Resolution — Long Beach City Council, July 18, 2023 (part 1 of 11)

1 EWM:ag A23-01428 (06/23/2023)
\\clbctyattorney\cycom$\ctylaw32\wpdocs\d030\p052\01543435.docx 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 11th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4664 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LONG BEACH FINDING THAT THE 6700 EAST

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PROJECT IS CONSISTENT

WITH AND WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE SOUTHEAST

AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE SOUTHEAST

AREA SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM; AND MAKING CERTAIN

FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS RELATED THERETO
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) and formally recommended the Specific Plan to the City Council for adoption. The purpose of the SEASP was to enhance the quality of life, improve the functionality and visual appearance of public and private improvements in the area, and provide an overall framework for resource protection, mobility, growth, and development for the southeast area of the City into the future; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2017, the City Council of the City of Long Beach adopted certain provisions of the Long Beach Zoning Regulations, Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code, relating to establishing the SEASP consisting of 1,472 acres and including 1,372 acres currently zoned PD-1, 94 acres of the San Gabriel River and Los Cerritos Channel, and six (6) acres along the southeast edge of the current PD-1 boundary. The SEASP replaced the Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP). A new Specific Plan was required to bring regulations in the southeast part of the City into conformity with the new vision for the area, to comply with State requirements for more compact mixed-use development, and to provide a range of mobility options the public had expressed a desire for and which were mandated under 2 EWM:ag A23-01428 (06/23/2023)
\\clbctyattorney\cycom$\ctylaw32\wpdocs\d030\p052\01543435.docx 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 11th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4664 the City’s Mobility Element, as well as State law; and
WHEREAS, in connection with adoption of the SEASP, the City, as lead agency, prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR ) for the SEASP (State Clearinghouse No. 2015101075) (SEASP PEIR) in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides for the preparation of a PEIR “[i]n connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program.” The City Council certified the SEASP PEIR in September 2017 when it adopted the SEASP; copies of which SEASP PEIR, are incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, word for word;
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2020, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) held a hearing for the Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA No. 1-19 [LCP-5-LOB19-0008-1]) related to the City Council’s adoption of SEASP and CCC recommended certification of the Local Coastal Program Amendment with required modification; WHEREAS, on July 13, 2021, the City Council of the City of Long Beach adopted the modifications proposed by the CCC, determined that the changes to the SEASP from the CCC were not significant and were within the scope of the SEASP EIR and recertified the SEASP PEIR;
WHEREAS, where appropriate, the mitigation measures to the SEASP PEIR require preparation of specific additional studies and analyses to determine whether an individual project would result in project-specific new or increased significant effects that are peculiar to the project or its site;
WHEREAS, the proposed 6700 East Pacific Coast Highway Project (Project) located at 6700 East Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Long Beach consists of the demolition of all existing structures on site, and the construction of a new mixeduse project consisting of 281 total residential dwelling units (thirteen (13) of which are designated, and will be deed restricted in accordance with State law, as "very low income" residential dwelling units), 3,100 square feet of commercial/retail space in a 3 EWM:ag A23-01428 (06/23/2023)
\\clbctyattorney\cycom$\ctylaw32\wpdocs\d030\p052\01543435.docx 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 11th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4664 building with 592,100 square feet of area including a minimum of 507 vehicular parking spaces, 142 bicycle parking spaces and 27,534 square feet of common and private open space area located along the eastside of Pacific Coast Highway at the southeast boundary of the City. Studebaker Road borders the northeast boundary of the Project, Marina Way is to the southwest and the San Gabriel River is located to the southeast.

The Project site is within the boundaries of the Southeast Area Specific Plan, and, as set forth below, is consistent with the SEASP;
WHEREAS, the California Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Section 65915 et seq.) allows developers to seek increases in base density in exchange for providing on-site affordable housing units on site. To help make constructing on-site affordable units feasible, the law allows developers to seek incentives/concessions and waivers to ensure the project could be built without significant burden and without detriment to public health;
WHEREAS, this Project proposes thirteen (13) very-low income affordable units which qualifies the Project for a 20 percent increase in the number of market rate units within the project. The thirteen (13) affordable units will be provided at the very-lowincome level, restricted as affordable through a covenant for a minimum of 55 years.

Based on the percentage of affordable units proposed by the Project, the California Density Bonus law permits one incentive or concession, in addition to any necessary waivers, reductions or modifications to development standards and other regulations where those requirements could make the construction of the proposed Project with the contemplated incentive physically infeasible if not approved. The Density Bonus concession sought for the proposed Project is a deviation from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) (2.0) development standard contained in the SEASP. Waivers of the maximum allowable height within the SEASP SP-2 MU-CC Zoning District, and to allow tandem vehicular parking, were provided for by the SPR Committee to make the proposed Project physically feasible with the F.A.R. concession required by the California Density Bonus law;
4 EWM:ag A23-01428 (06/23/2023)
\\clbctyattorney\cycom$\ctylaw32\wpdocs\d030\p052\01543435.docx 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 11th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4664 WHEREAS, on April 20, 2023, the Long Beach Planning Commission determined that the Project is within the scope of and consistent with the previously certified SEASP PEIR, approved the Compliance Checklist (PECC 08-22) evidencing consistency with the SEASP PEIR and approved the Site Plan Review application (SPR 22-093) for the proposed Project;
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2023, within the 10-day post hearing appeal period, Lozeau Drury, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), Joan Palango on behalf of the Long Beach Marina Boat Owners Association, and Elizabeth Lambe on behalf of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (LCWLT), filed appeals of the Planning Commission’s action, copies of which appeals were appended to the staff report provided to the City Council for its review and consideration; WHEREAS, on June 15, 2023, the Long Beach Planning Commission reaffirmed its determination that the Project is within the scope of the previously certified SEASP PEIR, reaffirmed approval of the Compliance Checklist (PECC 08-22) evidencing consistency with the SEASP PEIR, reaffirmed approval of the Site Plan Review application and approved a Local Coastal Development Permit (LCDP 2208-36) for the Project;
WHEREAS, no additional appeals were filed in response to the Long Beach Planning Commission’s June 15, 2023 action;
WHEREAS, the Planning Bureau of the Department of Development Services has undertaken review of the Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and through the use of the Compliance Checklist (PECC 08-22) attached hereto as Exhibit A, which written review has been provided to the City Council for its evaluation and consideration to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the Project or the project site that would require still further environmental analysis; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City serves as the “lead agency” with respect to the Project in connection with the subject City actions. 5 EWM:ag A23-01428 (06/23/2023)
\\clbctyattorney\cycom$\ctylaw32\wpdocs\d030\p052\01543435.docx 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 11th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4664 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council resolves as follows:

Section 1. The City Council: (a) has considered the SEASP PEIR analysis as prepared by City staff, and other pertinent evidence in the record, including the Compliance Checklist (PECC 08-22) studies, reports, and other information from qualified experts (collectively the “Environmental Documents”), (b) has considered the environmental effects of the Project as set forth in the Environmental Documents, and (c) makes the following findings:

A) The City independently reviewed and analyzed the Environmental Documents and finds that they reflect the independent judgment of the City.

B) The SEASP was adopted as a zoning ordinance and is consistent with the City’s General Plan.

C) The City previously certified the SEASP PEIR for the SEASP.

D) The Project is consistent with the provisions and requirements of the SEASP.

E) All applicable feasible mitigation measures from the SEASP PEIR will be imposed on and be undertaken as part of the Project, in the form of mitigation measures, regulatory compliance measures, project design features, and/or conditions of approval, as set forth in the Environmental Documents.

F) Based on substantial evidence in the Environmental Documents and elsewhere in the record, including but not to limited to oral and written testimony provided at the public hearings on the matter, there are no environmental effects of the Project that: (1) are project-specific impacts peculiar to the Project or its site, (2) were not analyzed as significant effects in the SEASP PEIR, (3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the SEASP PEIR, or (4) are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the SEASP PEIR was 6 EWM:ag A23-01428 (06/23/2023)
\\clbctyattorney\cycom$\ctylaw32\wpdocs\d030\p052\01543435.docx 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 11th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4664 certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the SEASP PEIR.

G) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15183, no further CEQA review or additional environmental studies are required for the Project.

H) None of the information submitted by the Appellants, including the Appeal and testimony by the Appellants and their representatives at the public hearings on the Project, constitutes significant new information. The City Council has carefully considered the information and testimony provided at the public hearing and does not find it to be credible evidence of a significant new environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed in the SEASP PEIR, or otherwise requiring additional CEQA review, including but not limited to the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15162 and 15163;
I) The City Council finds and declares that substantial evidence for every finding made herein is contained in the Environmental Documents, which are incorporated herein by this reference, or is in the record of proceedings in the matter.

J) Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council adopts and imposes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit “B”, which is incorporated herein by this reference, to mitigate or avoid significant effects of the Project on the environment and to ensure compliance during project implementation.

K) In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts each of the mitigation measures expressly set forth herein as conditions of approval for the Project.

L) Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2), the documents that constitute the record of proceedings for approving the 7 EWM:ag A23-01428 (06/23/2023)
\\clbctyattorney\cycom$\ctylaw32\wpdocs\d030\p052\01543435.docx 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 11th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4664 Project are located at the Development Services Department, 411 East Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor, Long Beach, California 90802.

Section 2. After due consideration and receipt of all appropriate evidence, both written and oral, the City Council hereby denies the appeals of Lozeau Drury, on behalf of SAFER, Joan Palango on behalf of the Long Beach Marina Boat Owners Association, and Elizabeth Lambe on behalf of LCWLT and approves the Project, as conditioned and mitigated, and as described in the supporting documentation, which documentation is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth herein, word for word.

Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution. ///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
8 EWM:ag A23-01428 (06/23/2023)
\\clbctyattorney\cycom$\ctylaw32\wpdocs\d030\p052\01543435.docx 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DAWN MCINTOSH, City Attorney 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 11th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4664 I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Long Beach at its meeting of _________________, 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes: Councilmembers:

Noes: Councilmembers:

Absent: Councilmembers:

Recusal(s): Councilmembers:

City Clerk
April 2023 | Compliance Checklist
6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

MIXED-USE PROJECT
City of Long Beach
Prepared for:

City of Long Beach
Development Services Department
Contact: Amy Harbin, AICP, Planner
411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Long Beach, California 90802
562.570.6872
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Addie Farrell, Principal
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, California 90017
213.623.1443 ext. 2119
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com

EXHIBIT A

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
Table of Contents
April 2023 Page i
Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING..................................................................................................... 2

1.3 CEQA HISTORY............................................................................................................................... 11

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 12

1.5 SEASP BUILDOUT AND DENSITY.......................................................................................... 23

2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST....................................................................................25

2.1 PROJECT INFORMATION........................................................................................................... 25

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED.......................................... 28

2.3 DETERMINATION......................................................................................................................... 28

2.4 FORMAT AND EVALUATION OF IMPACTS......................................................................... 29

3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................33

3.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................... 33

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES.................................................................. 41

3.3 AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................... 43

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................................................... 56

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 67

3.6 ENERGY............................................................................................................................................. 74

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS................................................................................................................ 79

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................. 86

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................................... 101

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY................................................................................ 110

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING................................................................................................... 120

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................................. 132

3.13 NOISE................................................................................................................................................ 133

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING............................................................................................... 141

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES........................................................................................................................ 143

3.16 RECREATION ................................................................................................................................ 146

3.17 TRANSPORTATION..................................................................................................................... 148

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................... 162

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS..................................................................................... 165

3.20 WILDFIRE........................................................................................................................................ 172

4. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES...................................................................174

5. REFERENCES..............................................................................................................184

6. LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................188 CITY OF LONG BEACH (LEAD AGENCY)........................................................................................ 188 PLACEWORKS .............................................................................................................................................. 188 HOLLAND PARTNER GROUP (APPLICANT)................................................................................... 188 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
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks

APPENDICES
Appendix A MMRP
Appendix B Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix C Biological Technical Report
Appendix D Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments Appendix F Hydrology and LID Report
Appendix G Flood Resilience Assessment
Appendix H Noise and Vibration Impact Compliance Letter Appendix I Transportation Memorandum
Appendix J Sewer Area Study
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
Table of Contents
April 2023 Page iii
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 Local Vicinity......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Aerial Photograph................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 4 Project Location in the Southeast Area Specific Plan..................................................................... 9 Figure 5 Site Plan................................................................................................................................................13 Figure 6 Building Sections.................................................................................................................................15 Figure 7a Elevations - North and West ............................................................................................................19 Figure 7b Elevations - South and East..............................................................................................................21 Figure 8 Photometric Plan ................................................................................................................................39 List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Use Summary.........................................................................12 Table 2 MU-CC Block FAR............................................................................................................................24 Table 3 Southeast Area Specific Plan Remaining Capacity ........................................................................24 Table 4 Proposed Project Construction Emissions.....................................................................................51 Table 5 Proposed Project Operational Emissions.......................................................................................52 Table 6 Maximum Daily On-Site Localized Construction Emissions......................................................53 Table 7 Maximum Daily On-Site Localized Operational Emissions........................................................54 Table 8 Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Project Site....................................................59 Table 9 City of Long Beach CAAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist..........................90 Table 10 Consistency Analysis with the City of Long Beach CAAP Actions...........................................95 Table 11 Unmitigated Project Construction GHG Emissions....................................................................99 Table 13 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis..............................................................................................122 Table 14 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ..................................................................................139 Table 15 Existing Trip Generation Estimate................................................................................................151 Table 16 Proposed Trip Generation Estimate..............................................................................................153 Table 17 Trip Budget by Quadrant ................................................................................................................154 Table 18 Mitigation Measures from the Certified SEASP EIR that are Applicable to the Proposed Project ..........................................................................................................................174 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
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page ii PlaceWorks
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ACM asbestos-containing materials
afy acre-foot per year
APG auger pressure grouting of piles
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ARP archaeological research plan
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BFE base flood elevation
bgs below ground surface
BMP best management practices
CAC certified asbestos consultant
CalFire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CBC California Building Code
CCC California Coastal Commission
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDP Coastal Development Permit
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
cfs cubic feet per second
CGP construction general permit
CGS California Geologic Survey
CIP capital improvement plan
CMP congestion management program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
Corps US Army Corps of Engineers
CRC California Residential Code
dB decibel
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
Abbreviations and Acronyms
April 2023 Page iii
dBA A-weighted decibel
DFE design flood elevation
DOGGR Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR environmental impact report
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA environmental site assessment
ESHA environmentally sensitive habitat area
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HBO home-based other
HBW home-based work
HRA health risk assessment
IRA identified resource areas
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
JFTB joint forces training base
JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
kBTU kilo-British Thermal Units
kWhr kilowatt-hours
LACDPW Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
LACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District
LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation District
LAX Los Angeles International Airport
LBFD Long Beach Fire Department
LBMC Long Beach Municipal Code
LBPD Long Beach Police Department
LBPL Long Beach Public Library
LBPRM Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine Department LBT Long Beach Transit
LBUSD Long Beach Unified School District
LBWD Long Beach Water Department
LBWRP Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant
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
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page iv PlaceWorks
LCP local coastal program
LCPA local coastal program amendment
LCWC Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex
LID low impact development
LOS level of service
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendants
MMRP mitigation monitoring and reporting program
MRZ mineral resource zone
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
MU-CC Mixed-Use Community Core
MXD mixed-use development
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NHB non-home based
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OHP California Office of Historic Preservation
OPR State of California’s Governor’s Office of Planning and Research OTD offer to dedicate
PAR property analysis record
PCH Pacific Coast Highway
PEIR program environmental impact report
PPV peak particle velocity
REC recognized environmental condition
RTP/SCS regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SEASP Southeast Area Specific Plan
SR state route
SRA source receptor area [or state responsibility area] 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
Abbreviations and Acronyms
April 2023 Page v
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SZ scientific resource zone
T BACT best available control technologies for toxics
TAZ transportation analysis zone
TCR tribal cultural resources
TDFM SCAG’s Travel Demand Model
TDM transportation demand management
TMA Transportation Management Association
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
VdB velocity decibels
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
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
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page vi PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

January 2023 Page 1

1. Introduction
The project applicant, Holland Partner Group, is seeking approval from the City of Long Beach (City) for construction and operation of a mixed-use project at 6700 East Pacific Coast Highway (proposed project) within the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP). The SEASP area spans 1,481 acres in the southeast portion of the City. The SEASP consists of the area south of 7th Street, east of Bellflower Boulevard, east of the Long Beach Marine Stadium and Alamitos Bay docks, south of Colorado Street, and north and west of Long Beach’s southern boundary. The SEASP was established to provide a long-term and sustainable vision for the area that has undeveloped wetlands and several underutilized properties that are substantial in size, aging, and near the end of their useful economic life. The purpose of SEASP is to provide a regulatory framework for the area that “includes customized land uses and development standards, provides expanded multimodal transportation choices, and identifies locations for future development potential that maintain and preserve valuable natural resources” (Long Beach 2017a).

