Resolution — Long Beach City Council, July 18, 2023 (part 2 of 11)

Table 10 Consistency Analysis with the City of Long Beach CAAP Actions Applicable CAAP Adaptation Action Consistency Requirement Consistency Analysis Based on the Flood Resilience Assessment, the project site would experience a low risk of flooding, and the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the CBSC as amended by the LBMC and incorporate the recommendations outlined in the Flood Resilience Assessment (such as ensuring that enclosed spaces and critical utility systems are above the design flood elevation).

Therefore, the proposed project would support of this CAAP Adaptation Action.

12. Ensure that All Critical Infrastructure in the Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Zone Is Elevated, Relocated, or
Floodproofed
For any project related infrastructure or infrastructure improvements, the project must sufficiently elevate, relocate, or install sufficient floodproofing techniques for all critical infrastructure in the City’s sea level rise vulnerability zone pursuant to all City requirements. The project uses floodproofing techniques as necessary.

Supports CAAP Measures: FLD-10
Consistent. Based on the Flood Resilience Assessment, the project site would experience a low risk of flooding and sea level rise, and the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the CBSC as amended by the LBMC and incorporate the
recommendations outlined in the Flood Resilience Assessment (such as ensuring that enclosed spaces and critical utility systems are above the design flood elevation). Therefore, the proposed project would support this CAAP Adaptation Action.

13. Adapt Street Hardscapes and Waterfront Streets and
Paths
For any project related street improvements within the SLR vulnerability zone, the project must consider elevating and extending street hardscapes such as curbs to eliminate gaps that could become flood pathways, including those identified in the CAAP.

Supports CAAP Measures: FLD-14, FLD-15
Consistent. The proposed project does not include the construction of any streets. Consistent with SEASP Section 6.7.h.i.17, the proposed project would extend the bicycle way on Studebaker Road, but the implementation of the bicycle way would not require any other hardscape improvements, such as curbs.

Source: Long Beach 2022c.

As mentioned in the tables above, the proposed project includes development standards that promote energy efficiency and water efficiency. These include EnergyStar appliances, installation of bicycle parking stalls, improvements to pedestrian walkways nearby, implementation of lighting that would comply with SEASP design guidelines to reduce light and glare, water-efficient landscaping consistent with LBMC, street tree installation, and a new PV system to increase renewable energy on-site. Additionally, the proposed project allows for residential and commercial uses on the same project site, promoting interactive use of on-site facilities, which reduces the need for vehicle trips. In addition, the proposed project supports multimodal transportation by installing 142 bicycle parking stalls and pedestrian/bike path improvements to the existing paved pathway along the San Gabriel River to help reduce long-term GHG emissions associated with operation of the proposed project.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 99
The proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAAP. The proposed project would be required to implement all applicable mitigation measures from the PEIR. A less than significant impact would occur with implementation of SEASP PEIR PDF-3, PDF-5, and PDF-7 through PDF-9 and Mitigation Measures AQ-4 through AQ-6.

Moreover, the proposed project is within the SEASP buildout and is consistent with the MU-CC land use designation on the project site. As with the SEASP, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. While the proposed project consistency analysis with the City’s CAAP under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 presented above represents the basis for the significance determination contained in this Compliance Checklist, GHG emissions generated during construction and operation of the proposed project is presented below and compared against the South Coast AQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year significance threshold for informational purposes (i.e., not utilized to determine project impact significance). See Table 12, Unmitigated Project Operational GHG Emissions.

Project GHG Emissions
Construction
The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during construction activities, principally from the operation of off-road construction equipment and vehicle trips generated by construction workers, soil hauling truck trips, and material vendor delivery truck trips. As shown in Table 11, the proposed project’s construction emissions would total an estimated 3,176 MTCO2e, or approximately 106 MTCO2e per year when amortized over 30 years.

Table 11 Unmitigated Project Construction GHG Emissions Construction Year MTCO2e
1 2023 363
2024 1,422
2025 1,391
Total 3,176
Amortized Over 30 Years2 106
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023. Appendix B.

Notes:

1. MTCO2e = metric tons of an equivalent mass of carbon dioxide. CO2e was calculated using CalEEMod and the results are provided in Appendix B.

2. As recommended by the South Coast AQMD, the total GHG construction emissions were amortized over the 30-year expected lifetime of the project (i.e., total construction GHG emissions were divided by 30 to determine an annual construction emissions estimate that can be added to the project’s operational emissions) in order to determine the project’s annual GHG emissions inventory.

Operation
Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from various sources, including vehicle use, emergency generator use, water consumption, and waste generation. Operational GHG emissions generated by the proposed project are presented in Table 12. It is important to note that the operational 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 100 ends

GHG emissions in Table 12 represent unmitigated GHG emissions and include area-source GHG emissions associated with gasoline-fueled landscaping equipment use, which would be prohibited under Mitigation Measure AQ-4. Therefore, the emission estimates provided herein provide a conservative analysis. As shown in Table 12, the proposed project’s operational emissions combined with amortized construction emissions would be well within the GHG emissions evaluated in the PEIR and would be below the South Coast AQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year significance threshold.

Table 12 Unmitigated Project Operational GHG Emissions (Year 2025)1 Construction Year MTCO2e
1 Area2 68
Energy3 1,134
Mobile 637
Solid Waste4 75
Water/Wastewater5 34
Refrigerants 1
Amortized Construction 106
Total 2,055
Total SEASP GHG Emissions 148,060
Proposed Project vs SEASP PEIR (146,005)
South Coast AQMD Significance Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023. Appendix B.

Notes:

1. CO2e was calculated using CalEEMod and the results are provided in Appendix B.

2. Area source emissions are from landscape equipment.

3. Energy source emissions are based on CalEEMod default electricity and natural gas consumption rates.

4. Solid waste emissions are calculated based on CalEEMod default solid waste generation rates.

5. Water/Wastewater emissions are calculated based on CalEEMod default water consumption rates.

Conclusion
As discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAAP according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 and would therefore not generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 101
Mitigation Measures
See Mitigation Measures AQ-4 through AQ-6 in Section 3.3, Air Quality. As shown in Section 3.3, Mitigation Measure AQ-4 was updated to be consistent with the City’s CAAP GHG Reduction Action Consistency Checklist.

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues

SEASP PEIR
Determination
Are there
environmental
effects peculiar to
the project or the
parcel on which
the project would
be located?
Are there
environmental
effects that were
not analyzed as
significant effects
in the SEASP
PEIR?
Are there
potentially
significant offsite impacts and
cumulative
impacts which
were not
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
Are there
previously
identified
significant effects
which, as a result
of substantial
new
information which
was not known at
the time the
SEASP PEIR was
certified, are
determined to
have a more
severe adverse
impact than
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
yes yes no no
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Less than
Significant
no no no no
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
no no no no
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
no no no no
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?
Less than
Significant
no no no no
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less than
Significant
no no no no
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact no no no no
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 102 ends

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The construction and operation of developments within the SEASP area have the potential to result in accidental upset of hazardous materials. However, all onsite activities, during both operation and construction, would be required to adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for the management and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the accidental upset of hazardous materials during construction of new developments in accordance with the SEASP would be properly managed, and impacts would be less than significant.

Construction activities include the use of materials such as fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in construction. However, the materials used would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard. These activities would also be short term or one time in nature. Construction workers would be trained in safe handling and hazardous materials use. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials and waste would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur.

Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.

Grading activities could encounter soils contaminated with hazardous materials. Demolition activities could demolish buildings where asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint, and other materials containing lead (e.g. ceramic tiles) occur. Development projects would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations governing soil contamination, AMC and lead. The PEIR incorporates Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level for thresholds (a) and (c).

Operation of the future residential uses that would be accommodated under the SEASP would involve the use of small quantities of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as paints, household cleaners, fertilizers, and pesticides. Operation of the future commercial uses would also involve use of small amounts of hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts.

Additionally, future residential and nonresidential uses consistent with the SEASP would be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the City of Long Beach and Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD). Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation would not occur. The PEIR determined that the buildout of the SEASP would result in a less than significant impact during operation for thresholds (a) and (c).

There are a number of sites and facilities in the SEASP area and in proximity to the SEASP area that are listed in hazardous materials sites databases. Individual development projects that would be allowed under the SEASP could impact areas of hazardous substance contamination existing or remaining from historical 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 103
operations, resulting in a significant impact on the environment. Hazardous substance contaminated properties are regulated at the federal, state, and local level, and are subject to compliance with stringent laws and regulations for investigation and remediation. Future development would be required to comply with these existing laws and regulations. With incorporation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, impacts would be less than significant.

The SEASP area is not within an airport’s land use plan; it is outside of the areas where land uses are regulated for air crash hazards and structure heights are limited to prevent airspace obstructions. The two nearest airports to the SEASP area are Long Beach Municipal Airport is approximately 2.5 miles northwest and the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base is 1.75 miles northeast of the SEASP area. There are no private air strips adjacent to or within the vicinity of the SEASP area. Implementation of the SEASP would not cause any hazards related to aircraft operating to or from public or private airstrips or heliports.

Future development would not interfere with any of the daily operations of the City’s Emergency Operation Center, Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD), or Long Beach Police Department. Immediate access to the project area is provided by the I-405, I-605, SR-22, Pacific Coast Highway, 7th Street, and 2nd Street.

Emergency response and evacuation for the City is based on numerous access routes and bridges. The SEASP would not interfere emergency response plans or impede roadway access through removal of any streets. All construction activities would be required to be performed per the City’s and LBFD’s standards and regulations. Future developments would also be required to go through the City’s development review and permitting process and would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety standards and regulations, as set forth by LBFD and in Chapter 18.48 (Fire Code) of the City’s municipal code, to ensure that they do not interfere with the provision of local emergency services. The SEASP would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City of Long Beach or Los Angeles County’s emergency response or evacuation plans and impacts would be less than significant.

The PEIR determined that the SEASP area is a highly urbanized and built-out and is outside of fire hazard severity zones designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The nearest high severity zones are in Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Palos Verdes Estate, approximately 13 miles west of the SEASP area. Future development consistent with the SEASP would not pose wildfire-related hazards to people or structures. Therefore, no impact would occur.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, is based in part on the following technical report:
▪ Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments, Northgate Environmental Management Inc. (Northgate), December 8, 2021. (A complete copy of this report is included in the Appendix E.) The project site is located within the boundary of the Seal Beach Oil Field. In addition, active and abandoned oil pipelines were identified along the northeastern portion of the project site along Pacific Coast Highway and the project site contains an oil pipeline easement with at least one pipeline in the easement. There are no records or releases from these oil pipelines. The project site may have been utilized by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) in the 1960s for the disposal of up to approximately 25,000 cubic 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 104 ends

yards of vegetation from channel cleanup activities along the banks of the San Gabriel River. The LACFCD received an industrial waste permit from Los Angeles County Sanitation District for this operation; however, the actual location of this disposal has not been identified.

Phase I ESA found no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historic RECs, nor Controlled RECs in connection with the project site. The Phase II Investigation included the installation and testing of soil, soil vapor and groundwater at nine boring locations across the project site. Based on the soil analytical results, none of the soil samples collected at the project site exceeded regulatory screening levels with the exception of arsenic at 1-foot bgs in boring B-5. While total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) did not exceed regulatory screening levels, there were isolated detections of TPH that would preclude soil export for sites with unrestricted use. Soil vapor analytical results indicated that TPH (gasoline) and several volatile organic compounds exceeded screening levels, such as benzene and chloroform (across the project site), and isolated detections of bromodichloromethane, ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene. Methane was detected in two locations (borings B-3 and B-4) above City action levels. The groundwater analytical results did not exceed regulatory screening levels (Northgate 2021).

The nearest school to the project site is JH McGaugh Elementary in the City of Seal Beach, approximately

0.8 miles southwest from the project site. The nearest airports are Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB), approximately 3.2 miles to the northeast, and the Long Beach Airport, approximately 4.2 miles to the northwest of the project site.

The project site is in a highly urbanized area and is not within a wildfire hazard severity zone. The nearest high severity zones are Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Palos Verdes Estate, approximately 13 miles west of the SEASP area and project site (CalFire 2022). Additionally, the project site is not located in an area designated as a fire threat by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC 2022).

DISCUSSION
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
The proposed project includes demolition of existing structures and the construction and operation of a mixed-use building with ground floor retail, residential uses, landscaping, and parking.

While construction activities at the project site could involve the use of hazardous materials, such as petroleum-based fuels for maintenance and use of construction equipment and coatings used in construction, these materials would be transported to the site periodically by vehicles and would be present temporarily during construction. These potentially hazardous materials would not be of a type, or occur in sufficient quantities on-site, to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment, and their use during construction would be short-term. Additionally, as with proposed project operation, the use, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 105
Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. Further, as with the PEIR, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3. Compliance with regulations and Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would ensure that from the construction of the proposed project would be less than significant. Therefore, the impacts from construction of the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions in the PEIR.

The proposed project is not the type of project that would involve the routine transport or disposing of hazardous materials. Project operation would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as household cleaners, oils, pesticides, and fertilizers. These potentially hazardous materials would not be of a type or be present in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health, safety, or the environment. Furthermore, such substances would be used, transported, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, and regulations. Any businesses that transport, generate, use, and/or dispose of hazardous materials are subject to existing hazardous materials regulations, such as those implemented by the State of California and the LBMC.

Thus, associated impacts from the operational phase of the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions in the PEIR, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Implementation of mitigation measures, as amended would address effects peculiar to the project site, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, consistent with the PEIR. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the adopted MMRP are applicable to the proposed project. Refer to Appendix A for the full list of mitigation measures associated with the certified PEIR. Any minor modifications and/or project-specific clarifications to the mitigation measures from the certified PEIR are shown are shown with strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text.

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 106 ends

health risk assessment shall be performed on the Phase II ESA data to determine if soil and soil gas concentrations pose a significant health risk for future project occupants and construction workers. If contamination is found at significant levels, the project applicant shall remediate all contaminated soils and soil vapor with the oversight and in accordance with state and local agency requirements (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Long Beach Fire Department, etc.). All contaminated soils and/or material encountered shall be disposed of at a regulated site and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations prior to the completion of grading.

Applicable soil and soil vapor remediation efforts shall occur prior to the issuance of building permits. If soil vapor with elevated concentrations of VOCs or methane cannot be sufficiently removed below regulatory screening levels, the applicant shall retain a qualified environmental professional to identify long-term vapor mitigation measures based on the remaining extent of petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, and methane concentrations. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report documenting the completion, results, and any follow-up remediation on the recommendations, if any, shall be provided to the City of Long Beach Development Services Department evidencing that all site remediation activities have been completed or that a vapor mitigation system is required to be incorporated into building plans and that all contaminants identified by the screening human health risk assessment in soil and soil vapor would be below human health risk thresholds, and any methane mitigation is prepared according to Long Beach Municipal Code standards.

Applicability: This mitigation measure has been amended to address soil and soil vapor conditions onsite.

This mitigation measure as amended applies to the proposed project.

HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare a soil management plan (SMP) to ensure safe and appropriate handling, transportation, offsite disposal, reporting, oversight, and protocols used during construction to protect the health and safety of workers and future residents. The SMP shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. The plan shall establish methodology and procedures to perform additional testing during grading if unknown hazardous materials are encountered and prior to grading for the soil stockpile. If additional soil is encountered during grading activities Project area development that is suspected of being impacted by hazardous materials, work at the subject construction activity area shall be halted, and the suspect site conditions shall be evaluated by a qualified environmental professional until the appropriate evaluation and follow-up remedial measures are implemented in accordance with the soil management plan so that the area is suitable for grading activities to resume. The results of the evaluation shall be submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), or the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or other applicable oversight agency, as appropriate, and the necessary response/remedial measures shall be implemented—as directed by DTSC, RWQCB, or other applicable oversight agency—until all specified requirements of the oversight agencies are satisfied and a no further action status is attained. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 107
Applicability: This mitigation measure has been amended to address soil and soil vapor conditions onsite. This mitigation measure as amended applies to the proposed project.

HAZ-3 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for any buildings or structures, the project applicant/developer shall conduct the following inspections and assessments for all buildings and structures onsite and shall provide the City of Long Beach Development Services Department with a copy of the report of each investigation or assessment. ▪ The project applicant shall retain a California Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC) to perform abatement project planning, monitoring (including air monitoring), oversight, and reporting of all asbestos-containing materials (ACM) encountered. The abatement, containment, and disposal of all ACM shall be conducted in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403 and California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1529 (Asbestos).
▪ The project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified lead inspector/assessor to conduct the abatement, containment, and disposal of all lead waste encountered. The contracted lead inspector/assessor shall be certified by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). All lead abatement shall be performed by a CDPH-certified lead supervisor or a CDPH-certified worker under the direct supervision of a lead supervisor certified by CDPH. The abatement, containment, and disposal of all lead waste encountered shall be conducted in accordance with the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration Rule 29; CFR Part 1926; and California Code of Regulation, Title 8, Section 1532.1 (Lead).
▪ Evidence of the contracted professionals attained by the project applicant shall be provided to the City of Long Beach Development Services Department. Additionally, contractors performing ACM and lead waste removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City of Long Beach Building and Safety Bureau.

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
As with the PEIR, all onsite activities, during both operation and construction, would be required to adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for the management and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the accidental upset of hazardous materials during construction of the proposed project would be properly managed, and impacts would be less than significant. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 108 ends

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? As discussed under “Existing Conditions” in this section, there are no schools within a quarter mile of the project site. As discussed under threshold (a), above, the proposed project would be required to implement applicable mitigation measures identified in the PEIR. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR.

The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts.

Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 above. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Phase I ESA found no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historic RECs, nor Controlled RECs in connection with the project site. Therefore, the proposed project is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5. Nevertheless, and as discussed under threshold (a), hazardous substances were identified in the soil and soil vapor. Consistent with the PEIR, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-2 that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Mitigation Measures
Consistent with the PEIR, the proposed project would incorporate Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-2. Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-2 above. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or 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? As discussed under “Existing Conditions” in this section, the project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. The proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR.

Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 109
more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would include the implementation of a mixed-use development on a project site that is zoned for mixed-use development and would be consistent with the SEASP. The proposed project would not remove any roadways and therefore would not interfere with emergency access routes. As discussed in the PEIR, all construction activities would be required to be performed per the City’s and LBFD’s standards and regulations. For example, the proposed project would be required to provide the necessary on- and offsite access and circulation for emergency vehicles and services during the construction and operation phases. The proposed project would go through the City’s development review and permitting process and would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety standards and regulations, as set forth by LBFD and in LBMC Chapter 18.48 (Fire Code), to ensure that they do not interfere with the provision of local emergency services (e.g., provision of adequate access roads to accommodate emergency response vehicles, adequate numbers/locations of fire hydrants). As with the PEIR, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
As with the SEASP as a whole, the project site is in a highly urbanized area and is not within a wildfire hazard severity zone. The nearest high severity zones are Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Palos Verdes Estate, approximately 13 miles west of the SEASP area and project site (CalFire 2022). The proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 110 ends

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues

SEASP PEIR
Determination
Are there
environmental
effects peculiar to
the project or the
parcel on which
the project would
be located?
Are there
environmental
effects that were
not analyzed as
significant effects
in the SEASP
PEIR?
Are there
potentially
significant offsite impacts and
cumulative
impacts which
were not
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
Are there
previously
identified
significant effects
which, as a result
of substantial
new
information which
was not known at
the time the
SEASP PEIR was
certified, are
determined to
have a more
severe adverse
impact than
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
Less than
Significant
Impact
no no no no
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Less than
Significant
Impact
no no no no
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 a substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
Less than
Significant
Impact
no no no no
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
no no no no
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
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
no no no no
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than
Significant
Impact
yes no no no
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
no no no no
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
See discussion
below.
no yes no no
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 111

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
During construction of projects within the SEASP area, there would be the potential for short-term unquantifiable increases in pollutant concentrations from the site. After SEASP development, the quality of storm runoff (sediment, nutrients, metals, pesticides, pathogens, and hydrocarbons) may be altered. However, implementation of state and local requirements (e.g., Construction General Permit, SWPPP, and best management practices during construction and LID design and best management practices during operation) would effectively protect future projects from violating any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Due to the developed condition of the SEASP area, most runoff does not infiltrate and recharge groundwater under existing (2017) conditions. Implementation of the SEASP would increase perviousness compared to existing conditions (2017), due to the combination of development and design standards and guidelines (such as, enhanced landscaping, self-treating areas for water quality treatment, and permeable pavements for water efficiency). Also, on-site storm drain systems would be upgraded to include water quality LID features which would increase infiltration compared to existing (2017) conditions. The SEASP area does not rely directly on on-site groundwater supply sources and therefore would have no impact on the local groundwater table. Impacts would be less than significant.

The PEIR determined that drainage patterns would largely be maintained and would utilize the existing drainage facilities within the public right of way. A small portion of the SEASP area (existing Market Place adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway within the Mixed Use Community Core area) drains easterly towards the existing wetlands owned by the City. If large increases of runoff were to occur to the existing wetlands, localized flooding and scour could occur near the discharge point. However, the drainage areas tributaries to the existing wetlands are all built out with high impervious conditions (>90 percent) and any future project would have, in most cases, lower impervious conditions and peak flow reductions based on landscaping and LID requirements. One exception is the potential extension of Shopkeeper Road located within the Mixed Use Community Core. In the event Shopkeeper Road were extended southerly to Studebaker Road, design features consistent with the MS4 Permit would require volume and peak flow mitigation to match existing (pre-built) conditions. Hydromodification requirements would not apply, based on the fact it would not drain into a riverine channel susceptible to hydromodification impacts. Under the proposed condition, overall drainage patterns, flow rates and flow volumes would be maintained based on the high level of impervious condition under the existing condition and would not increase the opportunity to erosion or scour downstream. On-site storm drain systems would likely change with the individual projects but would still utilize the existing city and county facilities within the public right of way. Implementation of the SEASP would not result in erosion or siltation on or off-site.

The City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County maintains storm drains. Based on the high existing impervious conditions in the development areas and the proposed change in land uses from the SEASP which are generally equal to or less than existing impervious conditions, runoff is not anticipated to increase over existing conditions. Buildout of the SEASP would not require the construction of new or expanded storm drainage systems. However, based on City’s Master Plan of Drainage, the PEIR identified five stormwater lines within the SEASP that are deficient and recommended upsizing (see Table 5.9-2 in the 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 112 ends

PEIR). With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4, the SEASP would result in a less than significant impact to water flow rates and runoff entering the storm drain system.

The SEASP area lies downstream from three flood control dams, including the Sepulveda Basin, Hansen Basin, and Whittier Narrows Basin. The PEIR determined that in the event of a dam failure, Sepulveda and Hansen would dissipate before reaching the City, and Whittier Narrows Basin would be contained within the channels of the Los Cerritos Channel and the San Gabriel River and would flow safely into the Alamitos Bay and Pacific Ocean. The two nearest aboveground water storage tanks are tower-mounted on the Veterans Administration Medical Center property about 2,000 feet north of the SEASP area. If the event of failure, water would flow north away from the SEASP area. Therefore, the potential of flooding impacts from levee or dam failure would be less than significant.

Approximately 90-acres of the SEASP is within 100-year flood zones; these areas are in Spinnaker Bay, Marina Pacifica, Bay Harbor, Del Lago and a minor portion of land north of Los Cerritos Channel southwest of Belmont Shore Mobile Estates. The SEASP would not change land use designations within these areas of the SEASP area within 100-year flood zones and would not change the types or intensities of land uses permitted in those areas. The SEASP area is not subject to flood hazards due to seiche or mudflow.

Most of the SEASP area is in tsunami flood zones. A development project could exacerbate existing tsunami flood hazard if, for instance, it removed a barrier to coastal flooding, or if it lowered the elevation of a site in or next to an existing tsunami flood zone. Buildout of the proposed SEASP would not remove seawalls or other barriers to coastal flooding. Considering the low elevation on much of the site and the shallow groundwater table, it is not expected that development projects would propose habitable land uses at lower elevations than the existing. However, implementation of the SEASP would allow development of new residential uses in the area along Pacific Coast Highway designated Mixed Use Community Core, potentially placing additional residents and structures within the inundation zone of future tsunamis. Therefore, although tsunami-generating events are extremely rare, tsunami-related flooding impacts in the Project area could be potentially significant. The PEIR incorporates Mitigation Measures HYD-5 and HYD-6, and impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Threshold (e) was added to the CEQA Appendix G Checklist in 2019. While the PEIR did not evaluate threshold (e) as a stand-alone threshold. The Basin Plan and the groundwater impacts were address in the 2017 PEIR.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, is based in part on the following technical reports:
▪ Hydrology and LID Report for MRNA, Labib Funk + Associates (LFA), January 30, 2023. (A complete copy of this report is included in Appendix F.)
▪ Marina Shores 6700 Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA: Flood Resilience Assessment. ARUP.

February 9, 2023. (A complete copy of this report is included in Appendix G.) 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 113
The project site contains an office building and an asphalt paved parking lot with some planting areas around the project site, neither of which contains any apparent drainage structures in place. The existing historic high groundwater for the site is on the order of 10 feet below the ground surface, according to the project geotechnical report. The project site is located in flood Zone X which indicates that the project site is in an area of reduced flood zone area due to levee (LFA 2023). The San Gabriel River is approximately 40 feet east of the project site, across a paved path. In the vicinity of the project site, the San Gabriel River flows in a northeast to southwest direction towards the Pacific Ocean.

The project site is protected by the San Gabriel River 1 (SGR1) levee which was built by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1968 and is currently operated by the LA County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). USACE also provides periodic inspections of the levee. The latest inspection in 2017 gave the levee a Minimally Acceptable rating. Minimally Acceptable means that there are some minor issues, but the levee would provide protection during a high runoff event.

According to the 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan for the City of Long Beach, the project site is within a tsunami inundation area (Long Beach 2017c).

DISCUSSION
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
As discussed in the PEIR and under “SEASP PEIR Summary” in this section, the construction and operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements governing water quality. During construction, the proposed project would be required to implement a SWPPP, since the project site is larger than an acre, and the SWPPP would outline best management practices that would be implemented during construction. During operation, and as discussed in Section 1.4, Project Description, the proposed project would implement low impact development measures (Permavoid planter boxes), which would be designed to capture stormwater onsite to a design storm event. As such, during construction and operation, the proposed project would implement best management practices to control and amount and quality of the stormwater leaving the project site, and the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The project site lies above the southeast end of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles West Coast Groundwater Basin. Similar to the PEIR, the project site is already developed, and runoff from the project site is directed to storm drains in public rights of way. The project site is not used for groundwater recharge activities nor 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 114 ends

extraction. While the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site, the proposed project would implement LID features consistent with the City’s Low Impact Development Best Management Practices Design Manual. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations governing water quality (see threshold (a) and PEIR Chapter 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality). The proposed project would not rely directly on groundwater supply as a water source. The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies nor interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
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 a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Consistent with the PEIR, the proposed project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and implement best management practices during construction, which would ensure that construction of the proposed project would not result in siltation on or offsite. During operation, the proposed project would implement LID best management practices (Permavoid planter boxes), which would retain stormwater onsite. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion and siltation on- or off-site. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.

No subsequent review is required.
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? As discussed under threshold (a), the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements and implement best management practices during construction and operation.

Further, the consistent with the PEIR, Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4 would be required to be implemented as part of the SEASP along with the proposed project. The proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite. Further the proposed project would not 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. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 115
proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of permits for any development or redevelopment projects pursuant to the Southeast Area Specific Plan, the City of Long Beach shall ensure that the following drainage improvements are fully funded for and implemented:
▪ Any development or redevelopment project that would impact existing storm drain facilities within the Southeast Area Specific Plan area (public and private) that is less than 24-inches in size shall fully fund upsizing of such facilities to a minimum 24-inch or greater pipe size as prescribed by City of Long Beach Public Works Department. ▪ Any development or redevelopment project that would impact the four segments of City of Long Beach’s storm drains in Pacific Coast Highway for which improvements were recommended by the 2005 Master Plan of Drainage Update shall fully fund upsizing of those storm drain segments as indicated below or other final size as prescribed by City of Long Beach Public Works Department. • Segments 220835 and 220015 to 30 inches;
• Segment 220805 to 54 inches;
• Segment 220710 to 84 inches.
▪ Any development or redevelopment project that would impact the four segments of City of Long Beach’s storm drains in Seville Way (Segment 220810) for which improvements were recommended by the 2005 Master Plan of Drainage Update shall fully fund upsizing of that storm drain segment to 48 inches or other final size as prescribed by City of Long Beach Public Works Department.

Applicability: This mitigation measure requires the City of Long Beach implement stormwater improvements outlined in Mitigation Measure HYD-1. This mitigation measure is not applicable for individual development projects.

HYD-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any development or redevelopment projects pursuant to the Southeast Area Specific Plan, project applicants/developers of such projects shall prepare a site-specific hydrology and hydraulic study of the on-site and immediate offsite storm drain systems to determine capacity and integrity of the existing systems. The hydrology and hydraulic study shall be submitted to City of Long Beach Public Works Department for review and approval.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 116 ends

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. A Hydrology and LID Report is included in Appendix F to this Compliance Checklist.

HYD-3 The project applicant/developer of each development or redevelopment project that would be accommodated by the Southeast Area Specific Plan shall request the “allowable discharge rate” – which limits peak flow discharges as compared to existing conditions based on regional flood control constraints – from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, and shall comply with such discharge rate. Compliance with the “allowable discharge rate” shall be demonstrated in the hydrology and hydraulic study to be completed pursuant to Mitigation Measure HYD-2.

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. A Hydrology and LID Report is included in Appendix F to this Compliance Checklist.

HYD-4 The project applicant/developer, architect, and construction contractor for each development or redevelopment project that would be accommodated by the Southeast Area Specific Plan shall incorporate low-impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) within the respective project, providing for water quality treatment and runoff reduction and/or detention in accordance with local stormwater permit requirements.

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. The proposed project’s LID BMPs are discussed in Section 1.4, Project Description, above. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
The project site is in “Zone X”, which is an area of reduced flood risk due to a levee (FEMA 2022).

FEMA describes this as an area protected from the 1 percent annual chance (100-year) year flood by a levee system, while noting that overtopping or failure of any levee system is possible. This levee is a Provisionally Accredited Levee by FEMA and is designed to be protected from the FEMA-defined present day 1 percent annual chance (100-year) flood. The Flood Resilience Assessment (contained in Appendix G) determined that the project site would not be impacted by the FEMA-defined present day 100-year event and, therefore, there is no FEMA-defined Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The highest present-day 1 percent annual chance (100-year) BFE adjacent to the project site along the San Gabriel River, and in the Marina is eight feet.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) periodically inspects the levee. An inspection in 2017 gave the levee a “Minimally Acceptable” rating. “Minimally Acceptable” means that there are some minor issues, but the levee would provide protection during a high runoff event. The Levee Senior Oversight Group, an oversight group within USACE tasked with levee inspections and providing ratings and recommendations to municipalities, determined that the risk associated with the San Gabriel River levee to be high. In the event of a levee breach, there would be shallow, high velocity flows through the leveed area (FEMA defined Levee, Zone X). Regardless of the condition of the levee, the entire project site is elevated above adjacent BFEs (the project site is at least 4.5-feet above the present-day BFE of 8-feet).

The elevated site condition significantly reduces flood risks to the project site. Further, no significant 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 117
localized depressions were identified on or adjacent to the project site, there is also low risk of presentday or future rainfall events resulting in significant on-site ponding (ARUP 2023).

In addition, to the potential of present-day flooding, the Flood Resilience Assessment also evaluated the potential for future flood hazards. The CCC Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance projects anticipated sea level rise of 1.8 feet in 2050 and 6.7 feet in 2100 under the Medium-High Risk Aversion scenario, the scenario that the CCC guidance deems most appropriate for commercial and residential buildings. The “Our Coast Our Future” mapping and data visualization for these sea level rise projects show that the project site is not expected to experience flooding under the 2050 sea level rise scenario. Under the 2100 sea level rise scenario, the project site may start to see some flood impacts in the northwest corner of the project site. The project site is not expected to experience flooding under the 2050 100-year storm event with 1.8 feet of sea level rise. The Flood Resilience Assessment determined that the project site is not expected to experience flooding under a 100-year flood event with sea level rise until roughly 2080-2090, meaning that the project site is unlikely to experience flooding over the next 57 years.

The Flood Resilience Assessment determined that the elevation of the parking level (Level B1) is approximately 12 feet, 11 inches; the site grade is approximately 19 feet, five inches, and level 1 (where residences and critical utilities would be located would be 24 feet, five inches. Under the 2050 design flood elevation (DFE) (11 feet, 10 inches), the project site and levels B1 and 1 would not experience flooding. Under the recommended 2080 DFE (14 feet, 4 inches), Level B1 would be expected to experience approximately 1 foot, five inches of flood depth and the site grade and Level 1 would not experience flooding. During the 2100 DFE (16 feet, 9 inches), it would be anticipated that Level B1 would experience approximately 3 feet, 10 inches of flood depth. The site at grade and Level 1 would continue to experience no flooding. The Flood Resilience Assessment determined that based on flood maps, levee data, sea level rise policy guidance from CCC, and “Our Coast Our Future” mapping as well as the analysis of existing topography and flood paths through the watershed, the proposed project would experience a low risk of flooding over the estimated useful life of the building, which is estimated to be between 51-61 years.

As discussed above, the northwest corner of the project site is anticipated to experience flooding under future sea level rise scenarios by roughly the year 2080. The northwest corner of the project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot and landscaping. While the proposed project would develop a building on this portion of the project site, it would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the project site nor the surrounding public rights-of-way since the project site is already developed.

Further, the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the CBC as amended by the LBMC and incorporate the recommendations outlined in the Flood Resilience Assessment (such as ensuring that the elevating enclosed spaces and critical utility systems above the DFE).

Therefore, the proposed project would not 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 impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 118 ends

within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist.

No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? As with the SEASP area, the project site is not subject to seiches. As discussed under threshold (c)(iv) above, the project site is not expected to experience flooding based on existing conditions. However, future sea level rise increases the potential for flooding at the project site, and the northwest corner of the project site could experience flooding. In addition, the project site is within a tsunami inundation zone. The Flood Resilience Assessment concludes that the proposed project would experience a low risk of flooding. Further, the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the CBC as amended by the LBMC and incorporate the recommendations outlined in the Flood Resilience Assessment (such as ensuring that the elevating enclosed spaces and critical utility systems are above the DFE). In addition, in August 2019, the USACE completed a safety study of the Whittier Narrows Dam and classified its risk as “extremely high.” The USACE determined that in rare, extremely high rainfall events certain dam failures could occur (USACE 2023a). The Whittier Narrows Dam inundation map shows that the project site has the potential to experience up to 6 feet of flooding (USACE 2023b). USACE is in the process of implementing safety modifications to the dam; the project is expected to be completed by 2030 (USACE 2023c). While the project site could experience inundation due to dam failure (in extremely rare conditions) and future sea level rise, the inundation levels are below DFE. While the proposed project is expected to use small amounts of hazardous materials during construction and operation (e.g., paints, cleaners, oils, etc.), the construction and operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable regulations for proper handling, usage, and storage of potentially hazardous materials (see Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Therefore, the proposed project would not release pollutants due to project inundation.

As with the PEIR, the proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures HYD-5 and HYD-6. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

HYD-5 Upon submission of development applications for development projects in the tsunami inundation zone (as identified in the City’s Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan) the Development Services Department shall provide project applicants with tsunami awareness and preparedness materials.

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 119
HYD-6 Prior to certificate of occupancy, project applicants and developers shall demonstrate to the Development Services Department that lease agreements and disclosures provided to homeowners and tenants disclose that those parties would be in a tsunami inundation zone (as identified in the City’s Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan). This notification shall include tsunami awareness and preparedness materials as well as information outlining applicable evacuation plans and routes.

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The project site lies above the southeast end of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles West Coast Groundwater Basin, which has a Basin Plan implemented by the State Water Resources Control Board. The Basin Plan which covers the SEASP area, provides all relevant information necessary to carry out federal mandates for the antidegradation policy, 303(d) listing of impaired waters, and related Total Maximum Daily Loads, and provides information relative to NPDES and Waste Discharge Requirements permit limits. Similar to the PEIR, the project site is already developed, and runoff from the project site is directed to storm drains in public rights of way. The project site is not used for groundwater recharge activities nor extraction. While the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site, the proposed project would implement LID features consistent with the City’s Low Impact Development Best Management Practices Design Manual. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations governing water quality (see threshold (a) and PEIR Chapter 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality). The proposed project would not rely directly on groundwater supply as a water source. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Basin Plan. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 120 ends

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
Chapter 5.10, Land Use and Planning, of the PEIR, addresses impacts to land use and planning associated with buildout of the SEASP. It evaluated consistency with the Long Beach General Plan, Zoning Code, Local Coastal Program, and Bicycle Master Plan and the Airport Environs Land Use Plan and South Coast Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required.

Implementation of SEASP would help create a sense of place by creating a unifying mixed-use core and streetscape. Streetscape improvements would aid pedestrian and bicycle movement between parts of the area.

Additionally, implementation of the SEASP would occur within the confines of the SEASP area and would not introduce roadways or other infrastructure improvements that would bisect or transect the surrounding communities. The residential and commercial uses of the SEASP would also be compatible with and similar to the surrounding land uses. Therefore, the proposed land use plan would not physically divide established communities, but would have a beneficial impact of bringing together individual neighborhoods and creating gateways, landmarks, and destinations that strengthen the project area’s community character. No impacts related to division of established communities would occur and no mitigation is necessary.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The 2.6-acre project site is currently developed with a two‐story office building with subterranean parking, surface parking, and landscaping. The project site has a SEASP land use designation of Mixed‐Use 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 121
Community Core. The project site has a zoning designation of Specific Plan 2, Mixed‐Use Community Core (SP‐2‐MUCC).

