noise from Special Events must be added, similar to the other categories of noise (such as construction and transportation noise and vibration).
o Only 2-3 designated events per year should be permitted to exceed the noise levels, if any. Event locations adjacent to residences must be combined into acoustic areas for this noise measurement and event planning. This is to respond to the requests by hundreds of residents to protect them from the prolonged durations of months of hazardous outdoor amplified “Special Events” noise held adjacent to homes.

RE: REPLY TO 2019 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING—EIR
General Plan Noise Element Project - Initial Study Comments Page | 2

3. The Initial Study did NOT acknowledge the significant Environmental Impact these omissions of standards are likely to cause all residents. Please correct this.

4. This Initial Study and draft 2019 Noise Element should include California Noise law 46000 excerpts as guiding principles, including:
(f) All Californians are entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment without the intrusion of noise which may be hazardous to their health or welfare. (g) It is the policy of the state to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.”
Note: By contrast, the 1975 Noise Element (NE) properly addressed California Noise Law 46000 in its philosophy, objectives, and guidelines.

5. These omissions give the appearance that City Officials are ignoring the Noise guidelines for “Residential” and other “Noise Sensitive” Areas because the City has a conflict of interest regarding “special events.” Certain officials have stated they want to brand areas of Long Beach as an "entertainment destination.” The City solicits, promotes, earns money for these amplified outdoor events, and exempts them from ALL noise control limits without regard to residential adjacencies or residents’ complaints to be protected from the noise. The Health Department and Police claim no enforcement ability because of the word “occasional” in the municipal code (LBMC 8.80) being ignored and exemptions applied to all special events rather than just “occasional” events.

This is a key conflict should be examined for Environment Impact with regard to successful implementation of the key strategies of this project.

6. Wait for the completion of the Downtown Noise study underway before finalizing this document so applicable results and recommendations may be included.

Thank you for all of the work on this project and for addressing these issues, Linda Scholl, DCH
(continued)
RE: REPLY TO 2019 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING—EIR
General Plan Noise Element Project - Initial Study Comments Page | 3
NOISE ELEMENT EIR INITIAL STUDY Comments: Topics by Section Section 2.4.2

13. Balance the needs of special events while prioritizing the well-being of residents.

Citizen comments: This comment must have specific measures and standards, otherwise it is EMPTY, vague, and provides no guidance or public noise protection. It has NOT been seriously addressed.

For instance, it must be noted that: “All Californians are entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment without the intrusion of noise which may be hazardous to their health or welfare. (g) It is the policy of the state to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.” To ensure such peaceful and quiet environments, limits to sound levels and the number of events must be well defined. A resident escalation path of permitted noise issues must be defined. Accordingly, the well-being of residents should be emphasized, listed first- and be considered more important than the so-called needs of “special events”.

14. Ensure meaningful participation in the public process by all members of the community, especially historically excluded or marginalized groups.

Citizen comments: The list of methodologies used to reach members of the community has been ineffective at reaching residents. Your primary community engagement methodology should use the 200 neighborhood associations registered with the City’s Neighborhood Resource Center and managed by city employee Margaret Madden ([email protected]). How can you possibly achieve item 13 above if you don’t reach members of the community?

16. Continue to actively enhance the regulation and management of noise to improve procedures and minimize noise impacts.

Citizen comments:

This statement is empty without there being definitions or standards to prevent elimination of hazardous noise levels in residential areas or from outdoor amplified events noise intruding into residences. The environmental impact of no noise standards for events is a significant environmental hazard for adjacent residents.

The lack of noise standards and enforcement fosters continuation of the current circuitous Catch 22 of sending noise complaints about the level of amplified noise back to the Fox in the henhouse, (e.g. the Special Events Department). The results: the hazardous noise continues. (No offense intended to the individuals, but solely to recognize the conflicted nature of the City and its jobs.) End result—everything goes back to the Special Events Department and the Noise continues to harm the residents.

RE: REPLY TO 2019 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING—EIR
General Plan Noise Element Project - Initial Study Comments Page | 4
Citizen Recommendations:

1. Set noise standards for residential and other noise sensitive areas as measured at the balconies/window in seasonal configuration as many older buildings must leave the windows open due to lack of air conditioning in their buildings. a. Designate only 2-3 specific events "per acoustic neighborhood per calendar year" that may exceed the noise standard.
b. Use arm’s length relationship with certified noise planner to define acoustic noise neighborhoods. Combine event locations into “acoustical neighborhoods” for noise measurement and planning purposes based on how sound from adjacent areas impacts them. Consider them “acoustical neighborhoods” for outdoor entertainment planning purposes to recognize how that noise in one affects all. Define these “acoustical” neighborhoods for outdoor entertainment as a pre-requisite for planning.

For example: Alamitos Beach, Shoreline Drive, Convention Center parking lot, Marina Green, Rainbow Lagoon, and the Harry Bridges Memorial Park and Queen Mary are different venues but one acoustical area for people living adjacent to these event locations.

2. Designate a specific noise manager and train and imbue with authority to actively manage the noise levels for outdoor events to comply with health and safety standards. Include a role definition for the noise manager and methodology for the public of how to escalate issues with management.

3. Designate and track issues and the escalation and resolution process.

2.4.4.1 PlaceType Characteristics and Land Use Compatibility

13. Downtown. The Downtown (DT) PlaceType encompasses the area overlooking the Pacific Ocean where the Los Angeles River and the Port of Long Beach meet. In its existing setting, the Downtown area consists of offices, and government and tourism uses, and is home to several historic and cultural districts. The 2012 Downtown Plan currently serves as the land use plan guiding development in the Downtown area.

14. Waterfront. The Waterfront (WF) PlaceType includes three primary areas along the City’s shoreline, including the Downtown Shoreline Area waterfront, Alamitos Bay Marina, and the Belmont Pier and Pool Complex area. Specifically, the Waterfront PlaceType would encourage high-intensity, compact, and diverse uses (e.g., housing, offices, hotels, and tourism attractions) in the Downtown Shoreline Area (e.g., the Queen Mary and the Long Beach Aquarium of the
Pacific).

RE: REPLY TO 2019 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING—EIR
General Plan Noise Element Project - Initial Study Comments Page | 5
Citizen comments:

1. It must be noted that the Downtown and Waterfront, specifically the Downtown Shoreline Area, overlap with regard to noise; and the Downtown area includes substantial noise sensitive residential housing. An arbitrary line on a map is not a sound barrier. The maps are too small for any use as standards or guidelines.