Section 10.1.3 of the SEASP outlines environmental clearance procedures for development projects within its boundaries. The section identifies the use of environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, for development projects that are consistent with certified Program Environmental Impact report (PEIR). As defined by Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. In compliance with CEQA, the City of Long Beach, as lead agency, prepared this compliance checklist to determine whether approval of the proposed project and requested discretionary actions would be within the scope of the SEASP and PEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2015101075. This compliance checklist demonstrates that the proposed project complies with the allowable density for the project site established by the SEASP, is within the scope of the PEIR, and would therefore qualify for environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located at 6700 East Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County, which is surrounded by the cities of Los Angeles, Carson, Compton, Paramount, Bellflower, Lakewood, Hawaiian Gardens, Signal Hill, Seal Beach, Alamitos, and Cypress and unincorporated communities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties (see Figure 1, Regional Location). Pacific Coast Highway, which borders the project site to the east, provides primary regional and local access to the project site.

Regional access to the project site is also provided by State Route (SR) 22, SR-19, Interstate (I) 405, and I-605.

Local access is also provided by Marina Drive to the west of the project site.

The project site is located in the southeast side of the City and of the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) area, near the border with Orange County (see Figure 2, Local Vicinity). The project site encompasses 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

1. Introduction

Page 2 ends

approximately 113,874 square feet (approximately 2.6 acres) and is comprised of two parcels with assessor parcel numbers (APN) 7242-012-006 and -007. The project site is bordered by the Pacific Coast Highway to the northeast; San Gabriel River channel and a paved path to the southeast; two undeveloped parcels, Marina Drive to the southwest; and Studebaker Road to the northwest. A vacant lot (“Pumpkin Patch site”) that is used for occasional events and holidays is across Pacific Coast Highway, a commercial shopping mall is across Studebaker Road, and a commercial building and surface parking lot is across Marina Drive from the project site (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph).

Long Beach Transit (LBT) and Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) operate bus lines along Pacific Coast Highway, near the project site. Three bus stops are with 0.25 miles of the project site along Pacific Coast Highway. These bus lines include LBT Route 171 and OCTA Route 1. The closest bus stop to the project site is adjacent to the project site.

Pacific Coast Highway and Marina Drive have existing Class II bicycle lanes in the vicinity of the project site (Long Beach 2022a). The SEASP shows that Class II bicycle lane is proposed along Shopkeeper Road and Studebaker east of Pacific Coast Highway. The SEASP identifies the portion of Studebaker Road between Marina Drive and Pacific Coast Highway as “to be determined” (Long Beach 2017a).

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

1.2.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning
The 2.6-acre project site is currently developed with a two‐story office building with subterranean parking, surface parking, and landscaping throughout. The existing office building was constructed in 1983 and is approximately 73,076 square feet (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). The grade across the project site slopes down from Studebaker Road towards the San Gabriel River channel. One ingress-egress driveway and one egress-only driveway are provided off Studebaker Road.

The project site is within the SEASP area with a Mixed‐Use Community Core land use designation. The project site has a zoning designation of Specific Plan 2, Mixed‐Use Community Core (SP‐2‐MUCC). See Figure 4, Project Location within the Southeast Area Specific Plan. The project site has a Land Use District (LUD) No. 7, Mixed Uses, 1989 General Plan Land Use designation, which identifies this land use district as a valuable resource for a mix of uses.1
1 The General Plan Land Use Element was updated in 2019 and has not yet been certified as part of the City’s Local Coastal Program. Therefore, the 1989 General Plan Land Use Element (1989) designation of Land Use District (LUD) No. 7 remains applicable in the coastal zone including the project site.

Pacifi c Ocean
San Pedro Bay
Los Angeles
Signal
Hill
Hawaiian
Gardens
Lakewood
Artesia
Long Beach
Carson
La Mirada
Bellflower
Norwalk
Santa Fe
Springs
Paramount
Compton
Lynwood
South Gate
Cypress
Stanton
Garden Grove
Los Alamitos
Anaheim
Fullerton
La Habra
Fountain
Valley
Costa
Mesa
Westminster
Buena Park
La
Palma
Seal Beach
Huntington
Beach
0 3
Scale (Miles) Source: ESRI, 2022
Figure XX - Figure Title Here

1. Introduction

PROJECT NAME HERE

CITY OF PROJECT HERE
PlaceWorks
Figure 1 - Regional Location
6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Source: Generated using Arcmap, 2022.

1. Introduction
0 Scale (Miles)
3 Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white.

County of Los Angeles
County of Orange
Los Angeles River
22 CALIFORNIA
5 405
5 405
22 CALIFORNIA
605
110
710
105
91 CALIFORNIA
1 CALIFORNIA
1 CALIFORNIA
Project Site
County Boundary
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

1. Introduction

Page 4 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

PlaceWorks
Figure 2 - Local Vicinity
Source: Generated using Arcmap, 2022.

1. Introduction
0 Scale (Feet)
2,000
6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
County Boundary
Project Boundary
1 CALIFORNIA
1 CALIFORNIA
1 CALIFORNIA
22 CALIFORNIA
San Gabriel River
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

1. Introduction

Page 6 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

PlaceWorks
Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph
Source: Nearmap, Inc., 2022.

1. Introduction
0 Scale (Feet)
145
6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Project Boundary
Seal Beach
Long Beach
1 CALIFORNIA
San Gabriel River
Commercial
N Marina Dr
E Marina Dr
N Studebaker Rd
County Boundary
Pacific Coast Hwy
Commercial Shopping Center
Commercial
Vacant Lot
Public Access Improvement Area
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

1. Introduction

Page 8 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
§¨¦
£[
£[
Los Cerritos
Wetlands
Los Cerritos
Wetlands
Los Cerritos
Wetlands
VA Medical
Center
Cal State
Long Beach
2ND ST
E PACIFIC COAST HWY E 7TH ST

STUDEBAKER RD

ELIOT ST

E OCEAN BLVD

APPIAN WAY

COLORADO ST

WESTMINSTER BLVD

LOYNES DR
BIXBY

VILLAGE
D
R

SEAL BEACH BLVD

BOATHOUSE LN

SHOPKEEPER
RD
E

PACIFIC
COAST
HWY

GARDEN GROVE FWY
B
E
L
L
F
LOWER
B
LVD

E MARINA DR
N
MARINA
DR
Alamitos Bay
Bixby Village
Golf Course
Kettering
Elementary
School
Cerritos
Bahia
Marina
Retention
Basin
Sims' Pond
Jack Dunster
Marine Reserve
Chan
n
e
l
Vi
e
w
P
a
r
k
Los Cerritos Channel
San Gabriel River
Marine Stadium
22 1
405

LEISURE
WORLD
BOEING
NAPLES

BELMONT
SHORE
Recreation
Park
Marina
Vista Park
Marine
Stadium Park
Colorado
Lagoon
Jack Nichol
Park
Will Rogers
Mini Park
Single-Family ResidentialMultifamily ResidentialMobile HomesCommercial - NeighborhoodMixed-Use Community CoreMixed-Use MarinaIndustrialCoastal Habitat/Wetlands/Recreation*Open Space/RecreationPublicChannel/Marina/WaterwayDedicated Right of Way (not built)**Right of Way/Caltrans Open SpaceRight of WaySpecific Plan BoundaryCity Boundary 0 400 800 1,200
Feet
Figure 4-4 Land Use Plan
Ʌ127(6
Ʉ
3DUFHOERXQGDULHVZLWKLQWKH&RDVWDO+DELWDW:HWODQGV 5HFUHDWLRQODQGXVHGHVLJQDWLRQLQFOXGHRZQHGSDUFHOVWKDWPD\QRWKDYHDGHOLQHDWHGZHWODQGSXUVXDQWWRWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI
86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV
&RUSV
MXULVGLFWLRQSXUVXDQWWR6HFWLRQRIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FWDQG6HFWLRQRIWKH5LYHUVDQG+DUERUV$FW
&'):MXULVGLFWLRQSXUVXDQWWR6HFWLRQRIWKH)LVKDQG*DPH&RGH
5:4%MXULVGLFWLRQSXUVXDQWWR6HFWLRQRIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FWDQG6HFWLRQRIWKH3RUWHU&RORJQH$FWDQG
ZHWODQGVDVGHȴQHGXQGHUWKH&DOLIRUQLD&RDVWDO$FW

8OWLPDWHDOLJQPHQWRI6KRSNHHSHU5RDGVKDOOEHGHVLJQHG VRWKDWLWZLOOQRWLPSDFWDGHOLQHDWHGZHWODQG
6RXUFH
&LW\RI/RQJ%HDFKDQG3ODFH:RUNV
Source: City of Long Beach, 2022; PlaceWorks, 2022.

PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
1,350
6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Figure 4 - Project Location within the Southeast Area Specifi c Plan

1. Introduction
Project Location
County o f L os A nge el s County of Los Angeles County o f O range County of Orange Seal Beach eal Beach
Long Beach ong Beach
1 CALIFORNIA
1 CALIFORNIA
Project Boundary
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

1. Introduction

Page 10 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
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

1. Introduction
April 2023 Page 11

1.2.2 Surrounding Land Use
The project site is largely surrounded by commercial uses and the San Gabriel River channel. As shown in Figure 4, properties to the northwest and northeast of the project site and the San Gabriel River channel to the south of the project site are within the SEASP area. The commercial uses across Studebaker Road and at the intersection of Studebaker Road and Pacific Coast Highway have a land use designation of Mixed-Use Community Core and a zoning designation of SP‐2‐MUCC, similar to the project site. The property across Pacific Coast Highway from the project site has a land use designation of Industrial and a zoning designation of Specific Plan 2, Industrial (SP-2-IND). A paved pedestrian path runs along the San Gabriel River channel to the south of the project site.

The two undeveloped parcels immediately to the west of the project site are within the SEASP area. These two parcels have a land use designation of Mixed-Use Community Core and a zoning designation of SP‐2‐MUCC, similar to the project site. The properties to the west of the project site and west of Marina Drive are outside of the SEASP area.

1.3 CEQA HISTORY
The City is the public agency which had the principal responsibility for carrying out and approving the SEASP, and as such was the “Lead Agency” under CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15367). In September 2017, the City certified the PEIR; amended the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP); repealed the Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (PD-1), which was the prior specific plan for the area; amended the Municipal Code to establish the SEASP (SP-2); and amended the Land Use District Map in the southeastern portion of Council District 3.

The ordinances were submitted to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for certification as a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) in January 2019, and the CCC held a hearing for the LCPA and adoption of the SEASP in October 2020. The CCC recommended certification of the LCPA with sixteen modifications which were adopted by the City in July 2021. The CCC subsequently certified the SEASP on September 8, 2021.

The PEIR analyzed the potential impacts of the buildout and growth anticipated with the implementation of SEASP (see Table 1, Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Use Summary). The City adopted the Reduced Intensity Alternative for the SEASP buildout. Implementation of the SEASP would result in a net increase of 2,547 dwelling units, 307,071 square feet of commercial/employment, and no hotel rooms. The proposed project would be one of the first projects implemented under 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

1. Introduction

Page 12 ends

Table 1 Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Use Summary
Existing (2017)
Projection After
Buildout
Net Increase
(from PEIR)
Adopted SEASP Net
Increase
Dwelling Units 4,079 9,518 5,439 2,547
Population 6,486 15,134 8,648 --
Commercial/Employment (SF) 2,091,476 2,665,052 573,576 307,071 Employees 3,555 4,115 560 --
Hotel Rooms 375 425 50 0
Acres 1,3811 1,4722 0 0
Source: Long Beach 2017a & 2017b.
1 The Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (PD-1) boundary does not include portions of the San Gabriel River and the Los Cerritos Channel totaling 94 acres and 6 acres resulting from a Los Angeles County boundary adjustment approved by LAFCO. 2 The SEASP area consists of a total of 1,481 acres: 1) 1,472 acres within the proposed Specific Plan, which includes the 94 acres of waterways and 6 acres along the southeast boundary; and 2) 9 acres in the conventional zoning area that were in the PD-1 boundary but removed from the SEASP.

All projects within the SEASP area would be required to implement applicable SEASP policies, development standards, and applicable mitigation measures established by its PEIR and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) (see Appendix A). This compliance checklist evaluates proposed project in light of applicable requirements, standards, and mitigation measures.

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project applicant proposes to demolish the existing office building and associated parking areas and construct a mixed‐use development with 281 apartment units (including 13 apartment units reserved for very low income affordable housing) and approximately 3,100 square feet of ground‐floor retail. The development would have approximately 592,100 gross square feet (or 318,813 square feet, not including parking). The proposed project would include approximately 27,501 square feet of outdoor common open space, including pool/spa area, outdoor areas, and amenity areas, and would contain landscaping and passive open spaces. A total of 516 parking stalls (503 residential parking stalls and 13 retail parking stalls) and 142 bicycle parking stalls are proposed. See Figure 5, Site Plan. The proposed project would have a total of seven levels—six stories over a partial subterranean level (level B1). See Figure 6, Building Sections.

1.4.1 Proposed Land Use

1.4.1.1 RESIDENTIAL
The proposed project would consist of 281 dwelling units consisting of studios, one-bedrooms, twobedrooms, and three-bedrooms. Thirteen dwelling units (5 percent) would be reserved as very low income housing units pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. The residential units of the proposed project would span levels one through six (see Figure 6). The proposed project would also include a fitness space (approximately 4,000 square feet) and a lobby (approximately 1,600 square feet) along Studebaker Road. Total residential square footage would be approximately 315,713 square feet. &/

($6(0(17

6(7%$&.
3523(57</,1(($6(0(17/,1(
3523(57</,1(($6(0(17/,1(
/27$5($
6)/27$5($0,186($6(0(176

6)
352326('6725<0,;('86(6758&785(29(5$6,1*/(6725<%$6(0(17 (;,67,1*%8,/',1*72%('(02/,6+('
6,'(:$/.

67(3
%$&.
3(5
6($6
3

$7
723
)/225
%$/&21<
7<3

($6(0(17 6725<3257,21 3(56($637$%/(
6287+*$7(:$<

9(+,&8/$5$&&(66 75$16

(;,67,1*),5(+<'5$17

(;,67,1*),5(+<'5$17

3 5
2 -
(
&
7 2
,
1

352-(&7,21

352-(&7,21

352-(&7,21

352-(&7,21

%(503(56(&7,21$
$

$

$
$

)'&

3 5
2 -
(
&
7 2
,
1

352-(&7,21

352-(&7,21

%
4',032+ &)%','%

E Marina Dr Marina Dr
Pacifi c Coast Hwy Pacifi c Coast Hwy
PlaceWorks
Source: ACMARTIN, 2022
6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
0 Scale (Feet)
90 Figure 5 - Site Plan

1. Introduction
N Studebaker N Studebaker Rd
1 CALIFORNIA
San Gabriel River
Public Access Improvement Area
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

1. Introduction

Page 14 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO%

/HYHO%

5RRI

3$5.,1*
3$5.,1*
3$5.,1*
3HQWKRXVH

(OHYDWRU

3523(57</,1(

10' - 0"
7<3(,$ 7<3(9$
% 4',032+ &)%','%

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO%

5RRI

3$5.,1*3$5.,1*3$5.,1*

3HQWKRXVH

(OHYDWRU

522)'(&.

%(/2:*5$'(*5($6(,17(5&(3725
6((6(59,&(+2/($&&(66$7/(9(/%

28' - 0"
7<3(,$

7<3(9$
%
4',
032+

/HYHO%

8
'
-
9 "
) * + , .

4',
032+

Source: ACMARTIN, 2022
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
55 6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Figure 6 - Building Sections

1. Introduction
Section 1Section 2
Section 3
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

1. Introduction

Page 16 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
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

1. Introduction
April 2023 Page 17

1.4.1.2 COMMERCIAL
Approximately 3,100 square feet of commercial space would be on level B1. The commercial component would be on the northwest corner of the proposed building near the intersection of Studebaker Road and Pacific Coast Highway (see Figure 6). Due to the grade differential across the project site, the commercial component would be at street level.

1.4.1.3 OPEN SPACE AND AMENITY SPACE
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 the podium level would include trees, planters, water feature, fire pit and fireplace, various outdoor seating, multipurpose lawn, shade structure, cabana/umbrellas, tables and chairs, barbeque counter, spa and pool. The roof level would include dining table and chairs, barbeque and bar counter, fire pit, trees, and a cabana/umbrella.

The ground floor landscaping and amenities would include street and shade trees, outdoor table and chairs (including tables and chairs along Studebaker Road), bike racks, and a dog run. The proposed project would be landscaped throughout and provide passive open spaces around the proposed building.

Private residential open space would be provided as balconies and patios for some of the units. The proposed project also includes indoor amenity spaces on the second and third floors.