DISCUSSION
a) Physically divide an established community?
Because the development of the proposed project would occur on a site that is currently developed with an office building, the proposed project would retain the existing roadway patterns and would not introduce any new major roadways or other physical features through existing residential neighborhoods or other communities that would create new barriers. The proposed project is the type of project envisioned for the Mixed-Use Community Core land use designation. The project would not physically divide an established community. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed project includes the construction and operation of a mixed-use development on a project site designated as “Mixed-Use Community Core.” As discussed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, the proposed project is consistent with applicable development standards of the SEASP, and the proposed project would be designed to be consistent with the SEASP’s design guidelines. The proposed project is the type of project envisioned for the Mixed-Use Community Core land use designation. Therefore, as with the PEIR, the proposed project is consistent with Long Beach General Plan, Zoning Code, Local Coastal Program, and Bicycle Master Plan and the Airport Environs Land Use Plan and South Coast Association of Governments RTP/SCS. As shown in Table 13, SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis, the proposed project is consistent with applicable SEASP policies. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 122 ends

Table 13 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
POLICY 5.1: Identification of ESHA is made on a case-by-case basis, based upon site-specific evidence, and in consultation with a qualified professional. When sensitive biological resources are suspected on or near a project site and a project has the potential to impact those resources, biological evaluations are required. In addition to surveying the project site, the following lists and designations of rare species and habitats, among other information sources, are consulted to assist in the determination of whether habitats onsite are ESHA:
a) Federal and State listed Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species b) Plants, animals, and natural communities ranked as global or state G1 or S1 (critically imperiled), G2 or S2 (imperiled), or G3 or S3 (vulnerable to extirpation or extinction) by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and NatureServe
c) California Fully Protected Species, California Species of Special Concern, and their habitats.
d) Listed critical habitat occupied by the respective rare species e) California Native Plant Society (CNPS) plant species designated 1B (rare or endangered in California and elsewhere) and 2 (rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere) f) Federal and State plants, animals, and natural communities that are candidates for listing or delisting may be considered
Consistent. As discussed under Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, the project site does not contain habitat nor specialstatus plants or animal species. The project site does not contain an ESHA
POLICY 5.2: Wetland delineations in the SEASP area must be conducted consistent with the provisions of this chapter. At the time of local Coastal Development Permit application submittal, new projects located on a property where any portion of that property is located within 100 feet of any designated wetland, or within 100 feet of a potential wetland based on site specific characteristics or nearby wetland delineations, or within 100 feet of a Coastal Habitats/Wetlands/ Recreation land use designation area where no nearby wetland delineations exist, or within 100 feet of a documented sensitive coastal habitat area require the preparation of a biological study to determine the location and extent of wetlands resources, on a site, if any. When a wetland delineation is required by the City for a new development application or permit, one of two options may be provided by the applicant:

1. A preliminary wetland delineation, as defined by the Coastal Act and California Code of Regulations, using the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and Arid West Regional Supplement instructions, showing the location and extent of wetlands, or

2. A survey conducted by a qualified biologist based on a site visit demonstrating that no wetlands, ESHA, marine resources, or sensitive species are located within 100 feet of the property boundaries.

Consistent. Consistent with the SEASP definition, the
proposed project is considered a redevelopment project. 11 The
project site is within 100 feet of the San Gabriel River, and a biological resources report was prepared for the proposed project. The biological technical report prepared for the proposed project evaluated jurisdictional waters and determine that no USGS blue-line ephemeral drainages or associated tributaries occur on the project site. The proposed project is outside of the jurisdictional limits of the San Gabriel River but is adjacent to the San Gabriel River flood control channel. The project site does not contain any wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act or the Coastal Act.

The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR.
11 “Redevelopment” is defined on page 68 of the SEASP. The proposed project meets the following definition for a redevelopment project “(3) demolition or rebuild of an existing home or other principal structure, or portions thereof, which result in: (1) Replacement (including demolition, rebuild, renovation, reinforcement, or other type of alteration) of 50% or more of major structural components including exterior walls, floor, roof structure, or foundation, as calculated by linear feet, surface area, volume, or weight, or a 50% increase in gross floor area. Alterations are not additive between individual major structural components.”
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 123
Table 13 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
POLICY 5.3: Wetland delineations must be conducted during the middle or end of the rainy season, which may occur during winter or spring depending on the local annual rain pattern.

POLICY 5.4: To accommodate this change, prevent further loss of wetlands in California, and allow for the continuation of intertidal, estuarine, and upland habitats in southeast Long Beach, climate adaptation measures for new development and future City land use and climate adaptation plans should consider strategies to avoid loss of habitat area and value, including moving the line of development.

Not Applicable. This policy is directed to the City to develop climate adaptation measures that consider strategies to avoid loss of habitat area and value, including moving the line of development. The proposed project is on a developed project site that does not contain wetland or habitat (see Section 3.4).

As discussed in Section 3.4, the proposed project would not result in the loss of habitat nor interfere with wetlands or habitat in the San Gabriel River.

SECTION 30230 MARINE RESOURCES; MAINTENANCE: Marine
resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored.

Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes.

Consistent. The proposed project is on a developed project site that does not contain wetland or habitat (see Section 3.4).

Consistent with Section 6.h (Off-Site Improvements) of the SEASP, the proposed project would include improvements to the paved path along the San Gabriel River. Improvements would include landscaping near the project site and repaving between the project site and one-half of the distance under the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge. The proposed project would not include uses of the marine environment.

SECTION 30231 BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTIVITY; WATER QUALITY:

The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would incorporate
adequate low impact development and best management
practices to retain and treat stormwater runoff on-site. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not impact groundwater nor substantially interfere with surface flow.

The proposed project would not alter a natural stream. The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR.

SECTION 30232 OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SPILLS:

Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that do occur.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations regulating the use, transport, and storage of potentially hazardous materials, including oil, gas, petroleum products, during construction and operation of the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR.

SECTION 30233 DIKING, FILLING OR DREDGING; CONTINUED
MOVEMENT OF SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENTS:
(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:
(1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities.
(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps.
(3) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the Not Applicable. The proposed project does not include diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 124 ends

Table 13 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities.
(4) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines.
(5) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas.
(6) Restoration purposes.
(7) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. (b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for these purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems.
(c) In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to, the coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, "Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California", shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south San Diego Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division.

For the purposes of this section, "commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay" means that not less than 80 percent of all boating facilities proposed to be developed or improved, where the improvement would create additional berths in Bodega Bay, shall be designed and used for commercial fishing activities.
(d) Erosion control and flood control facilities constructed on watercourses can impede the movement of sediment and nutrients that would otherwise be carried by storm runoff into coastal waters. To facilitate the continued delivery of these sediments to the littoral zone, whenever feasible, the material removed from these facilities may be placed at appropriate points on the shoreline in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Aspects that shall be considered before issuing a coastal development permit for these purposes are the method of placement, time of year of placement, and sensitivity of the placement area.

SECTION 30236 WATER SUPPLY AND FLOOD CONTROL:

Channelizations, dams, or other substantial alterations of rivers and streams shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible, and be limited to (1) necessary water supply projects, (2) flood control projects where no other method for protecting existing structures in the flood plain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development, or (3) developments where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not include
channelizations, dams, or other substantial alterations of rivers and streams.

SECTION 30240 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS;
ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS:
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.

Consistent. The open water portions of the San Gabriel River flood control channel, but not its rip-rap sides (which provide limited ecological functions), meet the criteria for ESHA (GLA 2023). The proposed project is approximately 76-77 feet of the ESHA. The proposed project would not result in significant 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 125
Table 13 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
direct nor indirect impacts to the open water portion of the San Gabriel River flood control channel and its special-status biological resources (GLA 2023). The uses of the proposed project is consistent with the MU-CC designation for the project site, and the proposed project would implement applicable development and design standards from the SEASP, including the improvement of paved path along the San Gabriel River.

Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce new uses or unplanned development that was not already accounted for in the PEIR. The proposed project would support and be
consistent with this requirement.

SECTION 30250 LOCATION; EXISTING DEVELOPED AREA:
(a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.
(b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas.
(c) Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors.

Consistent. The proposed project includes a mixed-use
development on a site designated for mixed-use development (MU-CC) within a highly urbanized area. The proposed project is within the buildout of the SEASP and would be
accommodated by existing public services, infrastructure, and utilities. The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR and would not affect coastal resources.

The proposed project does not include land divisions, leases for agricultural uses, industrial uses, nor visitor-serving facilities.

POLICY 5.11: There shall be no net loss of wetland acreage or habitat value as a result of any land use or development activities. Specifically, when wetland impacts are unavoidable and consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act, replacement of the impacted wetland shall be required through the creation of new wetlands at a ratio determined by the appropriate regulatory agencies, but at a ratio no less than four acres provided for each acre impacted so as to ensure no net loss of wetland acreage. Replacement of wetlands on-site or adjacent to the impacted wetlands, within the same wetlands system and in-kind mitigation, shall be given preference over other mitigation options.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not impact wetlands nor habitat.

POLICY 5.12: The City shall require removal of unpermitted bulkheads, patios or other structures that displace or impact wetlands, open coastal waters, or other sensitive habitat areas. The City shall strictly prohibit and remove encroachments into public spaces and natural habitats.

Consistent. The proposed project would not install or operate unpermitted bulkheads, patios, or other structures that encroach onto the San Gabriel River. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy.

POLICY 5.13: ESHA must be protected against “any significant disruption,” including immediate and cumulative impacts from development in adjacent areas. Only resource-dependent uses are allowed in Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, and uses adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas must be compatible with continuance of the habitat areas.

POLICY 5.14: For allowable impacts to ESHA and Wetlands, the City shall require mitigation in the form of habitat creation, or wetland creation, or substantial restoration/enhancement for allowable impacts to ESHA and other sensitive resources that cannot be avoided through the Consistent. The open water portions of the San Gabriel River flood control channel, but not its rip-rap sides (which provide limited ecological functions), meet the criteria for ESHA (GLA 2023). The proposed project is within 100 feet of the ESHA.

The proposed project would not result in significant direct nor indirect impacts to the open water portion of the San Gabriel River flood control channel and its special-status biological resources (GLA 2023). The proposed project is consistent with the SEASP land use plan for the project site, and the proposed project would not impact the ESHA (see Section 3.4, above). 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 126 ends

Table 13 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
implementation of siting and design alternatives.

POLICY 5.15: For allowable impacts to ESHA and wetlands, the City shall require monitoring of mitigation measures for a minimum of 5 years to determine if mitigation objectives and performance standards are being met. If performance standards are not met by the end of the prescribed monitoring period, the monitoring period shall be extended or the applicant shall submit an amendment application proposing alternative mitigation measures and implement the approved changes.

POLICY 5.16: In conjunction with new development, the City shall require that all preserved ESHA and wetlands, buffers, and all mitigation areas, onsite and offsite, be conserved/dedicated (e.g., open space direct dedication, offer to dedicate (OTD), conservation easement, deed restriction) in such a manner as to ensure that the land is conserved in perpetuity.

Not Applicable. The proposed project is a redevelopment project. Nevertheless, construction and operation of the proposed mixed-use building would be limited to the project site, which is designated for mixed-use development. The project site is completely developed and does not contain wetlands, ESHA, buffers, or mitigation areas. The proposed project would implement applicable development standards and design guidelines and standards in the SEASP. Therefore, the proposed project would not infringe nor hinder the City from preserving the ESHA, wetlands, buffers, and mitigation areas.

POLICY 5.17: Projects Within 100 Feet of Wetlands, ESHA, or Sensitive Coastal Habitat Areas for projects located on a property where any portion of that property is located within 100 feet of any designated wetland or ESHA, as defined in this chapter, or within 100 feet of a potential wetland or ESHA based on site specific characteristics or nearby wetland delineations, or within 100 feet of a sensitive coastal habitat area, as defined in this chapter, the property owner shall be required to submit a CDP application complete with biological surveys and a wetland delineation, if applicable, and a Site Plan Review application, and shall be consistent with the provisions of this chapter.

Consistent. The proposed project is within 100 feet of the San Gabriel River. Therefore, the proposed project submit a biological report, which has been prepared and is included as Appendix C. The biological report confirms no wetlands or sensitive habitat are present onsite. A wetland delineation is not required for the proposed project since it is 100-feet outside of a wetland. Also see response to Policy 5.2 above.

POLICY 5.18: Standards Applicable to All Areas Adjacent to Jurisdictional Waters, ESHA, and Wetlands Development projects within 100 feet of Coastal Act wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat (ESHA), and all land within the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands, and Recreation land use shall comply with the following:
»Prior to approval of a trails/access plan within or adjacent to wetlands or ESHA, the location, design, and text for urban-open space interface signage shall be developed. The signage shall be located at all pedestrian access points. The signage shall educate users on the responsibilities associated with the open space interface and shall address relevant issues, including the role of natural predators in the wildlands and how to minimize impacts of human and domestic pets on native communities and their inhabitants.
»Prior to approval of any development adjacent to the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands, and Recreation land use, the project applicant shall submit a photometric plan demonstrating that the project will be designed and shielded so that the nighttime lighting shall be no greater than 0.10 footcandles at the edge of the habitat. This limits spill light (light trespass) to levels that do not greatly exceed the intensity of moonlight (approximately 0.1foot-candles).
»Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant and/or subsequent builder shall prepare an urban-open space interface brochure to be approved by the Long Beach Development Services Department to educate residents on the responsibilities associated with Consistent. The proposed project is within 100 feet of the San Gabriel River. The proposed project does not include a
trails/access plan; however, it does include pedestrian/bike path improvements to the existing paved pathway along the San Gabriel River, consistent with the SEASP Section

6.7.h.i.17. The proposed project would implement applicable standards applicable with this policy.

The project site is not adjacent to the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands, and Recreation land use, and the second bullet point does not apply to the proposed project.

The policy outlined in the third bullet point is also incorporated as Mitigation Measure BIO-7 of the PEIR. The proposed project would be required to implement this policy and Mitigation Measure BIO-7. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with and would implement the urban-open space interface brochure.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 127
Table 13 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
living near sensitive biological habitat. The brochure shall address relevant issues, including noise, dark skies, nesting birds, bird-safe buildings, and the role of natural predators in the wildlands and how to minimize impacts of human and domestic pets on native communities and their inhabitants. The approved brochure, along with attachments, shall be included as part of the rental/lease agreements and as part of the sales literature for future developments.

POLICY 5.19: Wetland Conservation and Monitoring Fund. The City shall establish a Wetland Conservation and Monitoring Fund and establish fees pursuant to a Property Analysis Record (PAR). Each development or redevelopment shall contribute its fair share based on the size of the development to this fund, which will be created to provide restoration and long-term management to the publicly owned wetlands within the SEASP Plan area. Fees shall be assessed on the project through conditions of approval of the Coastal Development Permit.

When an agency or non-profit corporation accepts permanent management responsibilities of the wetlands, the Fund may be transferred to that agency or corporation.

Consistent. This policy is directed to the City of Long Beach.

The proposed project would be required to pay all applicable fees.

POLICY 5.20: Wetland and ESHA Buffers
a) New development shall be sited to provide a minimum buffer of 100 feet from a delineated wetland or environmentally sensitive habitat area.

However, a smaller buffer between wetlands and ESHA and paved areas at the MarketPlace parcel that exist at the time of certification of this Plan may be approved, but under no circumstances can be less than 50 feet. A reduced buffer can only be approved if the City finds a 100-foot buffer is infeasible and makes findings that the approved buffer is the widest feasible buffer and will sufficiently protect the wetland or ESHA. Any portion of the buffer less than 100 feet shall require contribution to the Wetland Conservation and Monitoring Fund at the current market rate per each quarter of an acre as established by the City. The buffer area must be designed to shield the existing wetland or ESHA from lighting, noise, urban runoff, and human intrusion resulting from the project. New buildings, public facilities, roadways, and fuel modification zones are not permitted within the buffer. b) In addition, buffers should:
i) Prevent disturbances to wetlands or ESHA from adjacent development.
ii) Minimize the effects of erosion, sedimentation, and pollution arising from urban, industrial, and agricultural activities; however, to the extent possible, erosion, sedimentation, and pollution control problems should be dealt with at the source not in the wetland or buffer area. iii) Allow for passive recreational uses within the area, only if it can be shown, by the written findings of a qualified biologist, that these uses will not adversely impact the wetland ecosystem or the ESHA or the buffer’s function. These uses may include bird watching, walking, jogging, and bike riding, and may include the construction of paths and interpretive signs and displays. All access, trails, or paths should be constructed to minimize impact to plants and animals and to maximize the buffer area. c) Buffers are natural areas that transition from urbanized areas to wetland or ESHA habitat. No new residential, commercial, or industrial buildings will be located within 100 feet of a delineated wetland. Existing roadways already within buffers may be maintained, but not expanded.

In addition, the future alignment of the completion of Shopkeeper Road Not Applicable. The proposed project is a redevelopment project, and this policy does not apply to the proposed project.

As discussed in this Compliance Checklist, the proposed project would be required to implement all applicable mitigation measures identified in the SEASP (BIO-1 through BIO-7). As discussed in Section 3.4, above, the proposed project is consistent with the PEIR conclusions related to biological resources.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 128 ends

Table 13 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
between 2nd Street and Studebaker Road, as described in Chapter 7, Mobility, Section 7.6.8, must be found consistent with the wetland protection policies and the buffer policies.
d) Developments with wetland buffers will be required to prepare and record covenants regarding maintenance obligations of buffer areas.

The agency in charge of the management of the restored wetlands may provide comments and recommendations to those responsible for maintenance of the buffers if lack of proper maintenance is causing the buffers to fail in their primary mission to prevent visual and physical access to the wetlands habitats. Breaches in the buffer which seriously threaten habitat values in the wetlands, and which have been reported by the wetlands management agency and have not been repaired in a timely fashion by the individual or agency responsible for maintenance, may be repaired by the wetlands management agency. Costs for such repairs shall be collected from the property owner’s association.

POLICY 5.21: Development shall include specific measures to help reduce potential pollutants and water quality impairment, including controlling the disposal of chemicals and hazardous materials, controlling the use of pesticides and herbicides, maintaining existing storm water capture programs, applying low impact development designs and requiring on-site retention and/or reuse of runoff.

Consistent. Refer to the consistency discussions for “Sections 30231 and 30232,” above.

POLICY 5.22: Development shall analyze sea level rise and groundwater rise over the expected life of the development in considering increased potential for mobilization of surface and subsurface pollutants.

Consistent. A flood resilience assessment was prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix G). As discussed in
Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project is consistent with the PEIR and would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

POLICY 5.23: The City will utilize ecologically responsible pest control methods and integrated pest management to the extent feasible on public property and encourage this practice on private property.

Consistent. This policy is directed to the City. Nevertheless, the operation of this project would comply with this policy.

POLICY 5.24: Drainage plans and erosion, sediment and pollution control measures shall be required as conditions of approval of every application for new development that has the potential to impair water quality.