1.4.1.4 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The proposed project would contain a modern design and contain a total of seven levels (one partial subterranean level and six levels above). The proposed project would include a pedestrian-scale design with the ground-floor having a distinct façade treatment from the stories above. The proposed building would use a variety of architectural materials such as smooth plaster, plaster, vinyl windows, translucent glass, galvanized picket, and cable guardrail systems, expanded stainless steel mesh and gate, wood like cement board system, concrete, colored arcade designed by a local artist. Building façade and openings would be designed to meet the requirements of SEASP 8.3.14, Bird-Safe Treatments. See Figure 7a, Elevations - North and West, and Figure 7b, Elevations - South and East.

The proposed project would include lighting throughout the project site, including wayfinding and safety lighting and accent lighting.

1.4.1.5 VEHICLE ACCESS AND PARKING
The proposed project would provide a total of 516 parking stalls comprised of 503 residential stalls and 13 commercial stalls. Some of the spaces would include tandem parking. The proposed project would provide a total of 142 bicycle parking stalls. The vehicle parking would span the level B1 and levels one and two. Bicycle parking would be provided on level B1. Vehicle access would be provided via one ingress-egress driveway off of Studebaker Road entering level B1.
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

1. Introduction

Page 18 ends

1.4.2 Public Access Improvements
Consistent with SEASP Section 6.7.h.i.17, the proposed project would include improvements to the existing asphalt pedestrian walk/trail and related landscaping along the San Gabriel River. The improved trail would continue to one-half of the distance under the Pacific Coast Highway bridge to join similar facilities at the “Pumpkin Patch” site. Additionally, the proposed project would continue the Studebaker extension bikeway from Pacific Coast Highway to Marina Drive. See Figures 3, Aerial Photograph, and 5, Site Plan.

1.4.3 Stormwater Improvements and Utilities Connections The proposed project would connect to existing utilities that currently serve the project site. The proposed project would include low impact development infrastructure including 15 raised planter boxes on the podium level and on the ground floor. Stormwater runoff from the proposed project would be collected via roof drains and area drains and conveyed to planter boxes with an area totaling approximately 6,149 square feet. The planter boxes would be “Permavoid” planter boxes designed to capture the 85 percentile rain event.

Overflow from the planters would discharge into the site storm drain piping which eventually empties to the same curb inlet catch basin on Marina Drive, similar to existing conditions.

1.4.4 Construction
The proposed project would be constructed in one phase, which would last approximately 30 months.

Construction activities would include the demolition of the existing building, parking areas, and associated structures; site preparation; grading; utility trenching; building construction; asphalt/concrete paving; architectural coating; and finishings/landscaping. The construction of the proposed project would require the soil export of approximately 8,108 cubic yards and 92 cubic yards of soil import.

1.4.5 Project Approvals

1.4.5.1 CITY OF LONG BEACH
Implementation of the proposed project would require the following discretionary and ministerial project approvals from Long Beach:

Discretionary Approvals
▪ Site Plan Review (Planning Commission)
▪ Sign Program
▪ Local Coastal Development Permit
/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

5RRI

1:&RUQHU

3HQWKRXVH

(OHYDWRU

% 4',032+ &)%','%

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

5RRI

1:&RUQHU

*UDGH
3ODQQLQJ

3HQWKRXVH

(OHYDWRU

$
$ $
$ $

4',032+ &)%','%

6PRRWK3ODVWHU &KDUFRDO*UD\6PRRWK3ODVWHU :KLWH6PRRWK3ODVWHU *UD\6PRRWK3ODVWHU &KDUFRDO*UD\,,3ODVWHU :KLWH3ODVWHU %URZQ9LQ\O:LQGRZV0LQLPXPUHFHVV W\S

$
0$7(5,$/6/(*(1'
6PRRWK3ODVWHU6PRRWK3ODVWHU3ODVWHU :KL3ODVWHU %URZ9LQ\O:LQGRZV 0LQLPXPUHFHVV
$

6PRRWK3ODVWHU6PRRWK3ODVWHU
0$7(5,$/6/(*(
*UD\ &KDUFRDO*UD\,,
LWH
ZQ

V
W\S

&KDUFRDO*UD\ :KLWH
1'
6PRRWK3ODVWHU&KDUFRDO*UD\6PRRWK3ODVWHU:KLWH6PRRWK3ODVWHU*UD\6PRRWK3ODVWHU&KDUFRDO*UD\,,3ODVWHU:KLWH3ODVWHU%URZQ9LQ\O:LQGRZV0LQLPXPUHFHVV W\S

$

0$7(5,$/6/(*(1'

4',032+ &)%','%

6WRUHIURQW6\VWHP6WRUHIURQW6\VWHP7UDQVOXFHQW*ODVV*XDUGUDLO6\VWHP*DOYDQL]HG3LFNHW*XDUGUDLO6\VWHP %ODFN&RORU&DEOH*XDUGUDLO6\VWHP([SDQGHG6WDLQOHVV6WHHO0HVKDQG*DWH:RRGOLNH&HPHQW%RDUG6\VWHP

7U*&([:

6W6W

UDQVOXFHQW*ODVV*XDUGUDLO6\VWHP
*DOYDQL]HG3LFNHW*XDUGUDLO6\VWHP
DEOH*XDUGUDLO6\VWHP
[SDQGHG6WDLQOHVV6WHHO0HVKDQG*
:RRGOLNH&HPHQW%RDUG6\VWHP
WRUHIURQW6\VWHPWRUHIURQW6\VWHP
%ODFN&RORU
*DWH
6WRUHIURQW6\VWHP6WRUHIURQW6\VWHP3HUIRUDWHG0HWDO3DQHO*XDUGUDLO6\VWHP*DOYDQL]HG3LFNHW*XDUGUDLO6\VWHP%ODFN&RORU&DEOH*XDUGUDLO6\VWHP([SDQGHG6WDLQOHVV6WHHO0HVKDQG*DWH:RRGOLNH&HPHQW%RDUG6\VWHP

% 4',032+ &)%','%

3RXUHGLQ3ODFH&RQFUHWH&RORUHG$UFDGHE\/RFDO$UWLVW*ODVV*XDUGUDLO6\VWHP %XLOGLQJIDFDGHDQGRSHQLQJVZLOOEHGHVLJQHGWRPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI6($63%LUG6DIH7UHDWPHQWV
3HUIRUDWHG0HWDO

%XLOGLQJ IDGHVLJQHGWR6($63
3HUIRUDWHG
3RXUHG LQ3&RORUHG$UF

DFDGHDQGRSHQLQJVZLOOEH
RPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI
%LUG6DIH7UHDWPHQWV
0HWDO
3ODFH&RQFUHWH
FDGHE\/RFDO$UWLVW
3RXUHGLQ3ODFH&RQFUHWH&RORUHG$UFDGHE\/RFDO$UWLVW*ODVV*XDUGUDLO6\VWHP)UHVK$LU/RXYHUV %XLOGLQJIDFDGHDQGRSHQLQJVZLOOEHGHVLJQHGWRPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI6($63%LUG6DIH7UHDWPHQWV
Source: ACMARTIN, 2022
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
55 6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Figure 7a - Elevations - North and West

1. Introduction
North Elevation
West Elevation
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

1. Introduction

Page 20 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

5RRI

5RRI

1:&RUQHU

*UDGH
3ODQQLQJ

3HQWKRXVH

(OHYDWRU

$ $ $

% 4',032+ &)%','%

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

/HYHO

5RRI

1:&RUQHU

*UDGH
3ODQQLQJ

3HQWKRXVH

(OHYDWRU

$
$

88' - 6"
68' - 6"
4',032+ &)%','%

6PRRWK3ODVWHU &KDUFRDO*UD\6PRRWK3ODVWHU :KLWH6PRRWK3ODVWHU *UD\6PRRWK3ODVWHU &KDUFRDO*UD\,,3ODVWHU :KLWH3ODVWHU %URZQ9LQ\O:LQGRZV0LQLPXPUHFHVV W\S

$
0$7(5,$/6/(*(1'
6PRRWK3ODVWHU6PRRWK3ODVWHU3ODVWHU :KL3ODVWHU %URZ9LQ\O:LQGRZV 0LQLPXPUHFHVV
$

6PRRWK3ODVWHU6PRRWK3ODVWHU
0$7(5,$/6/(*(
*UD\ &KDUFRDO*UD\,,
LWH
ZQ

V
W\S

&KDUFRDO*UD\ :KLWH
1'
6PRRWK3ODVWHU&KDUFRDO*UD\6PRRWK3ODVWHU:KLWH6PRRWK3ODVWHU*UD\6PRRWK3ODVWHU&KDUFRDO*UD\,,3ODVWHU:KLWH3ODVWHU%URZQ9LQ\O:LQGRZV0LQLPXPUHFHVV W\S

7U*&([:

% 4',032+ &)%','%

3RXUHGLQ3ODFH&RQFUHWH&RORUHG$UFDGHE\/RFDO$UWLVW*ODVV*XDUGUDLO6\VWHP %XLOGLQJIDFDGHDQGRSHQLQJVZLOOEHGHVLJQHGWRPHHWWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRI6($63%LUG6DIH7UHDWPHQWV
3HUIRUDWHG0HWDO

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Figure 7b - Elevations - South and East

1. Introduction
South Elevation
East Elevation
10 0
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

1. Introduction

Page 22 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
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

1. Introduction
April 2023 Page 23
Ministerial Approvals
▪ Density Bonus and Incentives granted pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915), including but not limited to:
⚫ 40 percent increase in floor area ratio
⚫ 20 percent increase in density
• Additional story increase for an allowed height of 6 stories ▪ Other ministerial actions as needed to allow for the construction and operation of the proposed project, including but not limited to a building permit, grading permit, and Public Works permit.

1.4.5.2 OTHER AGENCY ACTIONS REQUESTED
State and Regional Agencies
▪ California Coastal Commission (if the entitlement decision is appealed) ▪ Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES permit; construction stormwater runoff permits, Storm Drain MS4 Permit)
▪ South Coast Air Quality Management District – Rule 201: Permit to construct

1.5 SEASP BUILDOUT AND DENSITY
Projects must be consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an environmental impact report (EIR) was certified to qualify for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Development intensity for the Mixed-Use Community Core (MUCC) designation is established by Section 6.2(c) of the SEASP. Mixed-Use Community Core blocks are allowed a maximum of 2.0 FAR (except for overnight visitor-serving accommodations) across each MU-CC block. FAR is measured by dividing the gross floor area of all the buildings located in the MU-CC block by the total gross area of the lots or parcels of land that comprise each MU-CC block. The proposed project’s block is defined by the “entirety of the mixed-use area bounded by Studebaker Road, PCH, and the San Gabriel River” (Long Beach 2017a). As shown in Table 2, MU-CC Block FAR, the proposed project would exceed the allowed density of its MU-CC block. However, since the increase in FAR is allowed pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915), which is a ministerial action, the proposed project would be consistent with the development density established by the existing 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

1. Introduction

Page 24 ends

Table 2 MU-CC Block FAR
Block Parcel APN
Square Footage of
Block
Proposed Project
Gross Square Feet FAR
Entirety of the mixed-use area
bounded by Studebaker Road, PCH,
and the San Gabriel River
7242-012-006 113,874 square feet 318,813 square feet 2 2.8 7242-012-007
No APN 1
27,020 square feet -- -- No APN 1
Total: 140,894 square feet 318,813 square feet 2.3
Source: Los Angeles County 2022.
1 Not a part of the project site.
2 Based on Long Beach Municipal Code Section 21.15.1090 (Floor area ratio) garage and parking structures are exempt from gross floor area.

As discussed Section 1.3, the proposed project is one of the first projects being proposed within the SEASP.

Therefore, the proposed project would be within the buildout anticipated for the SEASP area. Table 3, Southeast Area Specific Plan Remaining Capacity, shows the remaining buildout capacity available after the implementation of the proposed project.

Table 3 Southeast Area Specific Plan Remaining Capacity SEASP Capacity1 Demolish/Remove Proposed Project Remaining Balance Dwelling Units 2,547 -- 252 2
2,295
Commercial/Employment (SF) 307,071 73,076 3,100 377,047 Hotel Rooms 0 -- 0 0
Acres3 0 -- 0 0
Source: Long Beach 2017a & 2017b.
1 Population and employees change over time and are closely tied with square footage and dwelling units. Therefore, for tracking purposes of buildout capacity, population and employees are not included.
2 The proposed project would provide a total of 281 dwelling units; however, the affordable and density bonus units allowed pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law do not count towards capacity because they are allowed ministerially. Thus, the base density (252 dwelling units) is used to determine remaining capacity. 3 The SEASP area will remain the same, no change to acreage.

January 2023 Page 25

2. Environmental Checklist

2.1 PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: 6700 E. Pacific Coast Highway Mixed-Use Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Long Beach
Development Services Department
411 W. Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Long Beach, California 90802

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Amy Harbin, AICP, Planner
562.570.6872

4. Project Location:

The project site is located at 6700 East Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County, which is surrounded by the cities of Los Angeles, Carson, Compton, Paramount, Bellflower, Lakewood, Hawaiian Gardens, Signal Hill, Seal Beach, Alamitos, and Cypress and unincorporated communities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The project site is located in the southeast side of the City and of the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) area, near the border with Orange County. The project site encompasses approximately 113,874 square feet (approximately 2.6 acres) and is comprised of two parcels with assessor parcel numbers (APN) 7242-012-006 and -007. The project site is bordered by the Pacific Coast Highway to the northeast; San Gabriel River channel and a paved path to the southeast; two undeveloped parcels, Marina Drive to the southwest; and Studebaker Road to the northwest.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Holland Partner Group
5000 East Spring Street #500
Long Beach, California 90815

6. General Plan Designation:

Mixed‐Use Community Core (based on LCP and SEASP); Mixed Uses (LUD No. 7) (based on 1989 General Plan Land Use Element which is certified by the California Coastal Commission); and Regional Serving Facility (RSF) with a SEASP overlay (based on 2019 General Plan Land Use Element which is not certified by the California Coastal Commission)

7. Zoning: Specific Plan 2, Mixed‐Use Community Core (SP‐2‐MUCC)

8. Description of Project:

The project applicant proposes to demolish the existing office building and associated parking areas and construct a mixed‐use development with a total of 281 apartment units (including 13 apartment units reserved for very low income affordable housing) and approximately 3,100 square feet of ground‐floor 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

2. Environmental Checklist

Page 26 ends

retail. The development would have a total of approximately 592,100 gross square feet (and 318,813 square feet not including parking). The proposed project would include approximately 27,501 square feet of outdoor common open space including pool/spa area, outdoor areas, and amenity areas, and would contain landscaping and passive open spaces. A total of 516 parking stalls (503 residential parking stalls and 13 retail parking stalls) and 142 bicycle parking stalls are proposed. The proposed project would include a total of seven levels comprised of six stories over a partial subterranean level (level B1).

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is bordered by the Pacific Coast Highway to the northeast; San Gabriel River channel and a paved path to the southeast; two undeveloped parcels, Marina Drive to the southwest; and Studebaker Road to the northwest. A vacant lot that is used for occasional events and holidays is across Pacific Coast Highway, a commercial shopping mall is across Studebaker Road, and a commercial building and surface parking lot is across Marina Drive from the project site.

Properties to the northwest and northeast of the project site and the San Gabriel River channel to the south of the project site are within the SEASP area. The commercial uses across Studebaker Road and at the intersection of Studebaker Road and Pacific Coast Highway have a land use designation of MixedUse Community Core and a zoning designation of SP‐2‐MUCC, similar to the project site. The property across Pacific Coast Highway from the project site has a land use designation of Industrial and a zoning designation of Specific Plan 2, Industrial (SP-2-IND). A paved pedestrian path runs along the San Gabriel River channel to the south of the project site.

The two undeveloped parcels immediately to the west of the project site are within the SEASP area.

These two parcels have a land use designation of Mixed-Use Community Core and a zoning designation of SP‐2‐MUCC, similar to the project site. The properties to the west of the project site and west of Marina Drive are outside of the SEASP area.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participating agreement):
• California Coastal Commission (if the entitlement decision is appealed) • Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES permit; construction stormwater runoff permits, Storm Drain MS4 Permit)
• South Coast Air Quality Management District – Rule 201: Permit to construct

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.94 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. 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

2. Environmental Checklist
April 2023 Page 27
A compliance checklist consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, was prepared for the proposed project to show consistency with the SEASP and SEASP EIR. Tribal consultation consistent with AB52 and SB18 were performed during the SEASP and SEASP EIR. No further tribal consultation is required. The proposed project would implement identified mitigation measures related to archaeological resources, including Mitigation Measures CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-6. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 requires that the City notifies the three Native American tribal representatives that who requested Native American monitoring of ground-disturbing activities. For each project, the project applicant would retain one certified Native American monitor who would accompany the professional archaeological monitor during on-call monitoring. 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

2. Environmental Checklist

Page 28 ends

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture / Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

2.3 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Amy L. Harbin, AICP 4/4/23
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

2. Environmental Checklist
April 2023 Page 29

2.4 FORMAT AND EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

2.4.1 Format for this Environmental Compliance Checklist The SEASP Program EIR (PEIR) analyzed potential environmental impacts of the implementation of the SEASP in accordance with the Environmental Checklist Form included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The PEIR included a “full scope” EIR. The PEIR evaluated a total of 17 environmental topics, including aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. The PEIR analyzed the potential impacts of the buildout and growth anticipated with the implementation of SEASP (see Table 1, Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Use Summary). The buildout of the SEASP would generate a net increase of 2,547 dwelling units, 307,071 square feet of commercial/employment uses, and no hotel rooms. The cumulative impacts of past, present, and probable future development associated with the SEASP were evaluated in the PEIR.

This Compliance Checklist analyzes the proposed project in light of the approved project (the SEASP), the certified PEIR, and its mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). The analysis in this Environmental Compliance Checklist will include all environmental topics analyzed in the PEIR prepared for the PEIR along with the energy and wildfire topics which were added to the Environmental Checklist after the certification of the PEIR. Each environmental topic is structured with a PEIR Summary, a discussion of existing conditions, and an analysis for each threshold. Each threshold conclusions with a statement of the level of significance of the threshold. Included in the analysis is a determination if the mitigation measures identified in the PEIR are applicable to the proposed project, and whether there are any additional impacts not previously evaluated in the PEIR, which would therefore require the implementation of revised mitigation measures. Components of certain mitigation measures identified in the PEIR are not applicable to this project, and therefore have been shown as stricken.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, Project Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. As such, this Environmental Compliance Checklist answers the following questions consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183:
▪ 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 off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the SEASP 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

2. Environmental Checklist

Page 30 ends

▪ 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?

2.4.1.1 SOURCES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The following sources are incorporated by reference into this compliance checklist. ▪ Long Beach General Plan
▪ Long Beach Municipal Code
▪ Southeast Area Specific Plan
▪ Southeast Area Specific Plan certified EIR and adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2.4.2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).

A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a projectspecific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. 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

2. Environmental Checklist
April 2023 Page 31
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 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

2. Environmental Checklist

Page 32 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

January 2023 Page 33

3. Environmental Analysis
This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The PEIR analyzed views through the SEASP area from 2nd Street, Studebaker Road, and Pacific Coast Highway. Studebaker Road offers distant views of the San Gabriel Mountains and closer views of the Los Cerritos Wetlands. Wetland restoration activities promoted by the SEASP and landscape buffers (for industrial uses) would reduce visual obstructions.
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 34 ends

The PEIR determined that scenic views visible from the Pacific Coast Highway corridor are generally obstructed by commercial buildings, ornamental trees, signage, and other elements of the urban environment.

Views of Alamitos Bay are visible from Marina Drive south of Pacific Coast Highway, but these views are substantially obstructed by boats in the marina. The most generous views of the Los Cerritos Wetlands visible from the Pacific Coast Highway corridor are found where Pacific Coast Highway crosses the Los Cerritos Channel. Elsewhere, views of the wetlands are generally blocked by retail and office buildings in the Marketplace shopping center. Upon buildout of the SEASP, the Pacific Coast Highway corridor would experience the most change in land uses and building intensity, including the introduction of pedestrianoriented mixed uses, a modified street scene along Pacific Coast Highway, and buildings up to seven stories tall. Because no view corridors currently exist along this segment of Pacific Coast Highway (between 2nd Street and the San Gabriel River), impacts of the SEASP’s implementation would be beneficial.

The PEIR determined that the majority of the SEASP area would experience little to no change in visible appearance upon buildout of the Specific Plan. Scenic views from major roadways traversing the SEASP area would either be unchanged or improved due to 1) future restoration activities and consolidation of oil extraction infrastructure as encouraged by the SEASP, 2) preservation of roadway alignments that offer distant views of the San Gabriel Mountains, and 3) the required introduction of new view corridors in the portion of the SEASP area that would experience the most new urban development. Upon implementation of the SEASP, adverse impacts to existing scenic views would be less than significant.

The PEIR determined that the SEASP would not adversely impact scenic resources along Pacific Coast Highway. Buildout of the SEASP would generally result in new or intensified urban uses in areas that already feature urban uses that obstruct—or partially obstruct—scenic views from Pacific Coast Highway. Urban uses would not be allowed in areas that currently feature expansive horizontal planes of vision offering views of scenic resources from Pacific Coast Highway, except for the “Pumpkin Patch” site (across Pacific Coast Highway from the project site). However, eastward views of the Los Cerritos Wetlands and San Gabriel Mountains from the “Pumpkin Patch” site are already obstructed by commercial buildings and trees in the foreground and the Haynes Generating Station. Because Pacific Coast Highway is not an officially designed scenic highway in the SEASP area, and because buildout of the SEASP would concentrate new development and redevelopment in areas that already feature urban uses, adverse impacts to scenic views visible from a state scenic highway would be minimal. Furthermore, development standards and design guidelines in the SEASP include provisions aimed at protecting existing viewsheds and promoting the creation of new “water and wetlands” view corridors along PCH. Impacts related to state scenic highways would be less than significant.

The buildout of the SEASP would alter and intensify development in the SEASP area, but would not adversely impact the existing visual appearance of the SEASP area. The proposed MU-CC designation along the Pacific Coast Highway (where the project site is located) would affect the existing commercial corridor that includes the Marina Pacific Mall, Marketplace, Seaport Marina Hotel, and Marina Shores shopping center.

This area is envisioned as the primary activity center in the SEASP area and provides for a mix of uses including residential, regional retail, hotel, and office uses. The focus of this designation is on creating a pedestrian scale environment, including increased connectivity, gathering spaces, and linkages to the marina and wetlands. Because the MU-CC and the Mixed Use Marina designations would allow the greatest 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 35
intensification of land uses—including buildings up to seven stories in some locations—and the greatest flexibility for future development, the parcels along Pacific Coast Highway would be expected to see the greatest change in physical appearance and community character over time as parcels are redeveloped.

However, the proposed SEASP contains numerous development standards and design guidelines designed to maintain a consistent and aesthetically pleasing community character along the Pacific Coast Highway corridor. The guidelines have been designed to preserve the SEASP area’s unique identity. In particular, the design standards and guidelines focus on creating view corridors from Pacific Coast Highway to the area’s waterways, creating streetscapes that offer visual interest, and ensuring that buildings “step back” from scenic amenities and community edges. Compliance with these standards and guidelines would ensure that any change in visual appearance along the Pacific Coast Highway corridor would reflect the existing community character and maritime atmosphere of the SEASP area. Therefore, the SEASP determined that aesthetic impacts along the Pacific Coast Highway corridor would be less than significant.

The SEASP area is highly urbanized and built out, and there are many existing sources of nighttime illumination. The buildout of the SEASP would alter and intensify land uses and their related lighting sources in the area by introducing new buildings (with both interior and exterior lighting), security, signage, and parking lights. In addition to necessary lighting for safety and security, the SEASP would also introduce aesthetic lighting, such as illumination of areas within the neighborhood commercial areas (e.g., Bixby Plaza and Marina Plaza) and the mixed-use core area (e.g., Marina Pacific Mall, Seaport Marina Hotel, Marketplace, and Marina Shores) for architectural and façade detailing. Additional sources of glare could also be introduced through the project area in the form of large expanses of glazing (i.e., glass windows) and building materials (e.g., reflective metal treatments). In order to ensure that new development in the SEASP area does not generate excessive light and glare, the SEASP includes design guidelines aimed at reducing the impacts of light and glare on adjacent land uses. In addition, future development projects would be required to adhere to the lighting standards outlined in the Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC). Overall, lighting and glare impacts associated with buildout of the SEASP would not substantially increase nighttime light and glare in the SEASP area or its surroundings. Compliance with components of the SEASP and the LBMC would ensure that development in the SEASP area would not produce a substantial increase in light or glare.

Light and glare impacts would be less than significant.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is developed with a two-story office building over one level of subterranean parking. It is also developed with surface parking and landscaping throughout in an urbanized environment and is surrounded by urban uses (see Section 1.2, Environmental Setting, above). Because of the urban context and current development on-site, sources of light and glare already exist on the project site (i.e., light posts in the parking lots on-site, security lighting around the building, accent lighting, light emanating for windows, and vehicle headlights from vehicles in the parking lots) and surrounding uses (e.g., street lights along Pacific Coast Highway, Studebaker Road, and Marina Drive; vehicle headlights along roadways and in parking lots; light posts in parking lots on surrounding properties; security and accent lighting on surrounding properties; and light emanating from windows). Existing glare sources include sunlight and light reflecting off of lightcolored building materials, windows, and vehicles on-site; surrounding properties; and along public rights-ofway. 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 36 ends

Pacific Coast Highway, adjacent to the project site, is listed as an eligible scenic route. The eligible portion extends from the Traffic Circle (Route 19) on its northwestern end to San Juan Capistrano where Pacific Coast Highway intersects with Interstate 5. The closest officially designated scenic highway is State Highway 91, approximately 17.5 miles northeast of the project site (Caltrans 2022).

The PEIR identifies six gateways into the SEASP area. The south gateway is Pacific Coast Highway on the south side of the SEASP area where it intersects with San Gabriel River, adjacent to the project site.

The SEASP establishes development standards for the MUCC designation in Section 6.2 and Design Standards and Guidelines in Chapter 8.

DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? As discussed under “SEASP PEIR Summary” above, no view corridors currently exist along this segment of Pacific Coast Highway (between 2nd Street and the San Gabriel River). Since the project site is currently developed, no scenic views are currently visible looking across the project site. The project site is on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway, and therefore, development of the proposed project would not alter nor hinder views of the San Gabriel Mountains nor the Los Cerritos Wetlands to the east of the SEASP area.

Development of the proposed project would not hinder views of the San Gabriel River along Pacific Coast Highway nor views of Alamitos Bay from Marina Drive (which is generally obstructed by boats in the marina, as discussed above under “SEASP PEIR Summary”). Therefore, the proposed project would not have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. 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. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Pacific Coast Highway, adjacent to the project site, is listed as an eligible scenic route. No officially designated state scenic highways are near the project site. The project site is fully developed with an office building, surfacing parking, and ornamental landscaping. As discussed under threshold (a) above, the proposed project would not hinder nor obstruct scenic views from the Pacific Coast Highway. Development of the proposed project would not damage nor remove significant trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings.

Development of the proposed project would include planting of street trees along Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road. The proposed project is on a site with a SEASP land use designation of MU-CC and is consistent with the MU-CC designation. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the development standards and design guidelines in the SEASP, including provisions aimed at protecting existing viewsheds. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. 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. 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 37
Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The SEASP area and the project site are in an urbanized area. The proposed project is on a site that is designated MU-CC with a zoning designation of Specific Plan 2, Mixed‐Use Community Core (which refers to the SEASP). As discussed under “SEASP PEIR Summary” above, the MU-CC designation is envisioned as the primary activity center in the SEASP area and provides for a mix of uses including residential, regional retail, hotel, and office uses. The focus of this designation is on creating a pedestrian scale environment, including increased connectivity, gathering spaces, and linkages to the marina and wetlands. The proposed project would be consistent with the MU-CC designation and its intent by providing a mixed-use development that includes residential and commercial uses, outdoor public spaces, and landscaping that supports and encourages pedestrian activity along Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road.

The SEASP outlines development standards and design standards for future development within its boundaries, which provides standards for height, setbacks, uses, parking, outdoor space, and building design and form, among others. The proposed project would be required to comply with these standards. As discussed in Section 6.7, General Development Standards, of the SEASP, projects in the MU-CC areas can exceed the maximum building height or the FAR when three incentives from the list under Section 6.7 of the SEASP are provided. With the provision of three incentives, a building can be up to 7 stories. The proposed project would provide: (1) provision of very low income affordable housing units pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law; (2) installation of solar facilities on the proposed project; and (3) installation of public art (i.e. the proposed colored arcade).

The proposed project would reserve 5 percent of its dwelling units (13 dwelling units) as very low income affordable units pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law. Under the State Density Bonus Law, the proposed project would be allowed a density bonus and incentives as ministerial actions (which are not subject to CEQA). The proposed project is allowed a 40 percent increase in floor area ratio, 20 percent increase in density, and one additional story. Therefore, the proposed project is allowed a maximum FAR of 2.8 (not including parking garage),2 up to 303 dwelling units,
3 and six stories.4 These allowances supersede the
development standards outlined in the SEASP. Therefore, the proposed project includes a FAR of 2.8, 5 a
maximum building height of six stories at 105 feet and six inches, and 281 dwelling units. While the proposed 2 Compared to the SEASP’s maximum FAR of 2.
3 Compared to the SEASP’s maximum 252 dwelling units.
4 Compared to the SEASP’s maximum height of 5 stories at 80 feet. 5 This FAR differs from the FAR in Table 3, because FAR is calculated differently under the State Density Bonus Law compared the SEASP. Under the State Density Bonus Law FAR is defined as “the ratio of gross building area of the eligible housing development, excluding structured parking areas, proposed for the project divided by the net lot area. For purposes of this paragraph, ‘gross building area’ means the sum of all finished areas of all floors of a building included within the outside faces of its exterior walls” (California Government Code Section 65917.2). 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 38 ends

project would exceed the SEASP’s standards for MU-CC Block FAR (by 0.3), dwelling units, and height, the proposed project is ministerially allowed pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law. Further, the proposed project would comply with all applicable standards in the SEASP, including three incentives pursuant to Section 6.7 of the SEASP.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. 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.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The proposed project would develop a six-story mixed-use building over one level of partial subterranean parking. Compared to the existing office building onsite, the proposed development would be a larger and more intense use than the office building. Additionally, because the proposed project would include a residential component, persons are expected to be on-site 24 hours a day, whereas an office building would mostly have persons on-site during working hours. Therefore, compared to the existing use on-site and consistent with the PEIR, the proposed project would generate more light and glare (refer to “SEASP PEIR Summary” above).

As shown in Figure 8, Photometric Plan, light generally decrease outwards from the project site. Higher light levels are generally associated with being along the proposed building or near a light source. Light levels along the border of the site with the proposed project range between 32.7 foot-candles near light sources to 0.0 foot-candle. As shown in Figure 8, on the southern side of the project site near the San Gabriel River, the light level generated by the proposed project would reach zero by the paved pathway/bike path along the San Gabriel River.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the SEASP design guidelines aimed at reducing the impacts of light and glare. For example, Section 8.3.9 (Site Lighting), Section 8.3.10 (Building Lighting), and Section 8.3.14 (Bird-Safe Treatments), implement lighting and façade treatment requirements for development projects within the SEASP and adjacent to wildlife areas. Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with standards outlined in the LBMC, such as Sections 21.41.259 (Parking Areas, Lighting), 21.44.855 (Light and Glare Intrusion Prevention), and 21.44.600 (Prohibited Signs). Consistent with the SEASP, the proposed project would not substantially increase nighttime light and glare in the SEASP area or its surroundings. Light and glare 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. 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.

Source: KGM, 2022
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
50 6700 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Figure 8 - Photometric Plan

1. Introduction
E Marina Dr
Pacifi c Coast Hwy
N Studebaker
Rd
1 CALIFORNIA
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 40 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
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 41

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
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?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact no no no no
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact no no no no
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact no no no no
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact no no no no
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact no no no no

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The certified PEIR determined that the SEASP area is not designated Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance, and no land in Long Beach is subject to a Williamson Act contract. The City of Long Beach does not have any land zoned as forest land, timberland, nor Timberland Production. The certified EIR determined that the 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

Page 42 ends

convert mapped farmland to nonagricultural use, and no impact would occur to farmland nor agricultural uses. Buildout of the SEASP would have no impact on forestland.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is entirely developed with an office building and surface parking lot. The project site does not contain Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance; Williamson Act contract; nor forest land (DOC 2022a, 2022b; Long Beach 2017b).

DISCUSSION
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? As discussed under “SEASP PEIR Summary” above, the SEASP area, including the project site, do not contain farmland (including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance), forest land, nor timberland. Additionally, there are no Williamson Act contracts within the SEASP area. The proposed project would not convert farmland, forest land, nor timberland to other nonagricultural uses. The proposed project would not conflict with agricultural nor forestry/timberland zones nor Williamson Act contracts, since none exist on-site nor within the SEASP area.

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 43

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The certified PEIR determined that the approved project would result in a potentially significant impact associated with conflict with or obstruction of an air quality plan, result in a cumulative considerable net increase of construction-related and operation-related criteria pollutants, and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. To address these potential air quality impacts, the certified PEIR required implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 and Project Design Features PDF-1 through PDF-9. However, even with project design features and the incorporation of these mitigation measures, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The certified PEIR determined that the new nonresidential land uses associated with the SEASP would not create significant objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Existing and new industrial uses would be required to follow South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) Rule 402, Nuisance, which would aid to prevent nuisances on sensitive land uses. Therefore, impacts related to objectionable odors would be less than 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

Page 44 ends

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing two-story office building generates criteria air pollutants from transportation sources, energy (natural gas and purchased energy), and area sources such as landscaping equipment and architectural coatings. As mentioned in Table 15, current land uses generate approximately 792 average daily trips (Fehr & Peers 2023). The nearest off-site sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi-family residential apartments and single-family homes to the south and the single-family homes to the west in the Naples neighborhood.