POLICY 5.25: Development that has the potential for water quality impairment shall, at a minimum, be designed to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater runoff requirements.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project is consistent with the PEIR and would not impair water quality. The proposed project would be constructed and designed to meet all applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing water quality, such as the City’s MS4 permit and Construction General Permit.

POLICY 5.26: Construction phase storm water pollutant controls shall be required for development that has the potential for water quality impairment, including erosion controls, sediment traps and filtering of offsite storm water flows.

Consistent. Construction of the proposed project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and incorporate BMPs. The proposed project would be consistent with this policy. Also see Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality.

POLICY 5.27: A habitat corridor shall be required from 2nd Street to the San Gabriel River upon application for redevelopment of the site (restoration or abandonment of oil operations). Such corridor shall be not less than 400 feet in width (when measured from the existing buildings in the Marketplace) and shall include Shopkeeper Road.

Not Applicable. This proposed habitat corridor is to the east of the project site and would not encroach on the project site. The proposed project would not interfere with the implementation of this corridor.

POLICY 5.28: The City shall ensure that development in the coastal zone adequately protects marine resources, including avian species, and may adopt policies for tree trimming and removal in the coastal zone that adequately protect such species and any environmentally sensitive habitat areas.

Consistent. While this policy is directed to the City, the proposed project would incorporate all appliable development standards, design guidelines and standards, and policies of the SEASP and applicable mitigation measures of the PEIR.

POLICY 5.29: The trimming and/or removal of any trees that have been Consistent. The project site includes trees that may have been 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 129
Table 13 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
used for breeding, roosting, and nesting within the past five (5) years, as determined by a qualified biologist or ornithologist shall be undertaken in compliance with all applicable codes and regulations of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and shall be conducted under the parameters of a Tree Maintenance Program which shall be prepared and included as part of the LCP’s Implementation Plan.
used for breeding, roosting, and nesting within the past five years. Tree removal and trimming during the construction and operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with this policy. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations protecting nesting birds, such as the MBTA. Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-8, which outlines a process for bird surveys prior to construction. The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR.

POLICY 5.30: If an active nest of any species listed pursuant to the federal or California Endangered Species Act, California bird species of special concern, or a wading bird (herons or egrets) as well as owls or raptors is found, construction activities shall avoid breeding/nesting season (January through September). If construction is determined to be necessary during the breeding/nesting season, construction activities within 300 feet (500 feet from any owl or raptor nests) shall not exceed noise levels of 65 dB peak until the nest(s) is naturally vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The 65 dB peak noise levels may only be increased if a noise study demonstrates the ambient noise level is above 65 dB at the subject site, and shall not be allowed to exceed the ambient level. When construction is determined to be necessary during the breeding/nesting season, breeding/nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction with a follow-up survey conducted 3 days prior to commencement of construction on sites where there is probable cause to believe that nesting birds may exist.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with the
policy. As discussed in the biological technical report and the in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, this policy was incorporated into Mitigation Measure BIO-8.

POLICY 5.31: The following Tree Trimming and Removal policy applies within the SEASP coastal zone with respect to trees that provide breeding, roosting, and nesting habitat for the birds listed in Policy 5.29.

The City may prepare Tree Maintenance Program for the trimming and/or removal of trees consistent with Nesting and Foraging Habitat provisions of the LCP.

A. Tree trimming, or tree removal shall be conducted outside of the bird breeding, roosting, and nesting season (January through September), unless a qualified arborist determines that a tree or branch is dead, diseased, dying or injured and said tree or branch is in imminent danger of collapse or breaking away causing a danger to human health and safety. The City shall be proactive in identifying and addressing diseased, dying or injured trees on public property as soon as possible in order to avoid habitat disturbances during the nesting season. The City shall encourage private property landowners to be proactive in identifying and addressing diseased, dying or injured trees on private property and when new development is under review for a CDP.

B. During the non-breeding and non-nesting season (October through December), the following procedures shall apply:

1. Annually, prior to tree trimming or removal, a qualified biologist or ornithologist shall survey the trees to be trimmed or removed to detect breeding, roosting, or nesting activity and submit a survey report to the City of Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine, a representative of the Audubon Society, and the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. The survey report shall include identification of all Consistent. The project site is in the Coastal Zone. The project would be required to comply with the policy during construction and operation. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, the project site only includes ornamental
landscaping and trees, which do not provide suitable habitat for special-status species. Additionally, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-8 to further protect nesting birds. The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 130 ends

Table 13 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis Policy Analysis trees with breeding, roosting, or nesting activity. The Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine shall maintain a database of survey reports that includes a record of breeding, roosting, and nesting trees that is available as public information and to be used for future tree trimming and removal decisions. 2. Any trimming of trees with a history of breeding, roosting, or nesting activity within the past five (5) years shall be supervised by a qualified biologist or ornithologist and a qualified arborist to ensure that adequate breeding, roosting, and nesting support and foliage coverage is maintained in the tree, to the maximum extent feasible, in order to preserve the breeding, roosting, and nesting habitat. Trimming of any such trees shall occur in a way to preserve the breeding, roosting, and nesting activity, unless the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine, in consultation with a qualified arborist, determines that such trimming is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public. The amount of trimming at any one time shall be limited to preserve the suitability of the tree for breeding, roosting, or nesting habitat.

3. Trimming may not proceed if a nest is found and evidence of courtship or nesting behavior is observed at the site. In the event that any birds continue to occupy trees during the non-nesting season, trimming shall not take place until a qualified biologist or ornithologist has assessed the site, determined that courtship behavior has ceased, and given approval to proceed within 300 feet of any occupied tree.

C. If a health and safety danger is determined to exist, during breeding, roosting, and nesting season (January through September), the following procedures shall apply:

1. A qualified biologist or ornithologist shall conduct surveys and submit a report at least one week prior to the trimming or removal of a tree (only if it is posing a health or safety danger) to detect any breeding, roosting, or nesting behavior in or within 300 feet (500 feet of owls and raptors) of the work area. A tree trimming and/or removal plan shall be prepared by an arborist in consultation with the qualified biologist or ornithologist and a representative of the Audubon Society. The survey report and tree trimming and/ or removal plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Director of the Parks, Recreation and Marine. The Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine shall maintain the plans on file as public information and to be used for future tree trimming and removal decisions. The plan shall incorporate the following:
a. A description of how work will occur.
b. Work must be performed using nonmechanized hand tools to the maximum extent feasible.
c. Limits of tree trimming and/or removal shall be established in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing.
d. Steps shall be taken to ensure that tree trimming will be the minimum necessary to address the health and safety danger while avoiding or minimizing impacts to breeding and nesting birds and their habitat.

2. Prior to commencement of tree trimming and/or removal the City of Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine shall notify in writing the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission, the Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the intent to commence tree trimming or removal.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 131
Table 13 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
D. Make every effort to preserve mature trees before considering tree removal. Preferred approaches, where possible, include modifying street improvements to preserve trees or using best horticultural practices such as watering and fertilizing, pest control, pruning, staking and guying. The removal of any tree that qualifies as ESHA or provides important habitat for species that exist in or play a key role in the marine ecosystem shall require mitigation at least a 2:1 ratio. If the tree to be removed is nonnative, replacement trees shall consist of native or non-invasive tree species. A tree replacement planting plan for each tree replacement shall be developed to specify replacement tree location, tree type, tree size (no less than 36 inch box size), planting specifications, and a fiveyear monitoring program with specific performance standards.

POLICY 5.32: In addition to the standards above, new development located on properties that contain or are located within 100 feet of wetlands, ESHA, or sensitive coastal habitat areas (including open water), as defined in this chapter, shall also comply with the following:

A. Lighting shall be designed to achieve the minimum degree of illumination necessary for public safety, minimize light trespass into adjacent non-target areas, and limit the illumination of open space and sensitive coastal habitat areas to the maximum extent feasible. Lighting shall be downward directed, shielded, energy efficient, dark skycompatible, and shall incorporate state-of-the-art improvements in lighting technology when replaced thereafter. Replacement bulbs or fixtures shall be upgraded to incorporate best available technology over the life of the installation. Programmable timing devices shall be utilized to turn off unnecessary lights where feasible. Illuminated signs shall not be allowed.

B. Minimize the number of and, whenever possible, co-locate rooftop antennas and other rooftop structures.

C. Monopole structures or antennas shall not include guy wires.

D. Amplified music shall not be permitted.

E. The use of insecticides, herbicides, anticoagulant rodenticides or any toxic chemical substance that has the potential to significantly degrade biological resources shall be prohibited, except where necessary to protect or enhance the habitat itself, such as for eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration, and where there are no feasible alternatives that would result in fewer adverse effects to the habitat value of the site. Application of such chemical substances shall not take place during the winter season or when rain is predicted within a week of application. Herbicide application necessary to prevent regrowth of highly-invasive exotic vegetation such as giant reed/cane (Arundo donax) shall be restricted to the best available and least-toxic product and method in order to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife and the potential for introduction of herbicide into the aquatic environment or onto adjacent non-targeted vegetation. In no instance shall herbicide application occur if wind speeds on site are greater than five miles per hour or 48 hours prior to predicted rain. In the event that rain does occur, herbicide application shall not resume again until 72 hours after rain.

Not Applicable. The proposed project is a redevelopment project. The open water portions of the San Gabriel River flood control channel, but not its rip-rap sides (which provide limited ecological functions), meet the criteria for ESHA (GLA 2023).

The proposed project is within 100 feet of the ESHA within the San Gabriel River.

As discussed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, the proposed project is consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-5, which requires that the proposed project not produce light levels of 0.1 foot-candle or great at the San Gabriel River.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions in this policy. The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR.

Notes:
•Policies related to land use other than “Mixed-Use Community Core” are not included in this table. •Policies related to oil production or resource extraction are not included in this table. •Policies related to overnight accommodations are not included in this table. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 132 ends

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
Chapter 5.11, Mineral Resources, of the certified PEIR found that there are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites in Long Beach, and the SEASP area is not in a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) where significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present. Furthermore, the SEASP is not designated as a Scientific Resource Zones (SZ) area or an Identified Resource Areas (IRA) area. However, the SEASP features substantial subsurface petroleum deposits. The SEASP concentrates new development in developed and urbanized areas. New development is not proposed that would encroach onto or result in activities that would impact the existing oil operations. The certified PEIR determined that implementation of the SEASP would not change or impact ongoing oil operations, including oil extraction activities. Future development in accordance with the Specific Plan would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource, and impacts relating to mineral resources recovery sites would be less than significant.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The SEASP area has oil production, and the SEASP includes policies and standards for the continued operation of oil extraction in the SEASP area. Oils operations occur on the eastern side of the SEASP, to the east of the project site. No mineral or oil extraction activities exist on-site (DOC 2022c); the project site is developed with a two-story office building. Similar to the findings of the PEIR, the project site is not in an MRZ (CGS 2010).
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 133

DISCUSSION
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The project site is developed with a two-story office building, and no mineral or oil extraction exist on-site.

Similar to the findings of the PEIR, the project site is not in an MRZ (CGS 2010). The development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region nor a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local plan, specific plan, or other land use plan that would be a value to the region. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

3.13 NOISE
Issues

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 134 ends

Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
Construction Noise
Two types of temporary noise impacts could occur during construction activities associated with development that would be accommodated by SEASP. First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads. The second type of temporary noise impact is related to demolition, site preparation, grading, and/or physical construction. Construction of individual development projects associated with SEASP would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment and would have the potential to affect noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of that project. Per Section 8.80.202 (Construction Activity-Noise Regulations) of the City’s municipal code, construction activities are prohibited from 7:00 pm to 7:00 am Mondays through Fridays and before 9:00 am and after 6:00 pm on Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays unless a permit has been issued. Construction of individual development projects associated with SEASP would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of each development project, potentially affecting existing and future sensitive uses in the vicinity. Because these construction activities may occur near noisesensitive receptors and noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time (depending on the project type), construction noise impacts associated with implementation of the SEASP are considered potentially significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, construction noise impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Operational Noise
Buildout of SEASP would result in an increase in residential and commercial development within the SEASP area. The primary noise sources from these land uses are landscaping and maintenance activities, mechanical equipment, and air conditioning systems. Future commercial uses may also include loading docks. Noise 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 135
generated by residential or commercial uses is generally short and intermittent, and these uses are not a substantial source of noise. Additionally, the City regulates noise produced by air conditioning units, landscape maintenance, and loading activities in Section 8.80.200 (Noise Disturbances-Acts Specified) of the municipal code. The City’s noise ordinance is based on the receiving land use and protects noise-sensitive uses regardless of neighboring uses. Noise that exceeds the limitations of the municipal code is considered a violation and is punishable by a fine or imprisonment. Consequently, stationary-source noise from these types of proposed land uses would not substantially increase the noise environment. Therefore, noise impacts from stationary sources would be less than significant.

Future development in accordance with SEASP would cause increases in traffic along local roadways. A significant impact could occur if development that would be accommodated by SEASP would result in an increase of 5 dBA. Buildout of the SEASP would add traffic noise increases along roadways of up to 1.0 dBA CNEL. No roadway segments would result in an increase greater than 5 dBA or experience increases greater than 3 dBA that result in noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Therefore, traffic noise from SEASP buildout would be less than significant.

Vibration (Construction and Operation)
Vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial, since it has the potential to exceed the FTA criteria for human annoyance of 78 VdB and structural damage of 0.200 in/sec. Vibration impacts may occur from construction equipment associated with development in accordance with the implementation of the SEASP. Therefore, construction vibration impacts are considered potentially significant. The PEIR incorporates Mitigation Measure N-2 that would reduce potential vibration impacts from construction to a less than significant level.

Operation of new commercial land uses could generate additional truck trips that could potentially generate various levels of vibration along the traveled roadways. Additionally, truck trips could be generated during construction of new development projects within SEASP. Typically, trucks do not generate high levels of vibration because they travel on rubber wheels and do not have vertical movement, which generates ground vibration. Therefore, roadway routes within the SEASP area are not expected to generate excessive vibration, and traffic-induced vibration levels would be less than significant.

Industrial operations can possibly generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. With the potential for sensitive uses within the SEASP area to be exposed to annoying and/or interfering levels of vibration from industrial operations, such operations-related vibration impacts associated with implementation of the SEASP are considered potentially significant. The PEIR incorporates Mitigation Measure N-3 that would reduce potential vibration impacts from industrial uses to a less than significant level.

Airport
The SEASP area falls outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours for the two nearest airports (Los Alamitos JFTB and Long Beach Airport). Furthermore, the SEASP area also falls outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for LAX (approximately 19 miles northwest of the SEASP area). In addition to airports, there are also a couple of nearby heliports. However, heliport operation is sporadic, and heliports are required to 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 136 ends

maintain an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

Therefore, it is anticipated that aircraft noise would not elevate the ambient noise environment of the SEASP area.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis in Section 3.13, Noise, is based in part on the following noise letter:
▪ Noise and Vibration Impact Compliance Letter, Veneklasen Associates, December 1, 2022. (A complete copy of this letter is included in the Appendix H.)
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, State of California, and City of Long Beach have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities.

The project site is in an urbanized area and is developed with an operational office building and associated surface parking. The project site is surrounded by Pacific Coast Highway, commercial uses, and an undeveloped lot to the northeast; San Gabriel River to the southwest; landscaped parcels, Marina Drive, and commercial uses to the southwest; and Studebaker Road and a commercial center to the northwest. The nearest noise sensitive receptor to the project site is an apartment complex approximately 590 feet south of the project site, across the San Gabriel River in the City of Seal Beach. The noise environment in the project site area is primarily characterized by traffic along Pacific Coast Highway and Marina Drive; vehicle movement in parking lots on-site and the surrounding properties; and human activity on-site, along public rights of way, and neighboring properties.

The nearest airports are Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB), approximately 3.2 miles to the northeast, and the Long Beach Airport, approximately 4.2 miles to the northwest of the project site.

The SEASP includes the following policies related to noise:
▪ Policy 5.30. If an active nest of any species listed pursuant to the federal or California Endangered Species Act, California bird species of special concern, or a wading bird (herons or egrets) as well as owls or raptors is found, construction activities shall avoid breeding/nesting season (January through September). If construction is determined to be necessary during the breeding/nesting season, construction activities within 300 feet (500 feet from any owl or raptor nests) shall not exceed noise levels of 65 dB peak until the nest(s) is naturally vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The 65 dB peak noise levels may only be increased if a noise study demonstrates the ambient noise level is above 65 dB at the subject site, and shall not be allowed to exceed the ambient level. When construction is determined to be necessary during the breeding/nesting season, breeding/nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction with a follow-up survey conducted 3 days prior to commencement of construction on sites where there is probable cause to believe that nesting birds may exist. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 137

DISCUSSION
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?
Construction
In terms of the proposed construction activities, the demolition, grading, and site paving activities are expected to generate the highest noise levels, since they involve the largest and most powerful equipment.

Construction equipment for the proposed project could include standard equipment such as concrete saws, dozers, graders, tractors, loaders, backhoes, excavators, generators, forklifts, welders, rollers, paving equipment, air compressors, and a crane.

Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile-source noise from the transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris/soil hauling and (2) stationary-source noise from use of construction equipment. Construction activities are anticipated to last approximately 28 months. The following discusses construction noise impacts to the off-site sensitive receptors.

The transport of workers and materials to and from the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along local roadways. Individual construction vehicle pass-bys may create momentary noise levels of up to approximately 85 dBA (Lmax) at 50 feet from the vehicle, but these occurrences would generally be infrequent and short lived. Additionally, site access would be through Pacific Coast Highway, which has hundreds of existing daily vehicle trips. Therefore, noise impacts from construction-related truck traffic would be less than significant at noise-sensitive receptors along the construction routes.

Project construction would increase ambient noise on a temporary and intermittent basis. Noise generated by on-site construction equipment is based on the type of equipment used, its location relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of noise-generating activities. Each stage of construction involves different kinds of equipment and has distinct noise characteristics. Noise levels from construction activities are typically dominated by the loudest several pieces of equipment. The dominant equipment noise source is typically the engine, although work-piece noise (such as dropping of materials) can also be noticeable. The noise produced at each construction stage is determined by combining the noise contributions from each piece of equipment used at a given time, while accounting for the ongoing time variations of noise emissions (commonly referred to as the usage factor). Heavy equipment, such as a bulldozer, can have maximum, shortduration noise levels of up to 85 dBA at 50 feet. However, overall noise emissions vary considerably, depending on what specific activity is being performed at any given moment. Noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load and power requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction phase would result in different noise levels from construction activities at a given receptor.

Since noise from construction equipment is intermittent and diminishes at a rate of at least 6 dBA per doubling of distance (conservatively ignoring other attenuation effects from air absorption, ground effects, and/or shielding/scattering effects), the average noise levels could vary considerably, because mobile construction equipment would move around the project site with different loads and power requirements. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 138 ends

The proposed project would be required to comply with LBMC Section 8.80.202 (Construction Activity Noise Regulations), which regulates noise for construction activities. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure N-1, which requires reducing noise levels during construction (see below). Therefore, the proposed project would generate noise levels during construction consistent with the PEIR; the proposed project would not change or worsen the significant and unavoidable determination from the PEIR.