The PEIR was prepared prior to the adoption of the 2022 AQMP. The assessment of proposed project impacts is updated to address the 2022 AQMP and evaluates the proposed project against previously disclosed impacts in the PEIR.

SEASP Project Design Features
The PEIR include the following project design features that apply to the proposed project, in addition to the SEASP as a whole. Other project design features (see Chapter 5.4 of the PEIR) apply to the SEASP area as whole.
▪ 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 Development Services Department Director include, but are not limited to:
⚫ Car sharing
⚫ 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 Development Services Department Director, which will determine the appropriate level of parking demand reduction generated by these strategies on a project-specific basis.
▪ PDF-5: Bicycle Network. Figure 6-2 in the Specific Plan identifies proposed bicycle connections. Bicycle circulation is provided on streets with designated bike lanes, separated bikeways (cycle tracks), and offstreet pathways. These facilities are classified in four bicycle facility classifications:
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 45
• Class I Bikeway (Multiuse Path). Provides a separated corridor that is not served by streets and highways and is away from the influence of parallel streets. Class I bikeways are for nonvehicle use only with opportunities for direct access and recreational benefits, right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and minimized cross-flow conflicts. SEASP includes a new Class I facility on the north side of the Los Cerritos Channel that would connect Pacific Coast Highway to Loynes Drive if it does not impact sensitive wetlands in the area. A connection is also proposed that would link this route to the existing San Gabriel Bike Trail. • Class II Bikeway (Bike Lanes). Provides a delineated right-of-way assigned to bicyclists to enable more predictable movements, accommodating bicyclists through on-street corridors. New Class II bikeways are proposed along the Shopkeeper Road extension to Pacific Coast Highway, Studebaker Road, and Marina Drive.
• Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). A shared facility (by bikes and vehicles) that provides either continuity with other bicycle facilities or designates preferred routes through high-demand on-street corridors. The existing Class III facility along 2nd Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road is envisioned to be improved as a Class II facility through implementation of this Specific Plan.
• Class IV Separated Bikeways (Cycle Track). Provides delineated right-of-way assigned to bicyclists with physical separation from vehicles. This separation can include parked vehicles, bollards, curbs, or any other physical device that provides separation. The most significant change to the bike and roadway network proposed for the SEASP area is the inclusion of two cycle tracks— one along Pacific Coast Highway and the other along Studebaker Road. ▪ PDF-7: Building Placement and Orientation/Heat Gain. SEASP encourages buildings that are oriented for energy efficiency to capture day lighting, minimize heat gain, and take advantage of prevailing breezes for natural ventilation. The SEASP encourages open spaces that are appropriately landscaped and provide adequate shade devices or shade trees to reduce heat island effects. Shade devices include, but are not limited to, umbrellas, awnings, trellises, and canopies that are integrated into the building or over open spaces. Greenroofs, or eco-roofs, are permitted in the Specific Plan area to reduce stormwater runoff, lower energy consumption, and provide spaces for community gardens. SEASP also encourages parking lots that provide sufficient tree coverage to mitigate the heat island effect. Parking structures should also be shaded and/or include photovoltaic arrays on the top deck to reduce heat island effect. ▪ PDF-8: Energy Efficient Lighting. SEASP requires use of low-contrast lighting, low-voltage fixtures, and energy-efficient bulbs, such as compact fluorescent and light emitting diode (LED) bulbs for all outdoor lighting. Additionally, SEASP encourages the use of solar-powered light fixtures. For architectural lighting, use of automatic timers is encouraged to conserve energy at night. Furthermore, the SEASP includes bird-safe measures that would result in energy co-benefits, including requirements for automated on/off systems and motion detectors for interior lighting. The SEASP also encourages building owners to participate in “Lights Out for Birds” programs or similar initiatives by turning off lighting at night. 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 46 ends

▪ PDF-9: Drought-Tolerant Landscaping. Landscaping shall be drought tolerant and feature native wetland plants to create a more seamless transition between the natural wetlands and development. Landscaping for projects (including right-of-way medians) within SEASP shall be consistent with the provisions of Chapter 21.42, Landscape Standards, in the Zoning Code. Landscaping shall be consistent with Title 21 Standards as well. For Mixed-Use Community Core and Mixed-Use Marina, the provisions of Chapter

21.42.040, Landscaping Standards, for R-3, R-4, and Nonresidential Districts shall apply.

DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The first consistency criterion requires an analysis of whether a project creates or exacerbates an existing air quality violation. As discussed under Air Quality threshold (b) below, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in magnitude of air quality impacts for construction or operation of the proposed project. Therefore, regional impacts related to air quality violations and AQMP consistency would be less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in new or exacerbated impacts than were disclosed in the PEIR.

The second consistency criterion requires that the project not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP and not interfere with control strategies to attain the ambient air quality standards (AAQS). A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG. These demographic trends are incorporated into SCAG’s 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to determine priority transportation projects and vehicle miles traveled in the SCAG region. Because the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans, projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air-quality-related regional plan. The proposed project would replace a two-story office building with a new mixed-use building (residential and commercial) in the SEASP area. As discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, below, the proposed project is not anticipated to induce population growth in the City beyond what was analyzed by the PEIR. The proposed project would be consistent with the existing land use designation of Mixed-Use Community Core (MU-CC), and the commercial component would be local serving uses that would not generate substantial regional traffic. Operation of the proposed project would not introduce new employment that would disproportionately contribute to growth accounted for in the 2022 AQMP emissions inventory.

Operation of the proposed project would not interfere with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 AQMP and would not contribute to delaying timely attainment of the air quality standards. Consistent with PEIR, the proposed project would implement applicable project design features in the PEIR and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 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 47
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.

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.

Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is applicable to the proposed project.

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. 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 48 ends

▪ 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.

Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-2 is applicable to the proposed project.

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.

Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-3 is applicable to the proposed project.

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.
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 49
Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-4 is applicable to the proposed project. This mitigation measure is also incorporated into the PEIR Chapter 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and has been updated to incorporate the City’s recently adopted CAAP and be consistent with the City’s CAAP GHG Reduction Action Consistency Checklist (see Table 10, in Section 3.8 below). Refer to Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, below for further discussion.

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.

Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-5 is applicable to the proposed project.

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.

Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-6 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

Page 50 ends

b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? The Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB is presently designated nonattainment for both the federal or state ambient air quality standards for lead (Pb), ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The South Coast AQMD published guidance addressing the evaluation of potential cumulative impacts for CEQA projects. The South Coast AQMD asserts that if construction or operation of a project would produce maximum daily emissions exceeding the applicable project-specific thresholds, those emissions would also be considered cumulatively significant and may require mitigation. For this reason, the South Coast AQMD applies the same project-level thresholds to cumulative assessments as a screening approach. Conversely, if construction and operation of a project would not generate emissions of sufficient quantity to exceed any of the applicable mass daily thresholds at either the regional or localized level, then that project and its associated emissions would be considered less than significant in the cumulative context.

Construction
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Construction of the proposed project would generate criteria air pollutants associated with construction equipment exhaust and fugitive dust from demolition and debris haul, grading and soil haul, utilities trenching, building construction, architectural coating, pavement of asphalt and nonasphalt surfaces, and finishing and landscaping of the site.

Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on-site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Table 4, Proposed Project Construction Emissions, shows an estimate of maximum daily construction emissions for the proposed project and compares those emissions to the construction emissions identified in the PEIR. The table shows the highest daily emissions during construction of the proposed project would be within the SEASP PEIR and would not exceed any applicable regional mass daily thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD. Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
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 51
Table 4 Proposed Project Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
1,2
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Building Demolition 0.49 10.22 19.66 0.03 0.45 0.12
Asphalt Demolition 0.35 10.63 12.31 0.05 5.57 0.97
Site Preparation (2023)3 0.64 19.31 23.09 0.08 0.79 0.34 Rough Grading (2023) 0.57 12.09 23.53 0.04 0.61 0.13
Fine Grading (2023) 0.55 11.59 22.44 0.03 0.61 0.13
Utility Trenching (2023) 0.21 4.17 8.38 0.02 0.04 0.03
Building Construction (2023) 2.70 30.89 72.73 0.07 0.72 0.36 Building Construction (2024) 2.63 30.19 74.51 0.07 0.72 0.36 Overlapping Activities
Building Construction (2025)
Paving
Architectural Coating
Landscaping & Finishing
Total

2.56 0.23

17.90 0.26

20.95 30.17

3.64 2.65

5.17 41.63

72.53 6.64

6.76 10.31

96.24 0.07

0.01 <0.01

0.01 0.09

0.72 0.03

0.14 0.04

0.93 0.35

0.02 0.08

0.03 0.48
Maximum Daily Emissions 20.95 41.63 96.24 0.09 0.93 0.48 SEASP PEIR Operational Emissions 84 261 221 <1 34 19
Proposed Project vs SEASP PEIR (63.05) (219.37) (124.76) (<1) (33.07) (18.52) South Coast AQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. See Appendix B. 1 Based on the preliminary construction information provided by the Applicant. Where specific information regarding proposed project-related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by South Coast AQMD of construction equipment.
2 Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures required by South Coast AQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 25 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers. 3 Additional hauling off-site emissions associated with 92 CY import of soil haul (approximately 12 one-way haul truck trips) was proportionally calculated based on the original exported emissions with the same factors as those used for estimating emissions associated with export of soil haul (emission coefficients, trip distances, truck classes, and hauling capacity) and assumed to occur over the Site Preparation phase.

Operations
Upon buildout, the proposed project would generate operational emissions from on-road mobile sources, area sources (e.g., landscaping equipment, architectural coating), and energy use (i.e., natural gas used for heating and cooking). However, the proposed project’s nature and size would not result in a larger increase in long-term, operational criteria air pollutants compared to the scale of development associated with the SEASP buildout. As shown in Table 5, the proposed project’s operational criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor emissions are well within the SEASP PEIR operational emissions and would be below both the South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds. The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions for which the region may be in nonattainment for, consistent with the SEASP PEIR operational emissions impact.
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 52 ends

Table 5 Proposed Project Operational Emissions
Emission Source
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 11 4 30 <1 <1 <1
Energy (Natural Gas) <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 2 1 16 <1 1 <1
Total Maximum Daily Emissions1 13 7 47 <1 2 1
SEASP PEIR Operational Emissions 1,188 615 3,758 11 722 253 Proposed Project vs SEASP PEIR (1,175) (608) (3,711) (10) (720) (252) South Coast AQMD Threshold 55 55 55 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.

Notes: (Under)
1 Emissions contained herein reflect the maximum daily emissions between Winter and Summer seasonal emission results. Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Moreover, implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the local land use designation of Mixed-Use Community Core (MU-CC) and provide neighborhood-serving retail uses that would reduce trip lengths relative to other parts of the region. Thus, long-term operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to cumulatively considerable emissions of nonattainment pollutants. In addition, applicable project design features PDF-3, PDF-5, PDF-7, PDF-8, and PDF-9 would further reduce emissions generated during project operation by requiring various transportation demand measures, active transportation infrastructure, intersection signalization, and energy efficiency design in building design and orientation. Moreover, PEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4 through AQ-6 would further reduce the generation of operational emissions generated by the proposed project by requiring electric landscaping equipment, energy-efficient appliances, electricity sourced from renewable generation sources, and installation of CALGreen Tier 2 EV charging standards. Therefore, the operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant or ozone precursor for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6.
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 53
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Construction-Phase Localized Significance Thresholds
This impact analysis describes localized impacts from short-term construction activities. The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated levels. Unlike the mass of emissions shown in the regional emissions analysis in Table 4, which are described in pounds per day, localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects.

Screening-level localized significance thresholds (LST) (pounds per day) are the amount of project-related mass emissions at which localized concentrations (ppm or µg/m3) could exceed the AAQS for criteria air pollutants for which the SoCAB is designated nonattainment. They are based on the acreage disturbed and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Screening-level LSTs are based on the proposed project site size and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Thresholds are based on the California AAQS, which are the most stringent, established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare.

They are designed to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors are the multifamily residential apartments (Eaves Seal Beach apartments) and single-family homes to the south in Seal Beach and the singlefamily homes to the west in the Naples neighborhood.

As shown in Table 6, Maximum Daily On-Site Localized Construction Emissions, maximum daily localized emissions of criteria pollutants and ozone precursors from sources on the project site would not exceed any applicable LST values for the SRA 4. It should be noted that the emissions expressed in Table 6 incorporate PEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3.

Table 6 Maximum Daily On-Site Localized Construction Emissions Pollutants (pounds/day)1,2
VOC NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Building Demolition 0.42 9.77 18.50 0.03 0.41
Asphalt Demolition 0.22 5.07 9.62 0.02 5.16
Site Preparation 0.42 9.77 18.50 0.03 0.10
Rough Grading 0.50 12.00 22.30 0.04 0.60
Fine Grading 0.48 11.50 21.40 0.03 0.60
Utility Trenching 0.18 4.12 7.86 0.02 0.03
Building Construction (2023) 1.13 25.80 49.10 0.05 0.29 Building Construction (2024) 1.13 25.80 49.10 0.05 0.29 Overlapping Activities
Building Construction (2025)
Paving
Architectural Coating
Landscaping & Finishing
Total

1.13 0.20

17.63 0.21

19.17 25.80

3.60 2.34

5.11 36.85

49.10 6.20

2.33 9.44

67.07 0.05

0.01 <0.01

0.01 0.07

0.29 0.02

0.09 0.03

0.43 Maximum Daily Emissions 19.17 36.85 67.07 0.07 0.43 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 54 ends

Table 6 Maximum Daily On-Site Localized Construction Emissions Pollutants (pounds/day)1,2
VOC NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
South Coast AQMD LSTs (SRA 4)1 N/A 57 585 N/A 4
Exceeds LST? No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.

Note: Highest winter or summer emissions are reported.
1 Assumes 1 acre of disturbance per day and 25 meters to closest sensitive receptor for a conservative assessment of localized impacts.

As shown in Table 6, daily construction emissions would not exceed any applicable localized daily thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, Tier-4 equipment would be required for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower. Therefore, maximum daily localized emissions of criteria pollutants and ozone precursors from sources located on the project site would not exceed any applicable LST values and a construction HRA would not be required. Emissions from construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 from the PEIR.

Operational Phase LSTs
Implementation of the proposed project would replace a two-story office building with a new mixed-use building (retail and commercial). The proposed land uses for the proposed project are consistent with those analyzed in the PEIR and would not be associated with generating a high or substantial number of trucks trips. On-site operational emissions generated by the proposed project are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 Maximum Daily On-Site Localized Operational Emissions Emission Source
Pollutants (pounds/day)1,2
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area 11 4 <1 <1
Energy (Natural Gas) <1 2 <1 <1
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 11 6 <1 <1
South Coast AQMD LSTs (SRA 4)1 111 7,313 34 20
Exceeds LST? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.
1 The South Coast AQMD LSTs are based on SRA 4 for a 5-acre site with a 350-meter (1,150-foot) receptor distance, interpolated between 200 and 500 meters.

As shown in Table 7, the proposed project’s localized emissions would not exceed the South Coast AQMD’s localized significance thresholds for emissions generated on-site. There would be no substantial source of criteria pollutant or air toxic emissions associated with operation of the proposed project that could potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to long-term pollutant concentrations. Therefore, long-term operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
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 55
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of carbon monoxide (CO) called hotspots.

These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to the AAQS is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hot spots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. The SoCAB has been designated in attainment of both the National and California AAQS for CO. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2017). The traffic memorandum provided by Fehr and Peers described that the proposed project combined with existing conditions would generate 1,224 PM peak-hour trips on the “Southwest Quadrant 2nd/PCH” block in which the project is located (Fehr & Peers 2023). Peak-hour trips would therefore be substantially below the peak-hour vehicle trips needed to generate a significant CO impact. In addition, the proposed project is within the buildout of the PEIR. Implementation of the proposed project would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the project site.

As discussed under this threshold, construction and operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 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. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
A significant impact would occur if construction or operation of the project would result in the creation of nuisance odors that would be noxious to a substantial number of people, or visible dust plumes. The proposed project would comprise similar uses to those analyzed in the PEIR. Potential sources that may produce objectionable odors during construction activities include equipment exhaust, application of asphalt and architectural coatings, and other interior and exterior finishes. However, these odors would be temporary and confined to the immediate area of the construction activities. All construction activities would be conducted in accordance with the best management practices in South Coast AQMD Rule 402, which would minimize and provide a control for odors. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project would not result in odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people and would not result in new or exacerbated effects compared to the PEIR.

The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatment plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical 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 56 ends

manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed project does not include any of these uses, but on-site trash receptacles would have the potential to create adverse odors. The mixed-use building would properly maintain odors associated with trash in compliance with the Long Beach Municipal Code, and there would be no operational activities that would be expected to produce dust plumes that could pose violations of South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Therefore, the operation of the proposed project would not result in odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-7 is not applicable to the proposed project, since the project is not a new industrial use. Refer to Appendix A for a full list of mitigation measures from the PEIR.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues

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

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 57
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The southern portion of the SEASP area (south of Colorado Street and Loynes Drive) is in the coastal zone.

Approximately 62 percent (920 acres) of the SEASP area has a vegetation and land cover designation of “developed.” Approximately 11.9 percent (175 acres) and 11.4 percent (168 acres) of the SEASP have vegetation and land cover designations of “undeveloped, wetland” and “open water,” respectively. The remaining designations include park land (82 acres); undeveloped, upland (75 acres); and mineral extraction (55 acres). The SEASP area contains habitat for 21 special status plant species, 4 of which are federal and/or state-listed as endangered, threatened, or candidate species, and 26 special status wildlife, 11 of which are federal and/or state-listed as endangered, threatened, or candidate species. Additionally, several other plant and animal species have been observed through field survey of the SEASP area.

Implementation of the SEASP could directly impact sensitive species and natural communities from the removal of native vegetation that supports sensitive species. Implementation of the SEASP could indirectly impact sensitive species and natural communities with noise, lighting, human activities, urban/wetland interface, stormwater runoff, and bird strikes. Buildout of the SEASP could impact jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands directly—from private development, trails, or other recreational uses in the Los Cerritos 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 58 ends

Wetlands Complex (LCWC) and jurisdictional waters within the proposed Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation—and indirectly from noise, runoff, and human intrusion. The policies, development standards, and design standards and guidelines of the SEASP, regulatory compliance, and mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Riparian habitats found within the SEASP area include the San Gabriel River and, to lesser extent, the El Cerrito Channel and Haynes Cooling Channel. These waterways are channelized within the SEASP area and are not part of any allowed development. Therefore, there will be no direct impacts to these riparian features.

Recognized wildlife corridors have not been designated in the SEASP area. The San Gabriel River will not be directly impacted by implementation of the SEASP. The LCWC is likely part of a migration path for urban wildlife, providing food and resting sources; some species seek breeding grounds within the SEASP area. The preservation of wetlands and limited uses allowed in the proposed Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation land use designation would result in avoidance of impacts to wildlife using this area as a corridor. There is a potential for existing ornamental trees to be removed during development or redevelopment in the urbanized areas. Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) would ensure that trees and nests would not be removed during the breeding season. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could affect wildlife movement but adopted mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

The SEASP area is not in a habitat conservation plan, a natural community conservation plan, or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts with respect to a habitat conservation plan would occur.

Trees in Long Beach are protected under LBMC Chapter 14.28 (Trees and Shrubs), which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in the city. Projects developed under the SEASP may involve the removal of existing ornamental trees, including street trees. However, projects would be required to comply with provisions of the LBMC. Therefore, implementation of the SEASP would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting trees, and no impact would occur.

PEIR Project Design Features
The PEIR include the following project design features that apply to the proposed project, in addition to the SEASP as a whole. Other project design features (see Chapter 5.4 of the PEIR) apply to the SEASP area as whole and are not applicable to the proposed project.
▪ PDF-BIO-1: Wetland Delineations6
▪ PDF-BIO-3: Wetland Buffers7
6 Wetland delineations are discussed in policies 5.2 and 5.3. 7 Wetland buffers are discussed in policy 5.20 and referenced throughout Chapter 5 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 59
▪ PDF-BIO-4: New landscape plantings shall utilize non-invasive species (prohibited species published by the California Invasive Plant Council) and reflect native plants typically associated with wetlands into development around wetlands.
▪ PDR-BIO-5: Wetlands Edge at Shopkeeper Road. Landscaping within 500 feet of natural areas along this edge shall consist of California Native species or varieties that will not invade habitat or hybridize with existing native vegetation to create a more seamless transition between the natural wetlands and development (per CALGreen and Cal-IPC standards).

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, is based in part on the following technical report:
▪ Biological Technical Report 6700 East Pacific Coast Highway Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California, Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA), February 3, 2023. (A complete copy of this report is included in Appendix C.) The PEIR shows that the project site is in the coastal zone. The LCWC and the SEASP Wetland Complex Boundary are to the east of the project site. The vegetation and land cover at the project site are shown as “developed.” No wetlands exist on the project site (USFWS 2022; GLA 2023).

During vegetation mapping of the 2.61-acre project site, three vegetation/land use types were identified:
developed, ornamental vegetation, and turf grass. Table 8, Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Project Site, provides a summary of vegetation types/land uses and the corresponding acreage.

Table 8 Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Project Site On-Site Vegetation/Land Use Types Area (Acres)
Developed 1.96
Ornamental 0.26
Turf 0.39
Total 2.61
Source: GLA 2023.

GLA reviewed the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which identified southern coastal salt marsh as occurring within the United States Geological Service (USGS) Los Alamitos quadrangle. The project site does not contain southern coastal salt marsh or any special-status habitats. 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 open water portions of the San Gabriel River flood control channel, but not the rip rap sides of the San Gabriel River channel (which provide limited ecological functions), meet the criteria for environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) (GLA 2023). 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 60 ends

SEASP Policies
The SEASP includes a number of policies related to biological resources that are applicable to the proposed project (see Table 13, in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning).

DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
As discussed under “Existing Conditions,” above, the project site does not contain any riparian habitat, coastal marsh, or any other special-status habitat. The proposed project does not contain habitat capable of supporting these or any special-status animal species. The Biological Technical Report prepared for the proposed project evaluated the potential of 65 special-status wildlife species and 39 special-status plant species to occur on-site and determined that none of the species have the potential to occur on-site due to the lack of suitable habitat. The proposed project would not directly modify habitat.

The proposed project would be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the certified PEIR (see below). Consistent with BIO-3, the proposed project would be required to prepare a construction management plan; a monitoring biologist would be required on-site during any grading activities; and a project-specific contractor training program would be developed and implemented to train construction contractors of sensitive biological resources. The proposed project would be required to implement the noise measures in Mitigation Measure BIO-4 (in addition to the mitigation measures in Section 3.13, Noise) to reduce noise during construction. Consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-6, the proposed project shall develop and implement signage for the public access point along San Gabriel River. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 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 educate residents on the responsibilities associated with living near sensitive biological habitat.

Consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-5, a photometric plan was prepared for the proposed project (see Figure 8). As shown on Figure 8 and further discussed under threshold 3.1(d), the proposed project would not generate light in excess of 0.1 foot-candle at the San Gabriel River.

Consistent with the PEIR, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, the proposed project would not create a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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 61
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.

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 review and approval.

Applicability: The proposed project site is not undeveloped and is not within or adjacent to land designated as Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation. However, an undeveloped parcel is across the Pacific Coast Highway from the project site. This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. The biological technical report prepared for the proposed project is included in Appendix C.

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 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 62 ends

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.

Applicability: The proposed project is not undeveloped, and the project site is not within or adjacent to land designated as Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation. However, an undeveloped parcel (the Pumpkin Patch site) is located across the Pacific Coast Highway from the project site. This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. The jurisdictional delineations are discussed in the biological technical report was prepared for the proposed project and is included in Appendix C. A minor typographical edit was made to this mitigation measure to clarify an Agency acronym.

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.

Applicability: The San Gabriel River is approximately 40 feet east of the project site. This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project.

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:
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 63
▪ 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.

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project.

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).

Applicability: The San Gabriel River is approximately 40 feet east of the project site. This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. A photometric plan was prepared for the proposed project (refer to Figure 8, above).

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.

Applicability: Consistent with Section 6.7(h), Public Access, of the SEASP, the proposed project would improve the public access along the property frontage adjacent to the San Gabriel River. This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project.

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 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 64 ends

brochure, along with attachments, shall be included as part of the rental/lease agreements and as part of the sales literature for future developments.

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
As discussed under threshold (a) above, the proposed project does not include any sensitive natural communities. As discussed under the “SEASP PEIR Summary” for this topic, riparian habitats in the SEASP area include the San Gabriel River and, to lesser extent, the El Cerrito Channel and Haynes Cooling Channel.

These waterways are channelized within the SEASP area and are not part of any allowed development. The proposed project is adjacent to the San Gabriel River flood control channel, which is categorized by the SEASP as an Open Water Sensitive Coastal Habitat Area. The project site does not contain any wetlands as defined by state or federal standards and is outside of the jurisdictional limits of the San Gabriel River. The easterly edge of the project site is set back a minimum of 76 feet from the open water in the San Gabriel River Channel. Neither the project site nor the reach of the San Gabriel River adjacent to the project site contain any wetlands. The nearest known wetlands are associated with the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority wetland complex and the northeast edge of the Pumpkin Patch site. The nearest wetlands are 900 feet northeast and 450 east of the project site, and the wetland area in the Pumpkin Patch site is approximately 770 feet to the northeast of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands.

Further, as discussed in Table 8, above, the proposed project does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. The proposed project is outside of the jurisdictional limits of the San Gabriel River. The proposed project would not directly impact the San Gabriel River nor riparian habitat. With implementation of applicable mitigation measures, and as discussed under threshold (a), the proposed project would not have indirect impacts to riparian habitat, wetlands, nor sensitive natural communities. As such, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, other sensitive natural community, or wetland.

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

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 65
Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-7.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The project site in not in a wildlife movement corridor and exhibits no potential for impacts to wildlife movement. Wildlife movement occurs within the adjacent San Gabriel River; however, the proposed project is limited to a currently developed site and thus would not interfere with the movement of wildlife along the river corridor.

The project site currently contains mostly nonnative trees and shrubs that have the potential to support nesting birds that are protected while nesting pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. The project site does not contain suitable trees for supporting raptor nests (GLA 2023). The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-8 from the Certified PEIR. With implementation of BIO-8, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

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.

BIO-8 If construction is proposed between January 15 to September 1st, 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 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 66 ends

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.

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project and minor clarifications/additions based on the biological technical report prepared for the proposed project, have been provided, consistent with SEASP Policy 5.30. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? As with the PEIR, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including the policies set forth in SEASP (see Table 13). The project would not result in a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (GLA 2023). 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 67
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.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
Chapter 5.5, Cultural Resources, of the certified PEIR addressed the impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources (TCR) associated with buildout of the SEASP. The PEIR identified one historic resource adjacent to the southwest boundary of the SEASP area: the Long Beach Marina Stadium, a California-listed Point of Historic Interest and Historical Landmark that was considered likely eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Additionally, the Bixby Ranch Field Office may be locally significant, although this is not expressed specifically on the site record.

New development and redevelopment have the potential to occur throughout the SEASP area with proposed land use changes, and intensification is identified predominantly in the proposed Mixed Use Community Core and Mixed Use Marina areas. These areas are developed, and there are no known historical resources in these areas. If future development would impact buildings 45 years or older, a formal historical 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 68 ends

evaluation would be required at that time. The intensification in the Mixed Use Community Core is not expected to impact Marine Stadium because these areas are separated by existing development, Marina Drive, and parking areas. Although the scale and character of the area may change, new development is required to be consistent with the development standards and design guidelines in the SEASP. Special attention is required for edge effects and views. The PEIR incorporated Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 to reduce potential impacts to historic resources; however, impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

The PEIR identified six archaeological resources within its boundaries. Development consistent with the SEASP could impact known archaeological sites and unknown archeological resources. Development or redevelopment in accordance with the SEASP may uncover tribal cultural resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3 through CUL-5 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

One tribal representative indicated that there is the potential for human burials within the SEASP area.

Therefore, ground disturbance by projects developed pursuant to the SEASP could encounter human remains. Implementation of the proposed SEASP could disturb human remains, include those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-6 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The 2.6-acre project site is currently developed with a two‐story office building (73,076 square feet) with subterranean parking, surface parking, and landscaping throughout. The existing office building was constructed in 1983 (approximately 39 years of age) and is not considered of historic age. The commercial development to the northwest of the project site was constructed in 2001 and is approximately 21 years of age (Los Angeles County 2022).

The SEASP states that the entire SEASP area is sensitive for archeological and tribal resources. The SEASP incorporates policies and the following conditions of approval for new development (see page 104 of the SEASP):

1. LUP Policy: Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required (Coastal Act Section 30244).

2. New Development shall implement the mitigation measures below as conditions of project approval:
a. Any development project that involves disturbance of soils, including native soils that may have been previously disturbed and/ or compacted, shall be required to prepare an Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the protection of archaeological/ paleontological resources during project grading and construction activities, prepared by a qualified professional, which shall incorporate the following measures and procedures:
i. During all digging, ground disturbance, and subsurface activity on the site, archaeological monitor(s) qualified by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) standards and 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 69
Native American Most Likely Descendants (MLDs) from each tribe when State Law mandates identification of MLDs, shall be present on the site.
ii. Also present during all digging, ground disturbance, and subsurface activity on the site shall be a minimum of one (1) Native American monitor for every location of ground disturbance; on shared ancestral territories, a minimum of one (1) individual monitor representing each Tribe is required. Monitors must be selected according to the Native American Heritage Commission’s contact list. On shared ancestral lands, Native American monitors from different tribes shall be present at the same time and monitoring the same location. More than 1 set of monitors on the site may be necessary during times with multiple grading and soil disturbance locations. Tribal representatives selected for the monitoring shall be rotated equally and fairly among all tribal groups affected, such that every tribal group has an equal opportunity to monitor on the site.

During all digging, ground disturbance, and subsurface activity on the site, any Native American representatives from Tribes on the NAHC list are welcome to be present on the site and monitor, even if they are not the assigned set of monitors within the rotation for that day. iii. If any tribal cultural deposits are discovered, including but not limited to skeletal remains and grave-related artifacts, traditional cultural sites, religious or spiritual sites, or other artifacts, all development and ground disturbance shall cease until a treatment method is determined. On shared ancestral lands, each affected tribe must have input on the treatment method. iv. In-situ preservation and avoidance of cultural deposits shall be considered the preferred mitigation option. For in-situ preservation and or re-burial, the boundaries of the resource shall be determined and a setback shall be established between the boundary of cultural deposits and any proposed development; the setback shall be no less than 20 feet and may be larger if necessary to protect the cultural deposits.
v. If human remains are encountered, compliance with applicable State and Federal laws shall be required. Where appropriate and consistent with State and Federal laws, the treatment of remains shall be decided upon consultation with the MLDs and/or Native American monitors. vi. Representatives of Native American groups with documented ancestral ties to the area, as determined by the NAHC, shall also be invited to review and comment on the Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan.
b. Prior to issuance of any coastal development permits, new development projects located within areas designated Coastal Habitat/ Wetlands/Recreation or on other vacant lots shall prepare an Archaeological Research Plan (ARP) that:
i. Includes a detailed plan for archeological research and testing to characterize the potential for archeological resources on the site and to identify and accurately delineate (to the maximum extent practicable and in accordance with current professional archeological practices) any resources that may be discovered during the investigations. 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 70 ends

ii. Addresses the larger cultural and tribal setting of the project area and describe how the project sites fit into this setting. The ARP shall address potential connections between the project site(s) and the broader network of prehistoric villages and resources of tribal people in the Long Beach area. The ARP shall address the value of living resources and the cultural significance for the surrounding sites to tribal communities.
iii. Addresses the likelihood of archeological resources (including burials) being present and what impacts the project may have on unknown archeological resources under the artificial fill.

Additional site testing may also include excavation of test pits and other soil testing methodologies if recommended by the peer review committee. iv. If, during archeological testing, any cultural deposits, including but not limited to skeletal remains and grave-related artifacts, traditional cultural, religious or spiritual sites, midden and lithic material or artifacts, are discovered, they shall not be exposed and the testing shall be immediately halted in this location. Additional testing shall be conducted further from the center of the discovery until sterile conditions are encountered. v. The ARP shall not authorize the excavation of any cultural deposits nor data recovery nor prejudice the ability to comply with applicable State and Federal laws if human remains are encountered. A coastal development permit is required for the ARP to be carried out, prior to any site grading or construction or other development or disturbance to the site. vi. If resources are discovered, significance testing of these resources may be conducted in accordance with best management practices, if the affected Native American tribes agree to significance testing. The ARP shall be revised as appropriate. The range of investigation and mitigation measures considered shall not be constrained by the approved development.

Mitigation measures considered shall range from in-situ preservation to recovery and/or relocation. A good faith effort shall be made to avoid impacts to cultural resources through methods such as, but not limited to, project redesign, capping, and creating an open space area around the cultural resource areas.
vii. The ARP shall be reviewed by an archaeological peer review committee convened in accordance with current professional practice. Representatives of Native American groups with documented ancestral ties to the area, as determined by the NAHC, shall also be invited to review and comment on the ARP.
c. If more specific requirements for a project exist pursuant to an approved coastal development permit, then the conditions of that permit shall supersede the provisions of this section. 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 71

DISCUSSION
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
As discussed under “Existing Conditions,” the office building on-site and the adjacent commercial center across Studebaker Road are not of historic age. The project site is approximately 1.6 miles southeast from the Long Beach Marina Stadium and 0.5 mile south of the Bixby Ranch Field Office at 6433 2nd Street.