Operation
The operation of the proposed project would generate noise such as people talking, using outdoor common areas, property maintenance, and vehicles entering and existing the project site. These types of noise sources are typical noise sources associated with mixed-use, commercial, and residential development and already exist in the project site area. Operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with LBMC Section 8.80, Noise, which sets forth regulations to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise. For example, the proposed project would be required to comply with LBMC Section 8.80.130 (Disturbing noises prohibited) and Section 8.80.200 (Noise disturbances specified). Noise that exceeds the limitations of the municipal code is considered a violation and is punishable by a fine or imprisonment. Consistent with the PEIR, operation of the proposed project would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards.

Construction and operation impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measures from the adopted MMRP are applicable to the proposed project. Refer to Appendix A below for the full list of mitigation measures associated with the certified PEIR.

N-1 Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits for development projects accommodated by the Southeast Area Specific Plan, a note shall be provided on development plans indicating that ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
▪ Construction activity is limited to the daytime hours between 7 am to 7 pm on Monday through Friday and 9 am to 6 pm on Saturday, as prescribed in the City’s municipal code.

Construction is prohibited on Sundays.
▪ All internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 139
▪ Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses.
▪ Stockpiling is located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. ▪ Construction traffic shall be limited to the haul routes established by the City of Long Beach.

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction
Construction activities generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration-sensitive uses. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Table 14, Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, lists reference vibration levels for different types of commonly used construction equipment.

Table 14 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment Approximate PPV Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Impact Pile Driver 1.52
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Source: FTA 2018.

Notes: PPV = Peak Particle Velocity in inches per second Proposed construction would include demolition and grading, which would include equipment such as loaders and bulldozers. As discussed in the Noise and Vibration Impact Compliance Letter prepared by Veneklasen (in Appendix H), the proposed project would use auger pressure grouting of piles (APG) instead of traditional pile driving. Based on machine description and Veneklasen’s experience, APG generates noninvasive vibration levels that are significantly less than traditional pile driving. No blasting or similar activity is planned for the proposed project. Paving activities may generate construction vibration and would include equipment such as pavers and rollers. At a distance greater than 25 feet, a vibratory roller would generate vibration levels less than 0.2 in/sec PPV.

Since there is no pile driving or blasting planned for construction of the proposed project and given the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, mitigation measure N-2 from the certified PEIR (related to noise 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 140 ends

and vibration analysis for pile driving and rock blasting) is not applicable and the proposed project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Operation
Operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial levels of vibration because there are no known sources of vibrational energy associated with the proposed project, such as industrial machinery or railroad operations. Therefore, mitigation measure N-2 from the certified PEIR is no applicable.

Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Mitigation Measures
None of the mitigation measures identified in the certified PEIR for this threshold apply to the proposed project. Refer to Appendix A for the full list of mitigation measures associated with the certified PEIR. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? As with the PEIR, the project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport nor within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 141

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
Buildout of the SEASP was determined to generate 5,439 residential units, 8,648 residents, and 560 new jobs (see Table 1, Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Use Summary). The PEIR determined that buildout of the SEASP is within Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) anticipated growth for housing, population, and jobs. The SEASP is consistent with the City’s and SCAG goals to provide additional housing opportunities in Long Beach. The additional housing units (type and number of) permitted under the SEASP would also provide an opportunity to provide affordable housing units in Long Beach, consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s Housing Element. The buildout of the SEASP would result in a less than significant impact to housing, population, and employment growth.

The SEASP changes land use designations and allows for development in the SEASP area. Although future residential uses were identified within the SEASP area, no specific development or redevelopment projects were identified. Potential displacement of housing units was expected to be minimal. Furthermore, buildout of the SEASP would result in a net increase in dwelling units and residents. The SEASP would not lead to the displacement of a substantial number of existing housing units or people. Impacts related to housing and population displacement were found to be less than significant.

The adopted SEASP allows for 2,547 dwelling units and 307,071 square feet of commercial/employment. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 142 ends

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is currently developed with a 73,076-square-foot office building. No housing units exist onsite. As shown in Table 3, Southeast Area Specific Plan Remaining Capacity, the proposed project’s residential units and commercial square footage are within the buildout capacity for the SEASP.

DISCUSSION
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)?
As shown in Table 3, the proposed project is consistent with SEASP’s buildout projections for residential units and commercial square footage. The proposed project would result in a net decrease of commercial square footage and is anticipated to generate a net decrease of approximately 312 employees (USGBC 2008).12 Removal of the existing operational office building onsite would add to SEASP’s commercial buildout capacity. Furthermore, the proposed project and the surrounding area are already developed and are well served by utility and transportation infrastructure. The proposed project is consistent with the SEASP land use designation of Mixed-Use Community-Core and zoning designation of SP‐2‐MUCC. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce direct nor indirect substantial unplanned population growth in the SEASP area. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is developed with an office building, and no housing units exist on-site. Development of the proposed project would not displace people nor housing units. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR.

Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. 12 Based on the 228 square feet per employee rate (for “Office under 100,000 sf” category), employees for existing office building are estimated to be 320 employees. Based on 383 square footage per employee rate (for “community retail” category), the proposed project would generate 8 employees. The proposed project would generate a net decrease of 312 jobs (USGBC 2008). 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 143

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues

Fire protection? Less than
Significant
Impact
No no no no
Police protection? Less than
Significant
Impact
No no no no
Schools? Less than
Significant
Impact
No no no no
Parks? Less than
Significant
Impact
No no no no
Other public facilities? Less than
Significant
Impact
No no no no

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The SEASP area is served by the Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD). The certified PEIR determined that growth in accordance with the SEASP is expected to create the typical range of fire and emergency service calls and would increase the need for new fire facilities, apparatus, and personnel in order to maintain adequate response times. However, implementation of the SEASP is not expected to result in impacts on fire protection and emergency services. The increase in potential services needed would not require the significant expansion or construction of a new fire station. The SEASP would not expand LBFD’s service area. Payment 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 144 ends

of the fire facilities impact fee (pursuant to LBMC Chapter 18.23, Fire Facilities Impact Fees) ensures that individual project applicants pay their fair share of costs related to fire protection services and facilities.

LBFD would also continue to be supported by other revenue sources, such as Proposition H. All development projects that would be accommodated under the SEASP would also be required to comply with the most currently adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, and the State of California. A less than significant impact would occur.

The SEASP area is served by the Long Beach Police Department (LBPD). The need for police services is expected to grow with the buildout of the SEASP, due to the increase in population and workers and associated potential for additional crime and accidents. After construction, development that would be accommodated by the SEASP is anticipated to generate a typical range of police service calls as similar developments. The increase in potential services needed would not require the construction of a new police station or improvements to the existing station that serves the SEASP area. Implementation of the SEASP is also not anticipated to significantly increase LBPD’s response times to either to the SEASP area or the surrounding vicinity. The proposed project would not result in an expansion of LBFD’s service area.

Applicants of individual development projects would be required to pay police facilities impact fees in accordance with LBMC Chapter 18.22 (Police Facilities Impact Fees), which would contribute to LBPD’s funds to acquire, construct, and furnish new law enforcement facilities and to purchase new equipment.

LBPD would also continue to be supported by other revenue sources, such as Proposition H. A less than significant impact would occur.

The SEASP area is within the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). The population increase associated with the SEASP would lead to an increase in student population, which in turn would create additional demand for LBUSD services and facilities. The buildout of the SEASP is anticipated to generate 1,971 students, which would be within LBUSD’s enrollment capacity. However, additional classrooms may be needed at the elementary school level and middle school level based on the State’s student loading standards.

Additional students would be accommodated by portables at the current permanent facilities in the area.

LBUSD would collect school impact fees pursuant to Senate Bill 50 from future development projects that would be accommodated by the SEASP, and payment of those fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts generated by new development, per Government Code Section 65995. A less than significant impact would occur.

The Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine Department offers a number of parks and recreational programs and services to Long Beach residents. The City has a total of 94 parks with approximately 2,614 acres of parkland. There are 16 parks (totaling 406.6 acres) within the SEASP area or within 0.25 mile of the SEASP area. The SEASP’s impact on parks was evaluated in PEIR Chapter 5.15, Recreation. Refer to Section

3.16, below.

The Long Beach Public Library (LBPL) system provides library resources and services to City residents, including the SEASP area. The LBPL libraries serving the SEASP area include the Main Library, Bay Shore Neighborhood Library, Brewitt Neighborhood Library, and Los Altos Neighborhood Library. The LBPL does not expect that SEASP buildout would create a need for a new library facility. LBPL would continue receiving funding for library facilities and resources through the City’s General Fund and through library 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 145
activities, such as fines, facility rentals, and passport photo/execution fees as well as grants and private donations, provided mainly by the Friends of the Long Beach Public Library and the Long Beach Public Library Foundation. SEASP buildout would generate additional General Fund revenue for the City, thus helping to reduce project impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is currently developed with an operational office building and is served by LBFD, LBPD, LBUSD, City parks, and LBPL, as described above.

DISCUSSION
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
As discussed in Table 3 above and in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project is within the anticipated buildout capacity of the SEASP. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to the need for new construction or expansion of an existing fire, police, school, or library facilities that would serve the project site beyond what was evaluated in the PEIR. As discussed in the certified PEIR, the proposed project would be required to pay all applicable fees, such as fire and police facilities impact fees and SB 50 school fees. Development of the proposed project would also contribute to the City’s tax revenue, which would in part fund public services, including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and libraries.

Since the proposed project is within the SEASP’s buildout capacity, the proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 146 ends

3.16 RECREATION
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine (LBPRM) Department offers a number of parks and recreational programs and services to Long Beach residents. The City has a total of 94 parks with approximately 2,614 acres of parkland. There are 16 parks (totaling 406.6 acres) in the SEASP area or within

0.25 miles of the SEASP area. The additional residents associated with the SEASP buildout could lead to an increase in demand for existing City parks and recreational facilities. The PEIR determined that there is more than adequate parkland near the project area to accommodate the future residences such that implementation of the Specific Plan would not cause the deterioration of existing facilities. Developments within the SEASP would also be required to provide open space on-site consistent with the SEASP. Additionally, the SEASP’s unique location along the city’s coast allows for coastal recreation and access, and a number of facilities would be implemented throughout the SEASP area that provide additional recreation. Per Chapter 18.18 (Park and Recreation Facilities Fee) of the LBMC, new residential projects are required to pay in-lieu fees, dedicate land for parks, or some combination thereof. Parkland dedication and/or the payment of in-lieu fees would ensure that significant impacts to existing parks and recreational facilities would not occur. The development or expansion of parks in the SEASP area would not result in significant impacts to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. Park and recreation uses would be preserved under the SEASP. Impacts to existing parks and recreational facilities would not occur with implementation of the SEASP. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 147

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The LBPRM offers 169 parks, 26 community centers, 2 historic sites, 2 major tennis centers, a golf system with five courses, 3,100 boat slips, and 6 miles of beaches. The City’s park system includes more than 3,100 acres for recreation (LBPRM 2022a). The City has a parkland ratio of 6.64 park acres per 1,000 (LBPRM 2022b), which is 0.94 acres more than the parkland ratio during the preparation of the SEASP EIR.

DISCUSSION
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? The proposed project would include approximately 27,501 square feet of outdoor common open space on the ground level, pool/spa and outdoor areas on the podium level, and a roof deck. The open space on-site would provide a variety of amenities, landscaping, and seating, as discussed in Section 1.4.1, Proposed Land Use.

Consistent with the SEASP, the proposed project would provide open space on-site that would serve project residents. Since the proposed project’s residents would be within the buildout capacity of the SEASP, as shown in Table 3 and discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not 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, and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 148 ends

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Issues

No yes no no
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less than
Significant
Impact
No no no no
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than
Significant
Impact
No no no no

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The SEASP would create an efficient, balanced, multimodal mobility network by integrating autos, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians into a complete street. The SEASP would improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities and infrastructure throughout the SEASP area to promote active and alternative modes of transportation.

Additionally, it would not create a substantial increase in transit ridership that could decrease the performance or safety of the system. The SEASP was determined to be consistent with the General Plan Mobility Element and SB 743. The PEIR also found that temporary construction traffic would temporarily increase construction vehicles on roadways, and impacts would be potentially significant. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1 through TRAF-6, the PEIR determined that the SEASP’s impact to level of service at intersections would remain significant and unavoidable.

SB 743 was signed into law in 2013 and became effective 2020; the bill changed the way transportation impacts were measured in California. SB 743 shifted the focus of the transportation thresholds from a level of service analysis (i.e., vehicle delay) to a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis (i.e., average distance traveled). The transportation thresholds in the matrix above were adopted by the California Natural Resource Agency in December 2018 and incorporated into the CEQA Appendix G in 2019 after the certification of 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 149
the PEIR. PEIR Chapter 5.16, Transportation, evaluated the SEASP’s impact at buildout on to the transportation network in and around the SEASP area based on a level of service (LOS) approach. However, VMT analysis was prepared for the SEASP in Impact 5.16-6 of the PEIR. The VMT analysis determined that the SEASP includes improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle network and a robust transportation demand management plan. With the pedestrian and bicycle network improvements and TDM Plan, the SEASP would achieve a total VMT reduction of approximately 40 percent relative to existing 2017 conditions.

The City of Long Beach and LBFD have adopted roadway design standards that preclude the construction of any unsafe design features. Standards for provision of safe road and circulation improvements are also outlined in the SEASP. Roadway improvements would be required to comply with City’s Standard Engineering Plans and LBFD’s design standards as well as those outlined in the SEASP, which would be imposed on future developments under the SEASP by the City during the building plan check and development review process. Compliance with these established and proposed design standards would ensure that hazards due to design features would not occur.

To address fire and emergency access needs, the traffic and circulation components of the SEASP would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable LBFD design standards for emergency access (e.g., minimum lane width and turning radius). Future development projects under the SEASP would also be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements in the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards of the City and LBFD, such as those outlined in LBMC Chapter 18.48 (Fire Code). All future development and improvements under the SEASP would be subject to review and approval by the City, LBFD, and LBPD prior to building permit and certificate of occupancy issuance. Therefore, impacts on emergency access would be less than significant.

SEASP Project Design Features
The PEIR included the following project design features that apply to development projects (including the proposed project). Other project design features (see Chapter 5.16 of the PEIR) apply to the SEASP area as whole.
▪ PDF-2: Reduction of Peak Hour Trips, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan: Projects within SEASP that generate 50 or more peak hour trips are required to:
• Join the TMA and ensure that tenants are TMA members for the first 25 years from the date of final inspection or certificate of occupancy.
• Submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to the City Traffic Engineer and Director of Development Services, or his/her designee.
▪ PDF-3: Reduced Parking Requirements: Projects in SEASP are eligible for a parking reduction by incorporating Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, pending Site Plan Review approval. TDM strategies applicable to reduced parking requirements, subject to the discretion of the City’s Site Plan Review Committee, include but are not limited to:
• Car sharing
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 150 ends

• Carpool/vanpool
• Unbundled parking (parking spaces are rented or sold separately, rather than automatically included with the rent or purchase price of a residential or commercial unit) • Joint use (shared parking)
• Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian system improvements
• Trip reduction incentives to employees, such as free transit passes A “park once” policy shall be promoted for SEASP. Rather than driving from one use to another, visitors are highly encouraged to park once and walk to one or more destinations within the Project area.

Similarly, residents and employees are encouraged to walk from residences or workplaces to SEASP destinations.

All parking reduction requirements shall be approved at the discretion of the Site Plan Review Committee, which will determine the appropriate level of parking demand reduction generated by these strategies on a project-specific basis.

The City subsequently prepared a TDM Plan for the SEASP (see Appendix J2 of the certified PEIR), which requires that all projects that will generate more than 50 peak hour trips join the Transportation Management Association (TMA) and implement TDM measures to achieve the SEASP’s goal of reducing peak hour trip generation by 10 percent (Long Beach 2017b). The TDM Plan provides a menu of strategies based on user or development type and its associated trip reduction percentage. The TDM Plan also provides a monitoring framework through the collection of a number of data sources to ensure that the SEASP’s goals are met.

Monitoring will be based on employee and resident surveys, traffic counts and trip generation studies, transit boardings/alightings at transit stops, bike share ridership, and data from in-vehicle navigation systems and cellular phones.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis in Section 3.17, Transportation, is based in part on the following technical report:
▪ Memorandum: 6700 Pacific Coast Highway Transportation Consistency Findings with the SEASP PEIR, Fehr & Peers, January 19, 2023. (A complete copy of this report is included in the Appendix I.) Vehicle Miles Traveled
The methodologies and thresholds of significance used to assess the transportation impacts of the PEIR (namely, LOS) were consistent with the Long Beach’s adopted methodologies and thresholds of significance at the time the analysis was conducted. However, for informational purposes, a VMT analysis was included in the PEIR. After the certification of the Final PEIR for the SEASP, Long Beach adopted revised transportation impact study methodologies and thresholds of significance for assessing transportation impacts in accordance with SB 743. These changes required that lead agencies no longer use intersection LOS in the determination of impact significance under transportation. The State of California’s Governor’s Office 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 151
of Planning and Research (OPR) issued a Technical Advisory recommending that VMT be used as the primary transportation metric for assessing transportation impacts under CEQA. The City of Long Beach adopted revised transportation impact study guidelines that are largely consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory (Long Beach 2020).

The transportation analysis of the PEIR used the Mixed-Use Development (MXD) trip generation methodology. The MXD methodology was developed in partnership with the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to more accurately estimate the internalization of project trips associated with mixed-use developments and districts, and the associated net external trip generation of mixed-use projects, which typically generate fewer vehicle trips than single-use developments in more isolated settings. The MXD methodology adjusts typical Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rates to reflect the internalization and site-specific attributes of mixed-use developments. The MXD model was developed and calibrated to 239 existing mixed-use developments.

The PEIR requires that internalization of trips due to project design (internal trip capture) or TDM strategies applied shall be incorporated into the analysis of individual projects using best practice methodologies. At the time of publication of the SEASP, best practices used EPA’s MXD methodology. Subsequent to the PEIR, Fehr & Peers has updated and refined the methodology to include additional model sensitivities, updated ITE trip generation rates, and updated input data calculated from the SCAG travel demand model (TDFM), which includes the SEASP area. This updated methodology, MXD 2.0, has been incorporated into Fehr & Peers’ MainStreet trip generation tool, which represents the current best practice for mixed-use trip generation and was utilized for the proposed project.

Table 15, Existing Trip Generation Estimate, summarizes the trips generated by the existing office building on-site.

Table 15 Existing Trip Generation Estimate
Land Use
ITE Land
Use Code Size
Estimated Trip Generation
Daily
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
Office Building
710 73.08
792 98 13 111 18 87 105
Less: MXD Reduction1(87) (12) (2) (14) (2) (8) (10)
Net External Vehicle Trips 705 86 11 97 16 79 95
Source: Fehr & Peers 2023.
1 This percentage is a total reduction associated with walking, biking, transit use, and internal capture. It is informed by MXD 2.0 Mixed Use Trip Generation Methodology. Internal capture represents the percentage of trips between land uses that occur within the site. MXD assumptions were modified in accordance with information provided in the SEASP certified PEIR, Appendix J1 (TIA), 2021.

The transportation memorandum divides the mixed use- community core area into four quadrants and one mixed-use marina area. As shown in Table 17, below, the proposed project is in the southwest quadrant 2nd/PCH. The total PM Trip budget for the mixed-use areas is 5,432 and the existing PM trip generation is 2,719.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 152 ends

Pedestrian, Transit and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian access is provided by sidewalks adjacent to the project site on the Studebaker Road and Pacific Coast Highway frontages. Sidewalks are present on all surrounding streets except Marina Drive south of Studebaker Road. Pedestrian access to destinations along Marina Drive southwest of the project site is provided via walkways along the Alamitos Bay Marina, but direct sidewalk access is not currently available to these walkways in the vicinity of the project site. There is currently no pedestrian access to Marina Drive due to a lack of sidewalks along the roadway curve.

A southbound bus stop for LBT and OCTA is located adjacent to the project site on Pacific Coast Highway.

A northbound bus stop for both public transit agencies is also on Pacific Coast Highway approximately 300 feet northwest of the project site. These stops serve LBT Route 171 and OCTA Route 1. OCTA Route 1 runs along Pacific Coast Highway between the Long Beach Veterans Affairs Hospital/CSULB and San Clemente, with headways of one hour throughout the day on weekdays. LBT Route 171 runs along Pacific Coast Highway between Seal Beach and Century Villages at Cabrillo, with headways of 40 minutes throughout the day on weekdays.

The following bicycle facilities are available in the vicinity of the project site:
▪ Class II bicycle lanes on Pacific Coast Highway between the Traffic Circle and Seal Beach. ▪ Class II buffered bicycle lanes on Marina Drive between Seal Beach and Studebaker Road. ▪ Class IV protected bicycle lanes on Marina Drive between Studebaker Road and 2nd Street. ▪ Class II bicycle lanes in the westbound direction of Studebaker Road between Pacific Coast Highway and Marina Drive.
▪ Class II bicycle lanes and Class IV protected bicycle lanes on 2nd Street between Belmont Shore and Seal Beach.
▪ Class I San Gabriel River Bike Trail.

DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Construction
As discussed in the PEIR, the proposed project would result in temporary construction traffic during the 30- month construction schedule. Consistent with the PEIR, the proposed project would incorporate Mitigation Measure TRAF-5, which would require the preparation of a construction management plan. As demonstrated in detail in Appendix I, the proposed project is consistent with the transportation impact findings of the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 153
Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Operation
The SEASP introduced a trip-budget tracking system based on PM peak-hour net-external vehicle trips. This system controls the amount and intensity of residential and nonresidential uses in the SEASP area based on the trip budget. The trip budget allows for flexibility in the land uses in the SEASP. As long as the collective project trips associated with proposed development projects do not exceed the trip budget analyzed in the PEIR, the projects can be found to be consistent with the findings of the PEIR and no additional transportation analyses would be required for a project under CEQA. The SEASP has a 5,432 PM peak-hour trip budget available for use within the 85 acres of the specific plan designated for mixed-use projects, inclusive of 2,719 trips for existing uses active at the time the SEASP transportation impact analysis was prepared, for a total trip budget of 2,713 net new project trips.

As detailed in Table 16, Proposed Trip Generation Estimate, the proposed project is expected to generate 9 net external PM peak-hour trips with an estimated MXD trip reduction of 20 percent compared with raw ITE Trip Generation rates. The SEASP had an estimated 18 percent MXD trip reduction. The increase in the percentage of the trip reduction is associated with the buildout of other known developments in the SEASP area (such as the 2nd & PCH project, which as certified prior to the certification of the SEASP and its PEIR) as well as the improved accuracy of the updated MXD methodology, which reduces the overestimation of net external project trips.

Table 16 Proposed Trip Generation Estimate
Land Use
ITE
Land Use
Code Size
Estimated Trip Generation
Daily
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project
Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise)
221 281 du
1,276 24 80 104 67 43 110
Less: MXD Reduction a
(268) (6) (19) (25) (13) (9) (22)
Net External Vehicle Trips 1,008 18 61 79 54 34 88
Retail (<40 ksf)
820 3.10 ksf
169 4 3 7 10 10 20
Less: MXD Reduction a
(35) (1) (1) (2) (2) (2) (4)
Net External Vehicle Trips 134 3 2 5 8 8 16
Total Project External Trips 1,142 21 63 84 62 42 104
Existing
Office Building
710 73.08 ksf
792 98 13 111 18 87 105
Less: MXD Reduction1
(87) (12) (2) (14) (2) (8) (10)
Net External Vehicle Trips 705 86 11 97 16 79 95
NET INCREASE EXTERNAL TRIPS 437 -65 52 -13 46 -37 9
Source: Fehr & Peers 2023.
1 This percentage is a total reduction associated with walking, biking, transit use, and internal capture. It is informed by MXD 2.0 Mixed Use Trip Generation Methodology. Internal capture represents the percentage of trips between land uses that occur within the site. MXD assumptions were modified in accordance with information provided in the Southeast Area Specific Plan EIR, Appendix J1 (TIA), 2021. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 154 ends

Table 17, Trip Budget by Quadrant, details the available trip budget by SEASP quadrant and total SEASP area.

After accounting for trips associated with the proposed project as well as other known projects, the proposed project would be within the SEASP trip budget, including within the trip budget for the Southwest Quadrant, which encompasses Blocks 2 and 3 (refer to Figure 1 of the VMT memo in Appendix I). Further, the proposed project does not generate 50 or more peak-hour trips and is not required to join the TMA nor prepare a TDM Plan. Project design features PDF-2 and PDF-3 do not apply to the proposed project.

The proposed project would support surrounding pedestrian and transit facilities by creating a pedestrianscale development with outdoor public amenities, such as street trees along Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road and public seating along Studebaker Road.

As demonstrated in detail in Appendix I, the proposed project is consistent with the transportation impact findings of the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR, and impacts would remain less than significant. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Table 17 Trip Budget by Quadrant
Block Mixed-Use Development Areas
PM Trip
Budget1
Existing PM
Trip
Generation
PM Peak Hour
Trips for 2nd
and PCH
(2020)2
PM Peak Hour
Trips for the
Proposed
Project
Remaining
Trips
1 Northwest Quadrant 2nd/PCH (Marina
Pacifica) 1,847 1,472 375
2&3 Southwest Quadrant 2nd/PCH 1,361 423 792 9 137
4 Southeast Quadrant 2nd/PCH 1,369 558 811
5 Northeast Quadrant 2nd/PCH
(In n Out) 173 160 13
6 Mixed Use Marina 682 106 576
-- Total Trips 5,432 2,719 792 10 1,912
Source: Fehr & Peers 2023.
1 Based on selected Reduced Intensity Alternative, accounts for existing + future traffic and includes adjustment for pass-by-trips not included in the SEASP TIA. 2 Existing at the time of the completion of the 2017 SEASP TIA. Completed projects since then are listed under the project columns. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Analysis Approach
The PEIR was prepared before the implementation of SB 743. Therefore, the required VMT analysis methodologies that the City was going to adopt were not known at that time. However, in anticipation of SB 743, a VMT analysis was included in the PEIR. A total VMT estimate and a VMT estimate per service population (population + employment) for the SEASP area were prepared using the SCAG TDFM. While the summarization of VMT in the PEIR is not consistent with the City’s current transportation impact study guidelines—subsequently adopted in June 2020—it was prepared using the same, required analysis tool. The 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 155
City’s current guidelines generally express VMT on a per capita basis and compared against Los Angeles County as a regional baseline.

Given that the City’s intention for the SEASP is to allow developments to tier off of the SEASP EIR through a finding of consistency, VMT analysis would need to follow the approach taken in the SEASP EIR to be consistent. To evaluate this consistency, the following analysis approach for VMT was conducted:

1. The SCAG TDFM was used in combination with the MXD trip generation methodology to estimate total project VMT. This analysis was conducted by calculating updated average trip lengths by trip purpose for the transportation analysis zone (TAZ) that contains the proposed project and multiplying those by daily net external vehicle trip generation as estimated using the MXD trip generation methodology.

2. The total project VMT estimated based on the methodology described above was compared to the SEASP VMT budget as identified in the SEASP EIR. Using a similar framework as the PM peak-hour trip budget, the proposed project’s total VMT, along with the total VMT of other developments provided by the City of Long Beach within the SEASP, was deducted from the total VMT for the SEASP. If there is still VMT budget available, the project would be consistent with the VMT findings of the SEASP EIR, and no further CEQA transportation analysis would be required.

Consistent with the PEIR, the TDFM was used to estimate trip lengths. However, the updated 2016 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) model was used for the proposed project, which is the same model used in the City’s current Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines.

The base year and future year (2040) models were used to extract actual trip length by trip purpose for the traffic analysis zone containing the proposed project.

Total VMT
MainStreet was used to estimate daily trip generation for the proposed project by trip purposes, consistent with the SCAG TDFM calculated trip lengths, as well as for trip productions and attractions. Existing VMT for the current uses on the proposed project site was calculated using the MainStreet MXD trip generation output multiplied by the base year trip lengths detailed above. Existing VMT is 8,030 per day.

Future VMT was calculated using the Year 2040 trip lengths multiplied by the MainStreet MXD trip generation output for the proposed project. Proposed project VMT is estimated to be 12,381 per day, for a net increase of 4,351 VMT per day.

For the full SEASP, Existing TDM Adjusted VMT was estimated at 455,236 VMT per day, and the Future Year with Project was estimated at 633,617 VMT per day, a net increase of 178,381 VMT. Therefore, the net increase in VMT associated with the proposed project is expected to utilize approximately 2.4 percent of the total net increase VMT budget. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the net increase in total VMT estimates in the PEIR, and no additional CEQA transportation impact analysis is required. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 156 ends

VMT per Service Population
Service population is calculated by adding population plus employment. Using SCAG TDFM factors for the TAZ that contains the project site, the average household size for the TAZ is 1.7 people per household. The proposed project would have an estimated population of approximately 478 people. Using typical TDFM employee estimates, the 3,100 square feet of retail spaces are expected to have one employee for 500 square feet of retail space, for a total of seven employees. The total service population for the proposed project would therefore be 485. The resulting VMT per service population for the proposed project is estimated to be 25.53 (12,381 daily VMT divided by a 485 service population).

The TDM Adjusted VMT Estimates per Service Population for the PEIR is 32.91. The VMT per Service Population for the proposed project is approximately 22.3 percent lower than that of the SEASP. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the VMT estimates contained in the PEIR, and no additional CEQA transportation impact analysis is required.

Additionally, mitigation measures TRAF-1 through TRAF-6 would need to be implemented as part of implementation of the SEASP (prior to the proposed project) and/or as part of the proposed project. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

TRAF-1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit pursuant to the proposed Project, the City of Long Beach shall update the City’s traffic mitigation fee program to include the improvements outlined in Mitigation Measure TRAF-3. The City shall prepare a "nexus" study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600 legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq., to support changes under consideration for the SEASP. The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the traffic improvements and facilities required to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development pursuant to the proposed Project. Traffic improvements and facilities necessary to mitigate the Project impacts shall be included, among other improvements, in the AB 1600 nexus study. The City’s fee program shall be updated based on the nexus study. Fees are assessed when there is new construction, an increase in square footage in an existing building, or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use. The development fees collected are applied toward circulation improvements and right-of-way acquisition. Fees are calculated by multiplying the proposed square footage, dwelling unit, or hotel room by the appropriate 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 157
rate. Traffic mitigation fees are included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the building permit is issued. The City will use the traffic mitigation fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees advanced to fund construction) of the transportation improvements identified in Mitigation Measure TRAF-3.

Applicability: This mitigation measure requires the City of Long Beach to update the City’s traffic mitigation fee program to include the improvements outlined in Mitigation Measure TRAF-3. This mitigation measure is not applicable for individual development projects.

TRAF-2 As part of the subsequent environmental review for development projects that would be accommodated by the SEASP, a site-specific traffic study shall be prepared by the project applicant/developer to evaluate the project’s potential traffic and transportation impacts on vehicle miles traveled consistent with the City of Long Beach Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for Signalized Intersections and the Los Angeles County CMP Guidelines to identify specific improvements, as deemed necessary, to provide safe and efficient onsite circulation and access., and limit cut through traffic on adjacent neighborhoods. The traffic study for the first development project to be considered under the SEASP shall include an analysis of signal timing of 2nd Street through Naples to identify timing adjustments needed to improve signal synchronization. The traffic study shall be approved by the Public Works Department. Payment of fees, construction of improvements, and signal timing shall be implemented prior to issuance of a building permit.

Applicability: Mitigation measure TRAF-2 was updated to reflect the change from level of service to vehicle miles traveled pursuant to SB 743. The mitigation measure, as amended, is applicable to the proposed project.

The following traffic improvements and facilities are necessary to mitigate impacts of the SEASP and shall be included in the City’s fee mechanism(s):

Existing With Project Improvements
Studebaker Road & SR-22 Westbound Ramps: Construct a spiral striped roundabout with two circulating lanes, with a southbound slip (bypass) lane. The southbound approach would be striped with two through lanes and one shared through-left turn lane; the westbound approach would have two left turn lanes and one right turn slip lane; and the northbound approach would have two through lanes and one right turn slip lane. This measure would be funded through the City of Long Beach Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and fair-share contributions from area developments.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 158 ends

▪ 3. Studebaker Road & SR-22 Westbound Ramps: Construct a spiral striped roundabout with two circulating lanes, with a southbound slip (bypass) lane. The southbound approach would be striped with two through lanes and one shared throughleft turn lane; the westbound approach would have two left turn lanes and one right turn slip lane; and the northbound approach would have two through lanes and one right turn slip lane. This measure would be funded through the City of Long Beach Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and fair-share contributions from area developments.

Alternatively, the intersection could remain signalized with the following improvements:
• Modify the westbound approach from two left turn lanes and one right turn lane, to three left turn lanes and one right turn lane.
• Modify the southbound approach from one left turn lane and one through lane, to one left turn lane and three through lanes.
• Optimize the AM and PM signal cycle lengths and splits. ▪ 17. Shopkeeper Road & 2nd Street: This intersection would require the following improvements:
• Modify the northbound approach from one shared through-left turn lane and one right turn lane, to one shared through-left turn lane and two right turn lanes. • Modify the westbound approach from one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through-right turn lane, to two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through-right turn lane.
▪ 27. 2nd Street & Bay Shore Ave Avenue: This intersection would require the following improvements:
• Reconfigure the northbound approach to provide a dedicated left-turn lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane.
• Add a southbound right-turn lane.
• Add an eastbound right-turn lane and restripe the shared through/right-turn lane as a through lane.

Cumulative Year (2035) With Project Improvements
▪ 3. and 11. Studebaker Road & SR-22 West- and Eastbound Ramps: Construct a spiral striped roundabout with two circulating lanes, with a southbound slip (bypass) lane. The southbound approach would be striped with two through lanes and one shared through-left turn lane; the westbound approach would have two left turn lanes and one right turn slip lane; and the northbound approach would have two through lanes and one right turn slip lane. This measure would be funded through the City of Long Beach Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Alternatively, the intersection could remain signalized and with the following improvements:
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 159
• Modify the westbound approach from two left turn lanes and one right turn lane, to three left turn lanes and one right turn lane.
• Modify the northbound approach from one through lane and one shared throughright turn lane, to two through lanes and one shared through-right turn lane. • Modify the southbound approach from one left turn lane and one through lane, to one left turn lane and three through lanes.
• Optimize the AM and PM signal cycle lengths and splits. ▪ 15. Marina Drive & 2nd Street: This intersection would require the following improvements:
• Modify the northbound approach from one left turn lane, one shared through-left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane, to two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane.
• Modify the southbound approach from one left turn lane, one shared through-left turn lane, and one right turn lane, to two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane.
• Modify the westbound approach from one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through-right turn lane, to two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through-right turn lane.
▪ 17. Shopkeeper Road & 2nd Street: This intersection would require the following improvements:
• Modify the westbound approach from one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through-right turn lane, to two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through-right turn lane.
• Modify the eastbound approach from one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through-right turn lane, to one left turn lane, three through lanes, and one right turn lane.
▪ 20. PCH & Studebaker Road: This intersection would require the following improvements:
• Modify the southbound approach from one left turn lane, two through lanes, one right turn lane, and one right turn lane, to one left turn lane, three through lanes, one right turn lane.
• Optimization of the PM signal cycle lengths and splits.

Applicability: The proposed project would be required to pay applicable fair share impact fees. This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 160 ends

TRAF-4 Prior to issuance of building permits for development projects that would be accommodated by the SEASP, project applicants/developers shall make fair-share payments to the City of Seal Beach toward construction of the traffic improvement listed below. Fairshare payments shall occur through either: 1) an agreement between the developer and City of Seal Beach to pay fair share funding for the improvement or 2) payment to the City of Seal Beach traffic mitigation fee program that is based on nexus requirements contained in the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code § 66000 et seq.) and 14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15126.4(a)(4). The traffic mitigation fee program must include the intersection improvements identified below. If the City’s traffic fee program has not incorporated the intersections identified below at the time of building permits and the applicant has made reasonable efforts to contribute its fair share, then project applicants shall have no further obligation to comply with this mitigation measure.
▪ 9. Seal Beach Boulevard & 2nd Street/Westminster Boulevard: Modify the northbound approach from having one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through-right turn lane, to having one left turn lane, three through lanes, and one right turn lane.
▪ 22. PCH & Seal Beach Boulevard: This intersection would require three through lanes on the northbound approach.

Applicability: The proposed project would be required to pay applicable fair share impact fees. This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project.

TRAF-5 Prior to issuance of grading permits for development projects that would be accommodated by the SEASP, project applicants/developers shall prepare a construction management plan.

The construction management plan shall be approved by the City of Long Beach Public Works Department. The construction management plan shall identify construction hours, truck routes, travel patterns for haul routes, staging and parking areas, staggered worker arrival times, and safety procedures for pedestrians and cyclists. The construction management plan shall prohibit the use of heavy construction vehicles during peak hours.

The plan shall also require the construction contractor to implement the following measures during construction activities, which shall be discussed at the pre-grading conference/meeting:
▪ Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes and provide temporary traffic controls, such as a flag person, during all roadway improvement activities to maintain adequate access for emergency vehicles and personnel.
▪ Develop a traffic plan to minimize interference for emergency vehicles and personnel from demolition and construction activities (e.g., advanced public notice of demolition and construction activities)
Applicability: This mitigation measure is applicable to the proposed project. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 161
TRAF-6 Prior to issuance of the first the occupancy permits for development projects that would be accommodated by the SEASP, the City and Caltrans shall jointly identify feasible operational and physical improvements and the associated fair-share funding contribution necessary to mitigate Project-related impacts to state transportation facilities. In the event that Caltrans prepares a valid study, as defined below, that identifies fair share contribution funding sources attributable to and paid from private and public development to supplement other regional and State funding sources necessary undertake improvements to the I-22, I-605, and I-405, in the Project study area, then the project applicant shall use reasonable efforts to pay the applicable fair share amount to Caltrans.

The study shall be reviewed and approved by the California Transportation Commission. It shall include fair share contributions related to private and or public development based on nexus requirements contained in the Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code § 66000 et seq.) and 14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15126.4(a)(4) and, to this end, the study shall recognize that impacts to Caltrans I-22, I-605, and I-405 facilities that are not attributable to development located within the City of Long Beach are not required to pay in excess of such developments’ fair share obligations. The fee study shall also be compliant with Government Code § 66001(g) and any other applicable provisions of law. The study shall set forth a timeline and other relevant criteria for implementation of the recommendations contained within the study to the extent the other agencies agree to participate in the fee study program.

In the event the study has been prepared, project applicants shall use reasonable efforts to pay the fair share amount to Caltrans. If Caltrans chooses to accept the project applicant’s fair share payment, Caltrans shall apply the payment to the fee program adopted by Caltrans or agreed upon by the City and Caltrans as a result of the fair share fee study. Caltrans shall only accept the fair share payment if the fair share fee study has been completed. If, within five years from the date that the first building permit is issued for the Project, Caltrans has not completed the fair share fee study, then project applicants shall have no further obligation to comply with this mitigation measure.

Applicability: This mitigation measure requires the City of Long Beach City and Caltrans to jointly identify feasible operational and physical improvements and the associated fair-share funding contribution necessary to mitigate project-related impacts to state transportation facilities. This mitigation measure is not applicable to the proposed project, because it is directed to the City of Long Beach.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project would introduce a mixed-use building with residential and commercial uses where an office building currently exists. The proposed project is consistent with the SEASP land use designation and zoning district. The proposed project does not propose any street network changes, nor any changes to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. As a result, the proposed project does not generate any new features that 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 162 ends

would substantially increase hazards or an incompatible use. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the PEIR, and impacts would remain less than significant. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts.

Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
As discussed in Section 1.4, Project Description, of this Compliance Checklist, vehicles, including emergency vehicles, may currently access the project site via one ingress-egress driveway off of Studebaker Road. The driveway would be maintained by the proposed project, thus preserving emergency vehicle access to the project site the same as existing conditions. Further, as discussed in the PEIR, the proposed project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements in the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards of the City and LBFD, such as those outlined in LBMC Chapter 18.48 (Fire Code). The proposed project would be subject to review and approval by the City, LBFD, and LBPD prior to building permit and certificate of occupancy issuance. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the PEIR, and impacts would remain less than significant. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR.

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 163
Issues

Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
no no no no

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
Chapter 5.5, Cultural Resources, of the PEIR, addressed the impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) associated with buildout of the SEASP. The Sacred Lands File record search found one site on the Los Alamitos Quadrangle. The City contacted the tribes on the Native American Heritage Commission’s list.

Four responses were received from Rebecca Robles, Juaneño/United Coalition to Protect Panhe; Joyce Perry, Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation; Andrew Salas, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation; and Anthony Morales, Gabrieleño/Tongva Band of Mission Indians.

During the preparation of the PEIR, the City conducted tribal consultation pursuant to SB 18 and AB

52. Two responses were received, from Joseph Ontiveros of the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and Andrew Salas of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation.

Tribal cultural resources on and/or within about one mile of the SEASP area were identified, including a village site (Puvunga). One site was documented in the NAHC’s sacred land file search, and tribal representatives from five tribes responded, indicating the SEASP area has the potential to yield cultural resources. New development or redevelopment in accordance with the with the SEASP may uncover tribal cultural resources and is a potentially significant impact. Depending on the conditions of the project site, incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3 to CUL-5 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 164 ends

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The SEASP states that the entire SEASP area is sensitive for archeological and tribal resources. The SEASP incorporates policies and the conditions of approval for new development. Refer to Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, for the conditions of approval related to archaeological, tribal cultural resources and human remains.

DISCUSSION
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) 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 ii) 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.

The same discussion under Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, applies to tribal cultural resources. The existing office building on-site includes a subterranean parking garage, and therefore the project site has had previous earthwork activities. It is unlikely that the proposed project would encounter unknown tribal cultural resources. Nevertheless, consistent with the certified PEIR, development of the proposed project could unearth unknown tribal cultural resources. The proposed project would be required to incorporate the conditions of project approval (see Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, “Existing Conditions”) that would require the preparation and implementation of an Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan during grading and construction activities. The Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan would outline procedures for monitoring during grading and construction activities and steps to take in the event that archaeological or tribal cultural resources are encountered during grading and construction activities.

Additionally, the proposed project would be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the PEIR (see Sections 3.5 (b) and (c)). The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, that is listed or eligible for listing or significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 165
Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-3 to CUL-4.

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues

SEASP PEIR
Determination
Are there
environmental
effects peculiar to
the project or the
parcel on which
the project would
be located?
Are there
environmental
effects that were
not analyzed as
significant effects
in the SEASP
PEIR?
Are there
potentially
significant offsite impacts and
cumulative
impacts which
were not
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
Are there
previously
identified
significant effects
which, as a result
of substantial
new
information which
was not known at
the time the
SEASP PEIR was
certified, are
determined to
have a more
severe adverse
impact than
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
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 or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
no No no no
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than
Significant
Impact
no
yes (telecommunication
facilities)
no no
c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
Less than
Significant
Impact no No no no
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
Less than
Significant
Impact no No no no
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Less than
Significant
Impact
no No no no

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
Wastewater
The SEASP area is served by the Long Beach Water Department (LBWD) sewer system and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) sewer system. The buildout of the SEASP is forecast to increase wastewater generation from the SEASP area by 1.16 million gallons per day (mgd). The increase in flows are 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 166 ends

generally focused in the Mixed Use Community Core and Mixed Use Marina land use areas. LACSD’s Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson and the Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant (LBWRP) in Long Beach serve the SEASP area.

It is anticipated that several of the 8-inch sewer lines serving the Mixed Use Community Core and the Mixed Use Marina will require upsizing to 10- or 12-inch lines dependent upon the size, density, and location of individual projects. All sanitary sewers must be designed in accordance with certain design standards, LBWD Rules and Regulations, and accepted engineering principles. In all newly development areas and/or in all existing areas where new sanitary sewers are required, the design must include the provisions that the sewer systems’ size and capacity can adequately accommodate the ultimate anticipated conditions. Proponents of projects developed pursuant to the SEASP may need to make improvements to the sewer system at their own cost and request reimbursement agreement to recover a portion of the costs from other developments that tie into the system and benefit from the improvements.

In addition to impacts to the LBWD sewer system, impacts may occur to the LACSD trunk lines, which provide regional sewer service and collect flows from the tributary LBWD sewer lines. LACSD trunk lines serving the SEASP area are designed to accommodate on average over 3.26 mgd, and the maximum flow rates from 2007 to 2012 averaged approximately 1.15 mgd. The addition of SEASP wastewater would not increase the flows beyond the total design capacity of these larger trunk lines, and implementation of the proposed project would not impact the regional system. However, implementation of the SEASP may require upsizing of individual trunk lines. Long-term capacity is monitored closely to determine when trunk lines are nearing their design capacity. If LACSD identifies that, over time, specific trunk lines are nearing their design capacity, the line will be added to their comprehensive capital improvement project list for future upgrade.

Project applicants are required to pay their fair share fees for any necessary expansion of the sewer system pursuant to LACSD’s Connection Fee Program. If upgrades are required, conformance with the General Construction Permit for Linear Projects would be followed, which serves to reduce the impacts of construction through the use of sediment- and erosion-based BMPs.

The PEIR determined that both JWPCP and LBWRP have adequate remaining treatment capacity to serve the SEASP area at buildout. Impacts to sewer lines and wastewater treatment facilities from the implementation of the SEASP would be less than significant.

Water
The Long Beach Water Department (LBWD) serves the SEASP area. Buildout of the SEASP is forecast to increase water demand in the SEASP area by a net of 1,725 acre-foot per year (afy). LBWD forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies to meet estimated water demands from buildout of the SEASP. Future development would also be required to comply with the provisions of the most current California Green Building Standards Code, which contains requirements for indoor water use reduction and site irrigation conservation. Additionally, development projects would be required to implement water efficient landscaping and low impact development standards consistent with the LBMC that would reduce the amount of water needed for outdoor use.
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 167
Implementation of the SEASP would increase water demand in these areas by 1.43 mgd, which has the potential to impact water lines in the SEASP area. The existing water system has sufficient capacity and fire pressure to service SEASP buildout. No major infrastructure improvements are anticipated. In accordance with the California Fire Code, future projects within the SEASP would be required to perform fire flow pressure tests to confirm that there is adequate water pressure to serve the site. In addition, routine maintenance and replacement of older water lines would continue throughout the SEASP area consistent with the LBWD Capital Improvement Program. SEASP buildout is expected to involve construction of new water laterals serving individual development or redevelopment projects built pursuant to the proposed SEASP.

Strom Drain System
The SEASP’s impact to the storm drain system was analyzed in Chapter 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. The City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County maintain storm drains. Based on the high existing impervious conditions in the development areas and the proposed change in land uses from the SEASP, which are generally equal to or less than existing impervious conditions, runoff is not anticipated to increase over existing conditions. Buildout of the SEASP would not require the construction of new or expanded storm drainage systems. However, based on the City’s Master Plan of Drainage, the PEIR identified five stormwater lines in the SEASP that are deficient and recommended upsizing (see Table 5.9-2 in the PEIR). With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4, the SEASP would result in a less than significant impact to storm drains.

Solid Waste
The City of Long Beach Environmental Services Bureau collects solid waste in Long Beach. The City contracts with Waste Management Inc. for the collection of recyclables. Five landfills serve the City of Long Beach, including El Sobrante Landfill in the City of Corona, Riverside County; Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill in the City of Irvine, Orange County; Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea, Orange County; Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center in the City of Simi Valley, Ventura County; and Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill in the City of Los Angeles. Combined the landfills have a residual daily disposal capacity of 31,983 tons. The PEIR determined that there is sufficient residual disposal capacity at the landfills and other facilities accepting solid waste from the City of Long Beach to accommodate the estimated net increase in solid waste generation. In addition, solid waste generated by the SEASP buildout would be processed at the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility and recycled or incinerated to generate electricity, or be sorted at Potential Industries for reselling recyclable materials. Further, individual development projects would be required to comply with LBMC provisions regulating solid waste, such as Chapter 18.67 (Construction and Demolition Recycling Program), and the California Green Building Code. SEASP buildout would not require construction of new or expanded solid waste disposal, recycling, or transformation facilities. Impacts on solid waste disposal capacity would be less than significant.

The buildout of the SEASP would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing solid waste, including those listed above. Additionally, the buildout of the SEASP would not affect Long Beach’s ability to continue to meet the required AB 939 waste diversion requirements. Therefore, buildout of the SEASP would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 168 ends

Electricity and Natural Gas
Southern California Edison provides electricity to the City of Long Beach. Buildout under the SEASP would create a net increase in electricity demand of approximately 30.9 million kilowatt-hours (kWhr) annually compared to existing conditions. The PEIR determined that there are sufficient planned electricity supplies in the region for the estimated net increase in electricity demands, and buildout under the SEASP would not require expanded electricity supplies. Additionally, future development would be required to comply with California Building and Energy Efficiency standards outlined in the building code. Further, the SEASP would encourage a number of energy efficiency features, such as installation of new solar facilities and energy efficient lighting.

The City of Long Beach Gas and Oil Department provides natural gas to the city. Buildout under the SEASP would generate a net increase in natural gas demands of approximately 87.8 million thousand-Britishthermal-units (kBTU) annually. The forecast net increase in natural gas demands due to buildout under the SEASP is well within City forecasts of natural gas supplies, and therefore would not require the City to obtain new or expanded natural gas supplies.

The PEIR determined that the SEASP would have a less than significant impact on energy supplies.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical reports:
▪ Hydrology and LID Report for MRNA, LFA, January 30, 2023. (A complete copy of this report is included in the Appendix F.)
▪ Sewer Area Study for MRNA, LFA, September 13, 2022. (A complete copy of this report is included in the Appendix J.)
The same utility providers discussed above serve the project site. Existing utilities lines serve the project site.

An 8-inch sewer line, a 12-inch water line, and an 18-inch storm drain in Marina Drive serve the project site.

The PEIR shows that there are five landfills that serve the City. The closure dates for the five landfills range from 2021 to 2052. In 2020, the Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill closure date was extended to 2036 since the landfill continued to have capacity; no other changes were made to the operations of the Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill (Orange County 2020).
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 169

DISCUSSION
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 or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Wastewater
As discussed under “SEASP PEIR Summary,” the SEASP area would be adequately served by wastewater and water treatment facilities. Construction of the proposed project would involve new, on-site wastewater lines to connect to the sewer line in Marina Drive. Individual, localized lines may require upsizing to accommodate buildout of the SEASP over time. Development projects, such as the proposed project, would be required to pay their fair share contribution to the upsize the line. However, the sewer study prepared for the proposed project (Appendix J) determined that the existing 8-inch sewer line in Marina Drive has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project (LFA 2022). As discussed in the PEIR, if in the future it is determined that the sewer line would need to be upsized, the proposed project would be required to pay its fair share contribution. The proposed project is within the buildout capacity of the SEASP; therefore, the project would be adequately served by wastewater treatment providers. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR.

Water
As discussed under “SEASP PEIR Summary,” the SEASP area would be adequately served by water system and water treatment facilities. Construction of the proposed project would involve new, on-site water lines to connect to the water line in Marina Drive. Consistent with the SEASP, the proposed project would be required to provide fire flow pressure test to show that there is adequate water pressure to the project site.

New connections to the waterline would be reviewed by the City of Long Beach Public Works Department and LBWD, and the proposed project would be required to provide a will serve letter from LBWD which would document that LBWD would serve the proposed project. The proposed project is within the buildout capacity of the SEASP; therefore, the project would adequately served by LBWD. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Strom Drain System
As discussed under “SEASP PEIR Summary,” the SEASP area would be adequately served by stormwater system provided that Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4 are incorporated. As discussed in Section

3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would incorporate best management practices (i.e., 15 Permavoid planter boxes) on-site that would use a combination of capture and reuse and biofiltration. With the incorporation of the LID plan and BMPs, the proposed project would adequately reduce stormwater 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 170 ends

flows leaving the project site from a design storm event, meeting City of Long Beach LID standards (LFA 2022). Consistent with the PEIR, with implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm drain facilities beyond what was evaluated as part of the PEIR and on-site BMPs. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Solid Waste
As discussed under “SEASP PEIR Summary,” the SEASP area is adequately served by existing landfills. The proposed project is within the buildout capacity of the SEASP; therefore, the project would be adequately served by existing landfills. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Electricity and Natural Gas
The proposed project is within the buildout capacity of the SEASP; therefore, the project would be adequately served by existing electricity and natural gas facilities. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Telecommunications
The SEASP and the project site are highly urbanized and are served by a variety of carriers for telecommunication services, including, but not limited to, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile (FCC 2022). Since the proposed project is in a highly urbanized area, it would not require nor result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
As discussed in the PEIR and summarized under “SEASP PEIR Summary,” LBWD forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies to meet estimated water demands from buildout of the SEASP. As shown in Table 3, the proposed project is within the anticipated buildout of the SEASP. Therefore, the proposed project would 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 171
adequately served by wastewater treatment providers. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
c) Result in a determination by the waste water 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?
As discussed in the PEIR and summarized under “SEASP PEIR Summary,” both JWPCP and LBWRP have adequate remaining treatment capacity to serve the SEASP area at buildout. As shown in Table 3, the proposed project is within the anticipated buildout of the SEASP. Therefore, the proposed project would be adequately served by wastewater treatment providers. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
As discussed in the PEIR and summarized under “SEASP PEIR Summary,” the five landfills serving the SEASP have adequate capacity to serve SEASP buildout. The proposed project is within the buildout capacity of the SEASP; therefore, the project would be adequately served by existing landfills. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing solid waste, such as those listed under “SEASP PEIR Summary.” The proposed project would not affect Long Beach’s ability to continue to meet the required AB 939 waste diversion requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of state and local standards or capacity. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 172 ends

3.20 WILDFIRE
Issues

SEASP PEIR
Determination
Are there
environmental
effects peculiar to
the project or the
parcel on which
the project would
be located?
Are there
environmental
effects that were
not analyzed as
significant effects
in the SEASP
PEIR?
Are there
potentially
significant offsite impacts and
cumulative
impacts which
were not
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
Are there
previously
identified
significant effects
which, as a result
of substantial
new
information which
was not known at
the time the
SEASP PEIR was
certified, are
determined to
have a more
severe adverse
impact than
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
See discussion
below. no yes no no
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?
See discussion
below. no yes no no
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?
See discussion
below. no yes no no
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?
See discussion
below. no yes no no

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The Wildfire topic was added to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist in 2019 after the certification of the SEASP EIR. While Wildfire was not addressed as an independent topic, hazards related to wildland fire were addressed in Chapter 5.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, under Impact 5.8-6. The PEIR determined that the SEASP area is highly urbanized and built out and is outside of wildfire hazard severity zones designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The nearest high severity zones are in Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Palos Verdes Estate, approximately 13 miles west of the SEASP area. Future development consistent with the SEASP would not pose wildfire-related hazards to people or structures. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Further emergency response was evaluated in Chapter 5.8 under Impact 5.8-5 and Chapter 5.16, Transportation, under Impact 5.8-5. The PEIR determined that implementation of the SEASP would not 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 173
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and it would not result in inadequate emergency access.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Similar to the PEIR, the project site is in a highly urbanized area and is not within a fire hazard severity zone.

The nearest high severity zones are Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Palos Verdes Estate, approximately 13 miles west of the SEASP area and project site (CalFire 2022). Additionally, the project site is not located in an area designated as a fire threat by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC 2022).

This analysis addresses the thresholds regarding wildfire related impacts pursuant to the updated CEQA Guidelines.

DISCUSSION
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? The project site is not in or near SRA or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, and therefore does not meet the standard for further review under CEQA, and no impact would occur in this regard. The proposed project, a mixed-use project in a heavily urbanized area, would not exacerbate the threat of wildfire in the City or surrounding area. The proposed project would be required to be constructed to meet the City’s Fire Code (LBMC Title 18, Long Beach Building Standards Code, Chapter 18.48, Fire Code), which adopts and incorporates by reference the California Fire Code with certain amendments. The City’s Fire Code regulates the permit processes, emergency access, fire protection systems, such as sprinkler systems and fire alarms, among others. Wildfire, and fire-related impacts in general, would be consistent with the conclusions in the PEIR and remain less than significant.

January 2023 Page 174

4. Summary of Mitigation Measures
Table 18, Mitigation Measures from the Certified SEASP EIR that are Applicable to the Proposed Project, summarizes the mitigation measures discussed in Section 3, Environmental Analysis, that are applicable to the proposed project.

Table 18 Mitigation Measures from the Certified SEASP EIR that are Applicable to the Proposed Project Number Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 Applicants for new development projects within the Southeast Area Specific Plan shall require the construction contractor to use equipment that meets the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Long Beach that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board’s regulations.

Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all demolition and grading plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 4 or higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of Long Beach. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board’s Rule 2449.

AQ-2 Applicants for new development projects within the Southeast Area Specific Plan shall require the construction contractor to prepare a dust control plan and implement the following measures during ground-disturbing activities—in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403—to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The City of Long Beach shall verify that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. • Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with SCAQMD Rule 1186–compliant, PM10-efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and shall tarp materials with a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amount of protection. • During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a minimum of three times per day.
• During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour. • Heavy construction vehicles trips shall be limited to off-peak hours. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

4. Summary of Mitigation Measures
April 2023 Page 175
Table 18 Mitigation Measures from the Certified SEASP EIR that are Applicable to the Proposed Project Number Mitigation Measure
AQ-3 Applicants for new development projects within the Southeast Area Specific Plan shall require the construction contractor to use coatings and solvents with a volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints). The construction contractor shall also use precoated/natural-colored building materials, where feasible. Use of low-VOC paints and spray method shall be included as a note on architectural building plans and verified by the City of Long Beach during construction.

AQ-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit for new development projects within the Southeast Area Specific Plan, the property owner/developer shall show on the building plans that all major appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers) to be provided/installed are Energy Star appliances and electricity service initially enrolled for the development be sourced from 100 percent renewable sources, such as Southern California Edison’s Green Rate. Installation of Energy Star appliances and enrollment in an applicable electricity service shall be verified by the City of Long Beach prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

In addition, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the property owner/developer shall demonstrate to the City that tenant and landscaping contracts prohibit the use of gasoline-powered equipment, including lawn and garden equipment and outdoor power equipment. As part of the tenant contracts, the property owner/developer shall provide educational materials regarding the South Coast AQMD Electric Lawn and Garden Equipment Incentive and Exchange Program, Commercial Lawn & Garden Battery Buy-Down Rebate Program, and Residential Lawn Mower Rebate Program as well as the new requirement of AB 1346.

AQ-5 Prior to issuance of building permits for residential development projects within the Southeast Area Specific Plan, the property owner/developer shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Long Beach prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• For multifamily dwellings, electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code and the Long Beach Municipal Code.
• Bicycle parking shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.

AQ-6 Prior to issuance of building permits for nonresidential development projects within the Southeast Area Specific Plan, the property owner/developer shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s). Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Long Beach prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
• For buildings with more than ten tenant-occupants, changing/shower facilities shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
• Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code and the Long Beach Municipal Code.

BIO-1 Concurrent with submittal of site development plans for development on or adjacent to undeveloped land and all land within the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation land use, the project applicant shall submit a biological resources report conducted by a qualified biologist. The biological resources report shall include: analysis of available literature and databases (CNDDB); historical sensitive biological resources; review of current land use and land ownership within the project vicinity; on-site survey and mapping that delineates vegetation communities present within the development area; identification of jurisdictional waters and special status habitat, wildlife, and plant species. Focused surveys for sensitive, threatened, endangered species, will also be prepared, as required. The project applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed development and project design avoids impacts to special status species and habitats, in consultation with CDFW and USFWS. If complete avoidance is not possible, the project applicant shall obtain necessary permits from CDFW and USFWS. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall submit plans, required permits, and mitigation plans (if needed) to the Long Beach Development Services Department for 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

4. Summary of Mitigation Measures

Page 176 ends

Table 18 Mitigation Measures from the Certified SEASP EIR that are Applicable to the Proposed Project Number Mitigation Measure
review and approval.

BIO-2 Concurrent with submittal of site development plans for development on or adjacent to undeveloped land and all land within the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation land use, the project applicant shall submit a jurisdictional delineation prepared by a qualified biologist or letters stating that no such jurisdictional features exist. The jurisdictional delineation shall be prepared pursuant to the requirements of (1) US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, (2) CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, (3) RWQCB jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 13260 of the Porter-Cologne Act, and (4) wetlands as defined under the California Coastal Act. The project shall be designed to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. If wetland avoidance is not possible, the applicant shall ensure no net loss of wetlands either by creation of applicant-sponsored wetlands or purchase of mitigation bank credits in consultation with applicable Federal- and State- agencies (Corps, CDFW, RWQB, and/or Coastal Commission). Any mitigation, replacement, and/or restoration of habitat shall occur in the LCWC or in an approved coastal mitigation bank that covers this area. If the applicant can demonstrate that there are no logistically viable opportunities for mitigation within the LCWC, the applicant may propose mitigation elsewhere, which must be approved by the City and the resource agencies. The mitigation plan prepared in consultation with the applicable agencies shall include:
responsibilities and of persons to supervise and implement the plan, site selection, restoration and creation of habitat; site preparation and planting implementation, schedule, maintenance guidelines, monitoring plan (5 year minimum), and long-term preservation. Prior to the issuance of grading permits covering jurisdictional areas, the project applicant shall provide evidence to the Long Beach Development Services Department that (1) all necessary permits or authorizations have been obtained from the Corps (pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), CDFW (pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, and RWQCB (pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act), the Coastal Commission, or that no such permits are required; and (2) the detailed mitigation and restoration plan shall be approved by the Development Services Department.

BIO-3 If sensitive biological resources are identified within or adjacent to the proposed development area, the project applicant shall submit evidence to the Long Beach Development Services Department that a qualified biologist has been retained to prepare a construction management plan. The construction limits shall be clearly flagged and/or fenced. No construction access, parking, storage of equipment, or waste dirt or rubble will be permitted within such marked areas. A monitoring biologist shall be onsite during any grading activities. The qualified biologist shall also develop and implement a project specific contractor training program to educate project contractors on the sensitive biological resources within and adjacent to the proposed development project area and oversee measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts to these species.

BIO-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any development, the project applicant shall include noise reduction measures to reduce noise impacts to wildlife. A note shall be provided on development plans indicating that throughout grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
• During all excavation and grading on-site, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
• The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors (wildlife) nearest the project site. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors (wildlife) during all project construction.
• No construction shall occur within 500 feet of nesting raptors or threatened or endangered species and 100 feet of all other nesting birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

BIO-5 Prior to approval of any development adjacent to jurisdictional waters or habitat for special status species and all land within the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation land use, the project applicant shall submit a photometric plan demonstrating that the project will be designed and shielded so that the nighttime lighting shall be no greater than 0.10 foot-candle at the edge of the habitat. This would ensure that spill light does not result in exposure of artificial light at levels exceeding the intensity of moonlight (approximately 0.5 foot-candle). 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

4. Summary of Mitigation Measures
April 2023 Page 177
Table 18 Mitigation Measures from the Certified SEASP EIR that are Applicable to the Proposed Project Number Mitigation Measure
BIO-6 Prior to approval of a trails/access plan within or adjacent to jurisdictional waters, the location, design, and text for urban-open space interface signage shall be developed. The signage shall be located at all pedestrian access points. The signage shall educate users on the responsibilities associated with the open space interface and shall address relevant issues including the role of natural predators in the wildlands and how to minimize impacts of human and domestic pets on native communities and their inhabitants.

BIO-7 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant and/or subsequent builder shall prepare an urban-open space interface brochure to be approved by the Long Beach Development Services Department to educate residents on the responsibilities associated with living near sensitive biological habitat. The brochure shall address relevant issues, including the role of natural predators in the wildlands and how to minimize impacts of human and domestic pets on native communities and their inhabitants. The approved brochure, along with attachments, shall be included as part of the rental/lease agreements and as part of the sales literature for future developments.

BIO-8 If construction is proposed between January through September, a qualified biologist must conduct a nesting bird survey(s) at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction with a follow-up survey no more than three days prior to initiation of construction activities to document the presence or absence of nesting birds in or adjacent to the project site. The preconstruction survey(s) will focus on identifying any raptors and owls, any species listed pursuant to the federal or California Endangered Species Act, California bird species of special concern, or a wading bird (herons or egrets), and/or passerines nests that may be directly or indirectly affected by construction activities. Any nest permanently vacated for the season would not warrant protection pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If active nests are documented, the following measures are required:
• Species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of a nest shall be postponed until the young birds have fledged. A minimum exclusion buffer of 100 feet shall be maintained during construction, depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the nest setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities are restricted from the area.
• For active nest of any species listed pursuant to the federal or California Endangered Species Act, California bird species of special concern, wading bird (herons or egrets), or owls or raptors, construction activities within 300 feet (500 feet from any owl or raptor nests) shall not exceed noise levels of 65 dB peak until the nest(s) is naturally vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The 65 dB peak noise levels may only be increased if a noise study demonstrates the ambient noise level is above 65 dB at the subject site, and shall not be allowed to exceed the ambient level. • A survey report by a qualified biologist verifying that no active nests are present, or that the young have fledged, shall be submitted to the Long Beach Development Services Department prior to initiation of grading in the nest-setback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a biological monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. • A final report of the findings, prepared by a qualified biologist, shall be submitted to the Long Beach Development Services Department prior to construction-related activities that have the potential to disturb any active nests during the nesting season.

CUL-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the project applicant for each development or redevelopment project considered for approval pursuant to the Southeast Area Specific Plan shall provide letters to the City of Long Beach from a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist (for excavations five feet below ground surface and deeper) who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. The letters shall state that the project applicant has retained these individuals, and that the archaeological consultant will be present during all grading in previously undisturbed areas and other significant ground-disturbing activities and that the paleontological consultant will be present during all grading that occurs below 5 feet from the ground surface. In the event archeological or paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the professional archeological or paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant cultural resources until they can be formally evaluated. Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until the archaeological and/or paleontological monitor, in coordination with the construction contractor, has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they are significant cultural resources, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates as 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

4. Summary of Mitigation Measures

Page 178 ends

Table 18 Mitigation Measures from the Certified SEASP EIR that are Applicable to the Proposed Project Number Mitigation Measure
applicable, and other special studies. The resources shall be offered for curation or preservation to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials, such as the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History or California State University, Fullerton, or other local museum or repository. If no museum or repository is willing to accept the resource, the resource shall be considered the property of the City and may be stored, disposed of, transferred, exchanged, or otherwise handled by the City at its discretion.

CUL-4 At least 30 days prior to ground disturbance by each project development or redevelopment in conformance with the Specific Plan, the City of Long Beach would notify the three Native American tribal representatives who requested Native American monitoring of ground disturbing activities (Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation, Gabrieleño/Tongva Band of Mission Indians, and Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation). For each project, the project applicant would retain one certified Native American monitor who would accompany the professional archaeological monitor during on-call monitoring. The Native American monitor would have the same authority to halt activities that could adversely impact archaeological or tribal cultural resources that the professional archaeological monitor would. The Native American monitor would recommend measures to avoid, preserve, and/or recover Native American archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources, as practicable, and would convey such resources to the pertinent tribe or most likely descendant, as applicable.

CUL-6 If human remains are encountered during construction excavation and grading activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition, pursuant to Public Resources Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC. The NAHC will then identify the person(s) thought to be the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American, who will then help determine what course of action should be taken in dealing with the remains. Preservation of the remains in place or project design alternatives shall be considered.

HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for individual development projects within the Southeast Area Specific Plan, the project applicant/developer shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to the City of Long Beach Development Services Department to identify environmental conditions of the development site and determine whether contamination is present. The Phase I ESA shall be prepared by an Environmental Professional in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527-21, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. If recognized environmental conditions related to soils or groundwater are identified in the Phase I ESA, the project applicant shall perform soil and soil gas sampling, as required, as a part of a Phase II ESA. A screening human health risk assessment shall be performed on the Phase II ESA data to determine if soil and soil gas concentrations pose a significant health risk for future project occupants and construction workers. If contamination is found at significant levels, the project applicant shall remediate all contaminated soils and soil vapor with the oversight and in accordance with state and local agency requirements (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Long Beach Fire Department, etc.). All contaminated soils and/or material encountered shall be disposed of at a regulated site and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations prior to the completion of grading.

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

4. Summary of Mitigation Measures
April 2023 Page 179
Table 18 Mitigation Measures from the Certified SEASP EIR that are Applicable to the Proposed Project Number Mitigation Measure
for grading activities to resume. The results of the evaluation shall be submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), or the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or other applicable oversight agency, as appropriate, and the necessary response/remedial measures shall be implemented—as directed by DTSC, RWQCB, or other applicable oversight agency—until all specified requirements of the oversight agencies are satisfied and a no further action status is attained.

HAZ-3 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for any buildings or structures, the project applicant/developer shall conduct the following inspections and assessments for all buildings and structures onsite and shall provide the City of Long Beach Development Services Department with a copy of the report of each investigation or assessment. • The project applicant shall retain a California Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC) to perform abatement project planning, monitoring (including air monitoring), oversight, and reporting of all asbestos-containing materials (ACM) encountered. The abatement, containment, and disposal of all ACM shall be conducted in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403 and California Code of Regulation Title 8, Section 1529 (Asbestos). • The project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified lead inspector/assessor to conduct the abatement, containment, and disposal of all lead waste encountered. The contracted lead inspector/assessor shall be certified by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). All lead abatement shall be performed by a CDPH-certified lead supervisor or a CDPH-certified worker under the direct supervision of a lead supervisor certified by CDPH. The abatement, containment, and disposal of all lead waste encountered shall be conducted in accordance with the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration Rule 29; CFR Part 1926; and California Code of Regulation, Title 8, Section 1532.1 (Lead). • Evidence of the contracted professionals attained by the project applicant shall be provided to the City of Long Beach Development Services Department. Additionally, contractors performing ACM and lead waste removal shall provide evidence of abatement activities to the City of Long Beach Building and Safety Bureau.

HYD-6 Prior to certificate of occupancy, project applicants and developers shall demonstrate to the Development Services Department that lease agreements and disclosures provided to homeowners and tenants disclose that those parties would be in a tsunami inundation zone (as identified in the City’s Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan). This notification shall include tsunami awareness and preparedness materials as well as information outlining applicable evacuation plans and routes.

N-1 Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits for development projects accommodated by the Southeast Area Specific Plan, a note shall be provided on development plans indicating that ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
• Construction activity is limited to the daytime hours between 7 am to 7 pm on Monday through Friday and 9 am to 6 pm on Saturday, as prescribed in the City’s municipal code. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

4. Summary of Mitigation Measures

Page 180 ends

Table 18 Mitigation Measures from the Certified SEASP EIR that are Applicable to the Proposed Project Number Mitigation Measure
Construction is prohibited on Sundays.
• All internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers. • Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. • Stockpiling is located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited to the haul routes established by the City of Long Beach.

TRAF-3 Prior to issuance of building permits for development projects that would be accommodated by the SEASP, project applicants/developers shall make fair-share payments to the City of Long Beach toward construction of the traffic improvements listed below. The following traffic improvements and facilities are necessary to mitigate impacts of the SEASP and shall be included in the City’s fee mechanism(s):

Existing With Project Improvements

3. and 11. Studebaker Road & SR-22 Westbound Ramps: Construct a spiral striped roundabout with two circulating lanes, with a southbound slip (bypass) lane. The southbound approach would be striped with two through lanes and one shared through-left turn lane; the westbound approach would have two left turn lanes and one right turn slip lane; and the northbound approach would have two through lanes and one right turn slip lane. This measure would be funded through the City of Long Beach Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and fair-share contributions from area developments.

3. Studebaker Road & SR-22 Westbound Ramps: Construct a spiral striped roundabout with two circulating lanes, with a southbound slip (bypass) lane. The southbound approach would be striped with two through lanes and one shared through-left turn lane; the westbound approach would have two left turn lanes and one right turn slip lane; and the northbound approach would have two through lanes and one right turn slip lane. This measure would be funded through the City of Long Beach Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and fair-share contributions from area developments. Alternatively, the intersection could remain signalized with the following improvements:
• Modify the westbound approach from two left turn lanes and one right turn lane, to three left turn lanes and one right turn lane. • Modify the southbound approach from one left turn lane and one through lane, to one left turn lane and three through lanes. • Optimize the AM and PM signal cycle lengths and splits.

17. Shopkeeper Road & 2nd Street: This intersection would require the following improvements:
• Modify the northbound approach from one shared through-left turn lane and one right turn lane, to one shared through-left turn lane and two right turn lanes. • Modify the westbound approach from one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through-right turn lane, to two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared throughright turn lane.

27. 2nd Street & Bay Shore Ave Avenue: This intersection would require the following improvements:
6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

4. Summary of Mitigation Measures
April 2023 Page 181
Table 18 Mitigation Measures from the Certified SEASP EIR that are Applicable to the Proposed Project Number Mitigation Measure
• Reconfigure the northbound approach to provide a dedicated left-turn lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane. • Add a southbound right-turn lane.
• Add an eastbound right-turn lane and restripe the shared through/right-turn lane as a through lane.

Cumulative Year (2035) With Project Improvements

3. and 11. Studebaker Road & SR-22 West- and Eastbound Ramps: Construct a spiral striped roundabout with two circulating lanes, with a southbound slip (bypass) lane. The southbound approach would be striped with two through lanes and one shared through-left turn lane; the westbound approach would have two left turn lanes and one right turn slip lane; and the northbound approach would have two through lanes and one right turn slip lane. This measure would be funded through the City of Long Beach Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Alternatively, the intersection could remain signalized and with the following improvements:
• Modify the westbound approach from two left turn lanes and one right turn lane, to three left turn lanes and one right turn lane. • Modify the northbound approach from one through lane and one shared through-right turn lane, to two through lanes and one shared through-right turn lane. • Modify the southbound approach from one left turn lane and one through lane, to one left turn lane and three through lanes. • Optimize the AM and PM signal cycle lengths and splits.

15. Marina Drive & 2nd Street: This intersection would require the following improvements:
• Modify the northbound approach from one left turn lane, one shared through-left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane, to two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane.
• Modify the southbound approach from one left turn lane, one shared through-left turn lane, and one right turn lane, to two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane.
• Modify the westbound approach from one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through-right turn lane, to two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared through-right turn lane.

17. Shopkeeper Road & 2nd Street: This intersection would require the following improvements:
• Modify the westbound approach from one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through-right turn lane, to two left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one shared throughright turn lane. • Modify the eastbound approach from one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one shared through-right turn lane, to one left turn lane, three through lanes, and one right turn lane.

20. PCH & Studebaker Road: This intersection would require the following improvements:
• Modify the southbound approach from one left turn lane, two through lanes, one right turn lane, and one right turn lane, to one left turn lane, three through lanes, one right turn lane. • Optimization of the PM signal cycle lengths and splits. 6 7 0 0 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T

C I T Y O F L O N G B E A C H

4. Summary of Mitigation Measures

Page 182 ends

Long Beach City CouncilJuly 18, 2023

Long Beach City Council
July 18, 2023