Consistent with the PEIR, development on sites designated “Mixed Use Community Core,” such as the project site, are not expected to impact Marine Stadium because these areas are separated by existing development, Marina Drive, and parking areas. The proposed project would be required to comply with the policies, development standards, and design guidelines in the SEASP. Compliance with the SEASP would ensure that the proposed project would not significantly impact views of historic resources. Given the project site’s distance from Long Beach Marina Stadium and Bixby Ranch Field and given that no buildings of historic age are on-site or adjacent to the project site, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to historic resources. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. 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.

Mitigation Measures
As there are no historic resources on or adjacent to the project site, mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 in the MMRP are not applicable to the proposed project. Refer to Appendix A for the full list of mitigation measures associated with the certified PEIR.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
The existing office building on-site includes a subterranean parking garage. It is unlikely that the proposed project would discover unknown archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Nevertheless, and consistent with the certified PEIR, development of the proposed project could unearth unknown archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. The proposed project would be required to incorporate the conditions of approval (see “Existing Conditions” for this topic) 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 (below). Mitigation Measure CUL-5 is not applicable to the proposed project since the project site is developed. Development of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. 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 72 ends

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.

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 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.

Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-3 is applicable to the proposed project.

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 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 73
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.

Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-4 is applicable to the proposed project. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? The existing office building on-site includes a subterranean parking garage. It is unlikely that the proposed project would discover unknown human remains. Nevertheless, development of the proposed project could unearth unknown human remains. The proposed project would be required to incorporate the conditions of approval (see “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 include procedures in the event human remains are discovered, including compliance with applicable state and federal laws and treatment of remains in consultation with the MLDs and/or Native American monitors (where applicable). Additionally, the proposed project would be required to implement applicable mitigation measure from the PEIR (see below). 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.

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.

Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-6 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

Page 74 ends

3.6 ENERGY
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The PEIR did not analyze a standalone energy topic since the energy thresholds were added to the Appendix G checklist after the PEIR was certified. However, the PEIR evaluated the SEASP’s consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations related to greenhouse gas emissions, which includes the approved project’s consistency with Long Beach’s Sustainable City Action Plan (see Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions) and related energy conservation measures. The approved project would also adhere to CALGreen standards, which established energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and overall sustainable design standards. Furthermore, a number of provisions ensured that individual development projects would be designed with energy conservation in mind, such as requirements for energy-efficient outdoor lighting (SEASP 7.2.9) and encouragement for installation of new renewable energy or solar facilities on the project (SEASP 5.7a).

Section 5.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of the PEIR also evaluated energy impacts related to the buildout of the approved project. Although there would be an increase in residential units and nonresidential square feet in each service area of the approved project, the City is already developed and consequently most of the new development would be redevelopment projects. Redevelopment projects would be required to achieve more rigorous energy efficiency standards than preexisting development and would therefore increase energy efficiency. Therefore, the PEIR determined that the cumulative development associated with the SEASP would not result in a significant impact on electricity demands. 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 75
SEASP Project Design Features
The SEASP includes a number of applicable project design features related to reduce energy demands refer to Section 3.2, Air Quality.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is served by both electricity and natural gas connections. Electricity is supplied to the project site via infrastructure maintained by SCE and natural gas is supplied via the City of Long Beach Gas and Oil Department.

Current energy demands are derived from the operation of one two-story office building. Energy demand from the existing land use includes building energy (e.g., electricity used for lighting and natural gas used for heating) and energy demand from vehicle trips. As mentioned in Table 15, current land uses generate approximately 792 average daily trips (Fehr & Peers 2023).

Electricity
The project site is in Southern California Edison (SCE) service area, which spans much of Southern California—from Orange and Riverside counties in the south to Santa Barbara County in the west to Mono County in the north (CEC 2022). Total electricity consumption in SCE’s service area was 103,045 gigawatthours in 2021 (CEC 2023).8 Sources of electricity sold by SCE in 2021, the latest year for which data are available, were:
▪ 31.4 percent renewable, consisting mostly of solar and wind ▪ 2.3 percent large hydroelectric
▪ 22.3 percent natural gas
▪ 9.2 percent nuclear
▪ 0.2 percent other
▪ 34.6 percent unspecified sources—that is, not traceable to specific sources (SCE 2023) 9 Gas
The City of Long Beach Gas and Oil Department provides natural gas throughout the cities of Long Beach, including the project site. The service area of City of Long Beach Gas and Oil Department also serves the cities of Signal Hill in addition to portions of Los Alamitos, Bellflower, Compton, and Los Angeles County (Long Beach 2023).
8 One gigawatt-hour is equivalent to one million kilowatt-hours. 9 The electricity sources listed reflect changes after the 2013 closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which is owned by SCE.
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 76 ends

DISCUSSION
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Short-Term Construction Impacts
Electrical Energy
Development of the proposed project would create temporary increased demands for electricity during construction. Natural gas is not generally required to power construction equipment and therefore is not anticipated during construction activity. It is anticipated that most electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, compressors) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or exacerbated effects compared to what was evaluated in the PEIR.

Transportation Energy
Development of the proposed project would also temporarily increase demands for energy associated with transportation and off-road equipment operation. Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel or gasoline.

The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. It is anticipated that most off-road construction equipment, such as those used during demolition and grading activities, would be diesel powered. Upon completion of project construction, all construction equipment would cease. Furthermore, the construction contractors are anticipated to minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449, to limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption.

In addition, electrical energy would be available for use during construction from existing power lines and connections, which could minimize or avoid the use of generators that are less efficient than tying into existing infrastructure. Construction trips would also not result in unnecessary use of energy since the project site is served by several regional freeway systems (e.g., SR-1 and I-405) that provide the most direct routes from various areas of the region.

Overall, there would be no unusual project characteristics anticipated that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of California. Therefore, short-term construction activities that occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption during construction activities. A less than significant impact would occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or exacerbated effects compared to what was evaluated in the PEIR. The proposed project is within 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 77
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.

Long-Term Impacts During Operation
Operation of the proposed project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, and transportation energy on the project site similar to the energy use associated with the development allowed under the approved project. Operational use of energy would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of the mixed-use building; water heating; operation of electrical systems, use of on-site equipment and appliances; and lighting.

Land uses accommodated under the proposed project would also result in additional demands for transportation fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity) associated with on-road vehicles.

Electrical Energy
Electrical service would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. While the proposed project would result in a new electricity demand, similar to the development allowed under the SEASP, the proposed project would adhere to all applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen requirements. Under the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the proposed mixed-use buildings in the SEASP area would be required to install solar PV systems, which would further reduce the proposed project’s electricity demand on the grid.

Thus, compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of PDF-7 and PDF-8 would minimize wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands associated with the proposed project. PDF-7 encourages certain building orientation for improved energy efficiency to capture day lighting, and PDF-8 encourages other mechanisms to provide energy-efficient lighting in the SEASP. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or exacerbated effects compared to what was evaluated in the PEIR.

Natural Gas Energy
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a new natural gas demand, for example, the proposed project would include natural gas water and pool heaters, barbeques, and firepits. However, similar to the approved project, compliance with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen requirements would contribute in minimizing natural gas demands. Overall, as stated above, newer buildings accommodated under the proposed project would be more energy efficient compared to the existing buildings that would be replaced. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to natural gas usage, and the proposed project would not result in new or exacerbated effects compared to what was evaluated in 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 78 ends

Transportation Energy
The proposed project would consume transportation energy during operations from the use of motor vehicles associated with residents, visitors, and employees. The efficiency of these motor vehicles is unknown—such as the average miles per gallon—estimates of transportation energy use are based on the overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and related transportation energy use.

Based on the transportation report, the proposed project would generate a net increase of 437 daily trips and would increase transportation energy demand (Fehr & Peers 2023). However, project design features would contribute to minimizing transportation-related fuel usage by incorporating transportation demand management strategies, encouraging bicycling as an alternative transportation mode, and ensuring pedestrian accessibility. Furthermore, the proposed project would involve the construction of a mixed-use building of up to 281 multifamily dwelling units and 3,100 square feet of commercial space that would provide more housing and employment opportunities in the City. The proposed project’s location near other commercial uses and bicycle parking on-site supports multimodal transportation, which reduces the need for vehicle trips.

These features and aspects of the proposed project would contribute to minimizing VMT and transportationrelated fuel usage. Thus, it is expected that operation-related fuel usage associated with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than similar development projects allowed under the approved project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with respect to operation-related fuel usage.

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.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The PEIR determined that the approved project would not conflict with Long Beach’s Sustainability City Action Plan and no impact would occur.

The state’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The RPS goals have been updated since adoption of SB 1078 in 2002. In general, California has RPS requirements of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 (SB X1-2), 40 percent by 2024 (SB 350), 50 percent by 2026 (SB 100), 60 percent by 2030 (SB 100), 90 percent by 2035 (SB 1020), and 100 percent carbon free by 2045 (SB 100 and SB 1020).

SB 100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned utilities that consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. SB 1020 requires zero-carbon resources to reach 100 percent clean electricity by 2045. The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of transitioning to renewable energy. 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 79
Similar to the SEASP, the land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be required to comply with the current Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which would include requirements for rooftop solar.

Additionally, the proposed project’s design features would include EnergyStar appliances, installation of bicycle parking stalls, improvement 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 reduce energy demand. As demonstrated in Table 9 and 10 within Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the design and orientation of the proposed project would ensure consistency with the GHG reduction and energy efficiency measures and strategies in the City’s CAAP. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS program.

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Issues

42. Less than
Significant
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 80 ends

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?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than
Significant
Impact
no no no no
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Less than
Significant
Impact
no no no no
iv) Landslides? No Impact. no no no no
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than
Significant
Impact
no no no no
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than
Significant
Impact
no No no no
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than
Significant
Impact
no No no no
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
No Impact. no No no no
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
no No no no

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The SEASP area falls within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone of the Newport-Inglewood Fault. With adherence to the state and local regulations, impacts resulting from an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone are not anticipated to occur, and impacts would be less than significant.

The SEASP is within a seismically active region—three historical earthquakes in the region caused fatalities and extensive property damage. Most of the SEASP area is within a liquefaction zone, and possible geotechnical hazards include liquefaction and lateral spreading. Construction within the SEASP would need to comply with applicable provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) and California Residential 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

3. Environmental Analysis
April 2023 Page 81
(CRC). Future development projects that would be accommodated by the SEASP would be required to have site-specific geotechnical investigation reports. With compliance with CBC, CRC, the design parameters, and recommendations of the geotechnical investigation report (which would be required as a condition of a grading permit and/or building permit, and would be ensured by the City’s Development Services Department during the development review and building plan check process), impacts resulting from strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and lateral spreading would be less than significant.

The SEASP area is generally flat with no significant slopes. The SEASP area is not within an area susceptible to landslides. Therefore, no impacts related to landslides are anticipated.

Soil erosion and loss of topsoil were evaluated in Chapter 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the certified PEIR. The PEIR determined that drainage patterns would largely be maintained and would utilize the existing drainage facilities within the public right of way. As discussed under 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, below, the potential extension of Shopkeeper Road would require volume and peak flow mitigation to match existing (prebuilt) conditions. On-site storm drain systems would likely change with the individual project components but would still utilize the existing city and county facilities in the public right-of-way.

Implementation of the SEASP would not result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

Development under the SEASP could subject persons and structures to hazards arising from collapsible soils, ground subsidence, or expansive soils by placing buildings on soils subject to subsidence, collapse, or expansion. Compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical reports is required as a condition of a grading permit and/or building permit and would be ensured by the City’s Development Services Department during the development review and building plan check process. As a result, impacts related to subsidence, collapsible soils, or expansive soils are less than significant.

Developments within the SEASP area would be required to connect to the City’s existing sewer lines and wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact related to septic tanks would occur.

Five paleontological specimens have been recorded within or near the SEASP area. Based on the older Quaternary Alluvial deposits underlying the SEASP area and recorded vertebrate fossils, the SEASP area is considered sensitive for paleontological resources. Grading and excavations deeper than the existing development areas and previously disturbed areas have the potential to impact significant fossils.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, is based in part on the following technical report:
▪ Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Mixed-Use Apartment Development 6700 East Pacific Coast Highway Long Beach, California, Geotechnical Professionals Inc. (GPI), July 29, 2022. (A complete copy of this report is included in the Appendix D.)
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 82 ends

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone of the Newport-Inglewood Fault runs through land designated Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation approximately 0.3 mile to the northeast of the project site. The project site is not within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

A geotechnical investigation was prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix D). The site slopes downward from the northeast to the southwest, with ground surface elevations ranging from approximately +20 to +9 feet. The project site slopes upward to Pacific Coast Highway by 6 to 8 feet from the at-grade parking within the project site when approaching the San Gabriel River. The San Gabriel River consists of a sloped channel with riprap revetment. An access road for City vehicles separates the riprap revetment and the property limits of the project site. The subsurface profile of the project site includes approximately 5 feet of undocumented fill soils overlaying natural soils. The fill soils consist of sandy silts and silty sands in borings.

In general, the moisture contents of these soils is moist to wet. The fine-grained soils are generally firm to stiff, and the sandy soils are loose to medium dense. The natural soils encountered below the undocumented fill soils consist of interbedded silty sands, sandy silts, clayey silts, silty clays, and clays to a depth of approximately 35 feet, and silty sands, sands, clayey silts, silty clays, and clayey sands from 35 feet to the 100- foot depth explored. In general, the near-surface, finer-grained soils were soft to stiff, and the sandy soils were medium dense. At depths greater than 35 to 50 feet, the finer-grained soils were firm to hard, and the sandy soils were dense to very dense. Groundwater was encountered as shallow as 9 feet below existing grade and ranged between 11 to 13 feet below existing grade, correlating with the tidal level in the San Gabriel River. Historical high groundwater levels are mapped to approximately 10 feet below the ground surface by the State of California in the vicinity of the project site (GPI 2022).

Like the SEASP area, the project site is in a seismically active region and is subject to ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and ground subsidence. There is potential for liquefaction-induced seismic settlement to adversely impact buildings. Layers of silty and sandy soil between depths of 9 to 60 feet below existing grade exhibit a significant potential for liquefaction from a design earthquake. The geotechnical investigation implements a number of recommendations, such as deep foundations and large-diameter piles.

Rupture due to faulting is considered unlikely at the project site since no faults run through the site.

Additionally, the project site is generally flat and the area around the project site is generally flat.

The SEASP states that the entire SEASP area is sensitive for paleontological resources. The SEASP incorporates policies and conditions of approval for new development (see Mitigation Measure CUL-3 in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources).
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
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 83
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
As discussed above under “SEASP PEIR Summary” and “Existing Conditions,” the project site would not be subject to surface rupture nor landslides. The project site would be subject to ground shaking and potential ground failure (such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, and subsidence) (GPI 2022). Consistent with the PEIR, a geotechnical study was prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix D). The proposed project would be required to comply with CBC, CRC, and the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation.

Compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation report would be required as a condition of a grading permit and/or building permit and would be ensured by the City’s Development Services Department during the development review and building plan check process. Compliance with state and local regulations and the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation would ensure that impacts are 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. 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) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Construction Phase
Site clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the proposed project may generate erosion of exposed soils. Grading activities in particular lead to exposed areas of loose soil as well as sediment stockpiles that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow. However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements, such as adhering to current the Construction General Permit (CGP) and associated local National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations to ensure that the potential for soil erosion is minimized. In accordance with the CGP, a construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared and implemented at all construction projects with one acre or greater of soil disturbance, and revised as necessary, as administrative or physical conditions change. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the SWPPP would be prepared in accordance with the site specific sediment risk analyses based on the grading plans, with erosion and sediment controls proposed for each phase of construction for the proposed project. The SWPPP will require the implementation of best management practices (BMP) during construction. Further, the LBMC further regulates erosion during construction (e.g., Chapter 8.96, Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control, and Chapter 18.75, Grading, Exactions and Fills). Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would reduce impacts from erosion and the loss of topsoil during construction. Additionally, the potential extension of Shopkeeper Road, which is to the northeast of the project site, is not a part of the proposed project. 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 84 ends

Operation Phase
The proposed project would introduce more impervious surfaces to the project site compared to existing conditions. Pervious surfaces on the project site would be landscaped. Therefore, the operation of the proposed project would not generate exposed soil, which could lead to erosion. Operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with the LBMC, the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, and incorporate low impact development (LID)/site design and source control BMPs to address post-construction stormwater runoff management.

A Hydrology and LID Report was prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix F). Stormwater runoff from the proposed project would be collected via roof drains and area drains and conveyed to 15 planter boxes on the ground and podium levels with an area totaling to 6,149 square feet. Stormwater generated by the proposed project would be adequately retained on-site (LFA 2023).

Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 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.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
As discussed in threshold (a), the project site would not be subject to surface rupture nor landslides. The project site would be subject to ground shaking and potential ground failure (such as liquefaction, lateral spreading and subsidence) (GPI 2022). Consistent with the PEIR, the proposed project would be subject to the CBC regulations and provisions, as adopted in Title 18, Long Beach Building Standards Code, of the LBMC and enforced by the City during plan review prior to building permit issuance. The CBC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition, and also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement the site-specific recommendations in its geotechnical investigation. The impacts of the proposed project as they relate to unstable soils or ground would be consistent with the conclusions in the PEIR and remain 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. 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 85
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils can undergo dramatic changes in volume in response to variations in soil moisture content.

When wet, these soils can expand; conversely, when dry, they can contract or shrink. Sources of moisture that can trigger this shrink-swell phenomenon and include seasonal rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, and/or perched groundwater. Expansive soil can develop wide cracks in the dry season, and changes in soil volume have the potential to damage concrete slabs, foundations, and pavement. Special building/structure design or soil treatment are often needed in areas with expansive soils.

The proposed project would be subject to the CBC regulations and provisions, as adopted in Title 18, Long Beach Building Standards Code, of the LBMC and enforced by the City during plan review prior to building permit issuance. The CBC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition, and also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control.

Further, the proposed project would be required to implement the site-specific recommendations outlined in its geotechnical investigation. The impacts of the proposed project as they relate to expansive soils would be consistent with the conclusions in the PEIR and remain 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. 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. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? As with the PEIR, the proposed project would connect to existing sewer lines, and septic tanks are not proposed. No impact would occur. 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.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The existing office building on-site includes a subterranean parking garage, so the project site has been previously disturbed. The project site is fully developed with the office building, surface parking, and landscaping; no unique geologic features exist on-site. It is unlikely that the proposed project would discover unknown paleontological resources. Nevertheless, development of the proposed project could unearth unknown paleontological resources. The proposed project would be required to incorporate the conditions of approval (outlined above under “Existing Conditions” under Section 3.5, Cultural Resources) that would require the preparation and implementation of an Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the protection of archaeological/ paleontological resources during project grading and construction activities, and which would be prepared by a qualified professional. Additionally, the proposed project would be 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 86 ends

implement mitigation measure CUL-3 from the PEIR. Development of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 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.

Mitigation Measure
Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-3.

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The PEIR determined that the approved project would create a net increase in operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would exceed the South Coast AQMD’s draft bright-line screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions (MTCO2e) for all land use types. The increase in overall land use intensity and associated population and employment growth within the SEASP’s boundaries were the primary factors for the increase in overall GHG emissions. Additionally, the buildout of the SEASP would not meet the South Coast AQMD Year 2035 target efficiency metric of 2.2 MTCO2e/year/service population based on the long-term GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders (EO) S-03-05 and B-30-15. At the time there were no additional GHG reduction programs to aid the state in achieving the post-2020 targets identified in EOs S-03-05 or B-30-15. Therefore, the PEIR determined 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
April 2023 Page 87
the approved project’s cumulative contribution to long-term GHG emissions in the state would be potentially significant. The PEIR included mitigation measures AQ-4 through AQ-6 and PDF-1 through PDF-9 to reduce GHG emissions. However, since there were no additional statewide measures to achieve the longterm, statewide GHG reduction goals, operational GHG emission impacts were significant and unavoidable.

The PEIR determined that the SEASP would be consistent with the statewide programs adopted to achieve the statewide GHG reduction targets outlined in the CARB Scoping Plan, the three primary transportationland use strategies outlined in the SCAG’S Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the applicable goals in the City of Long Beach’s Climate Action and Adaption Plan (CAAP).

Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.

SEASP Project Design Features
The SEASP includes a number of project design features related to reduce energy demands refer to Section

3.2, Air Quality.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing two-story office building generates GHG emissions from transportation sources, energy (natural gas and purchased energy), and area sources (consumer products and cleaning supplies), water use/wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal. Current land uses generate approximately 792 average daily trips (Fehr & Peers 2023).

SEASP Project Design Features
The PEIR includes the following project design features that apply to the proposed project, in addition to the SEASP as a whole related to reduce GHG emissions. Other project design features (see Chapter 5.4 of the PEIR) apply to the SEASP area as whole.
▪ PDF-1: Reduction of Peak Hour Trips, Transportation Management Association (TMA): The City shall establish a TMA with authority to implement strategies pertaining to trip reduction through transportation demand management (TDM). Responsibilities of the TMA shall include, but are not limited to:
o Operation of all shared parking subject to the TMA program. o Real-time information and other wayfinding mechanisms. o Coordinating and offering programs to provide biking, walking, and other trip reduction strategies. o Data collection.

The TMA shall actively engage existing and future parking lot and garage owners to lease, sell, or make spaces publicly accessible in order to be added to the district’s pool of shared parking. ▪ 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:
o 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.
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 88 ends

o Submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to the Director of Development Services, or his/her designee.
▪ PDF-4: Pedestrian Network: Many streets in the SEASP area currently do not have sidewalks or only have sidewalks on one side of the street. Figure 6-1 in the Specific Plan shows the network of proposed sidewalk connections. Pedestrian connections shall be developed in coordination and pursuant to the standard of Chapter 7, Design Standards and Guidelines, of the Specific Plan. The addition of sidewalks and/or boardwalk are proposed along Pacific Coast Highway, Channel Drive, Studebaker Road, 2nd Street, Marina Drive, and streets internal to development that will occur in the Specific Plan area. In addition to providing more sidewalks, the Specific Plan recommends “breaking-up” the long block lengths in the SEASP area into shorter blocks to provide more connectivity and make it easier for pedestrians to comfortably navigate an area. Midblock crossings are proposed across Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to areas designated as Community Core. Lastly, to limit exposure and increase safety for pedestrians crossing the street, curb extensions are also envisioned at crossings, possibly along Marina Drive or Studebaker Road as a transition into the mixed-use areas. ▪ PDF-6: Traffic Light Synchronization: Traffic signal timing at intersections along the Pacific Coast Highway are controlled by Caltrans and the City of Long Beach. To better coordinate progression of traffic signals in the area, the SEASP identifies the following options:
o Enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to maintain the signals. o Have Caltrans relinquish sections of their facility to the City, so that the City can update the equipment and maintain the signals.
o Work with Caltrans on a comprehensive signal timing program that is implemented to coordinate and maintain timing s, including hardware to ensure that the signal clocks do not drift from one another. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Implementation of a development project could contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHGs from on-site area sources and vehicle trips generated by the project, and indirectly through off-site energy production required for on-site activities, water use, and waste disposal. Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG emissions, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis.

Long Beach Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, allows for lead agencies to analyze and mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions at a programmatic level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), later project specific environmental documents may 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 89
tier from and/or incorporate by reference the GHG reduction plan so long as it includes the following plan elements:
▪ Quantifies greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area.
▪ Establishes a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable. ▪ Identifies and analyzes the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area.
▪ Specifies measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level.
▪ Establishes a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels. ▪ Is adopted in a public process following environmental review.

The City adopted its CAAP in August 2022 to aid in reducing GHG emissions and better adapt to climate change impacts (Long Beach 2022b). The CAAP also includes the City’s community-wide GHG inventory and climate vulnerability assessment, which provided fundamental local data to develop the CAAP actions.

This comprehensive planning document will help the City comply with various local, regional, state, and federal regulations to significantly reduce GHG emissions. The City’s near-term target to reduce per-servicepopulation emissions (i.e., residents plus employees) from 4.48 MTCO2e per service population in 2015 to

3.04 MTCO2e per service population in 2030 was selected based on CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. The longterm 2045 emission target was set to achieve citywide net carbon neutrality consistent with EO B-55-18. The CAAP has been incorporated into the Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element update to meet the requirements of SB 379, which states that cities or counties must include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in their general plans to ensure the safety and protection of their communities.

The CAAP identified that with implementation of the GHG reduction measures and State reduction efforts, the City’s GHG emissions would be met and slightly exceed the 2030 target with an estimated 2.78 MTCO2e per service population. However, the City would not achieve its 2045 emissions target and would require additional action to achieve its ambitious carbon neutrality goal. The City’s CAAP is a qualified GHG reduction plan for near-term projects under SB 32. Although the City’s CAAP was adopted prior to AB 1279 in September 2022, it provides a pathway to be on a trajectory to achieve these long-range targets.

Demonstrate Consistency with CAAP GHG Emission Reduction Actions All projects must demonstrate consistency with the City’s General Plan, evaluate if the proposed project screens out of the CAAP Action Consistency checklist, and demonstrate consistency with CAAP GHG Emission Reduction Actions or document why the strategies or measures are not applicable/infeasible. Given 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 90 ends

the project’s size and service population, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a MTCO2e/service population greater than 1.4, which is the screening criteria. For this reason, the proposed project is required to show compliance with CAAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist. The City’s CAAP Action Consistency Checklist is drawn from Appendix D of the CAAP EIR (Long Beach 2022c), and are presented below in Table 9, City of Long Beach CAAP Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist. Table 9 shows that the proposed project is consistent with City’s CAAP Action Consistency checklist.

Table 9 City of Long Beach CAAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist Applicable Reduction Objectives and Actions Consistency Analysis General Plan and 2019 Land Use Element Consistency

1. The Project is Consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Element.

The growth projections outlined in the 2019 General Plan Land Use Element were used in the City’s CAAP to estimate citywide GHG emissions over time.

Therefore, new development projects must be consistent with the Land Use Element to be consistent with the CAAP. In order for City staff to determine a project’s consistency with the Land Use Element, please answer the following question and provide explanation with supporting documentation.

Is the proposed project consistent with the existing land use designation of the 2019 Land Use Element?
If “Yes,” proceed to the “CAAP Action Consistency” section below.

If “No,” proceed to Item 2.

Consistent. The Land Use Element of the General Plan
designates the project site as Regional-Serving Facility with the SEASP distinction, which means that the SEASP guides development on the project site.10 The SEASP designates the project site as Mixed-Use Community Core. The
proposed project is the type of project envisioned for MixedUse Community Core General Plan land use designation.

The proposed project includes a mixed-use project on a site designed as Mixed Use- Community Core. The SEASP
provides development standards and design guidelines and standards for development within its boundaries. As
discussed throughout this Compliance Checklist, the
proposed project is consistent with the SEASP and the MUCC land use designation.

Because the proposed project is consistent with this criterion, this analysis proceeds to the “CAAP Action Consistency” portion of the CAAP Checklist, as instructed.

CAAP Action Consistency
Building Energy

1. TIER 1: Zero-Carbon Electricity
For all projects except heavy industry (but including light industrial projects), the project must utilize 100% zero-carbon electricity onsite. The project must comply with one of the following options:

1. Install on-site renewable energy systems or participate in a community solar program to supply 100% of the project’s estimated energy demand to the maximum extent feasible.

2. Participate in Southern California Edison at the Green Rate level (i.e., 100% carbon-free electricity) for all electricity accounts associated with the project until which time SCE provides 100% carbon-free electricity for all accounts by default.

3. A combination of #1 and #2 above such that 100% of the project’s electricity Consistent. The proposed project would adhere to all
applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen requirements, which established energy
efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, and overall sustainable design standards. Additionally, similar to the SEASP, the proposed project would implement PDF-7
and PDF-8 to minimize wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands (refer to Section 3.3, Air Quality, for a list of applicable project design features).

Redevelopment projects would be required to achieve more rigorous energy efficiency standards than preexisting
development and would therefore increase energy efficiency.

For example, under the Building Energy Efficiency
Standards, the proposed mixed-use buildings in the SEASP 10 The 2019 Land Use Element has not been certified by the California Coastal Commission. Reference to Regional-Serving Facility is mentioned here based on the threshold. Nevertheless, the SEASP has been certified by the City and the Coastal Commission and is the applicable land use designation for the project site. 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 91
Table 9 City of Long Beach CAAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist Applicable Reduction Objectives and Actions Consistency Analysis is zero-carbon.

Supports CAAP Measures: BE-1, BE-2, BE-3
area could be required to install solar PV systems, which would further reduce the proposed project’s electricity demand on the grid. Furthermore, the proposed project
would be designed with energy conservation in mind by
implementing SEASP design requirements such as energyefficient outdoor lighting (SEASP 7.2.9). Lastly, the proposed project would be required to implement the PEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-4, as modified, which requires the proposed
project to initially enroll in a 100 percent renewable electricity service, such as Southern California Edison’s Green Rate program. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this criterion.

2. TIER 1: MUNICIPAL PROJECTS ONLY: Reduce Energy Use and Supply the Project with Renewable Electricity
The Project must incorporate the following design elements to the maximum extent feasible:

1. Incorporate strategic energy management programs to reduce building energy demands.

2. Energy efficiency design features to reduce electricity and natural gas energy use beyond Title 24 Building Energy requirements.

3. Install on-site renewable energy systems, such as rooftop solar PV.

4. Participate in Southern California Edison at the Green Rate level (i.e., 100% carbon-free electricity) for all electricity accounts associated with the project until which time SCE provides 100% carbon-free electricity for all accounts by default.

Supports CAAP Measures: BE-6
Not Applicable. The proposed project is a mixed‐use
development with a total of 281 apartment units (including 13 apartment units reserved for very low income affordable housing) and 3,100 square feet of ground‐floor retail.

Therefore, the proposed project is not a municipal project, and this checklist item does not apply to the proposed
project.

3. TIER 1: Comply with all City building energy codes and ordinances The Project must comply with all applicable City building energy codes and ordinances at the time of project approval. This includes, but is not limited to, any requirements for electrification, energy use intensity factors, zero-netenergy construction, CalGreen Tier 2 or other energy measures, or LEED requirements.

Supports CAAP Measures: BE-7
Consistent. The proposed project would adhere to all
applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen requirements. Additionally, the proposed project’s design features would include EnergyStar appliances,
implementation of lighting that would comply with SEASP design guidelines to reduce light and glare, and a new PV system as required by the Building Energy Efficiency
Standards to reduce energy demand. The proposed project would be consistent with this action.

4. TIER 2: Building Energy Efficiency
This action applies only to projects that include a retrofit of an existing building. If the proposed project does not include a retrofit, select “Not Applicable” in the Project Conformance column.

Projects are encouraged to incorporate energy efficiency measures into the design, which can reduce carbon emissions while also reducing future operational costs through the following:

1. Incorporate strategic energy management programs to reduce building energy demands.

2. Conduct an energy audit or benchmarking analysis to identify potential energy savings opportunities and implement such opportunities.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would demolish and replace the existing two-story office building with a sevenlevel mixed‐use development. The proposed project is not retrofitting an existing building. This action is not applicable. 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 92 ends

Table 9 City of Long Beach CAAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist Applicable Reduction Objectives and Actions Consistency Analysis

3. Achieve CalGreen Tier 2 or voluntary building energy measures as they apply to the retrofit.

4. Reduce or eliminate the use of natural gas in place of electricity use (i.e., replace existing natural gas appliances with electric alternatives)

5. Replace existing appliances with higher-efficiency models

6. Install high-efficiency appliances/fixtures to reduce water use, and/or include water-efficient landscape design

7. Participate in SoCalREN, SCE, or other energy efficiency programs

8. Conduct other energy efficiency retrofits

9. Achieve zero-net-energy
Supports CAAP Measures: BE-4, BE-5
Waste

5. TIER 1: Recyclable Materials Recycling
The project must comply with all state and local requirements for recycling, also including but not limited to, Chapter 8.60 Solid Waste, Recycling, and Litter Prevention and Organic Waste Disposal Reduction in the City’s Municipal code. The project must also:

1. Comply with all Mandatory Construction & Demolition (C&D) Recycling Program Requirements, including Section 18.67.100.

2. Provide substantial storage, collection, and loading of recyclables in a manner that is convenient and safe for all users of the building. Ensure there are sufficient sizes and amount of collection containers for recyclables.

Containers must be kept clean, be clearly labeled, and are co-located next to any other solid waste receptacles. Ensure sufficient pick up of collection containers to meet the needs of the occupants.

3. Ensure that all projects include space for multi-stream collection containers in any location where a solid waste container is traditionally housed. This includes both outdoor collection containers serviced by a waste hauler or indoor collection containers utilized by occupants. The project must provide educational material and training to occupants and tenants in how to properly separate recyclables from all other solid waste and place recyclables in a separate container designated for recycling.

4. Ensure that all project occupants and tenants separate recyclables from all other refuse and place recyclables in a separate container designated for recycling.

5. Ensure containers are audited annually to ensure proper service levels and to check for contamination. Report findings back to occupants within 30 days and to the City as requested.

6. Work with waste hauler to provide educational material to tenants at least on an annual basis.

7. Provide compliance data to the City as required for any current auditing program.

Supports CAAP Measures: W-1
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
comply with the Mandatory Construction & Demolition
Recycling Program Requirements as stated in Long Beach’s Municipal Code (LBMC) Chapter 18.67, which would divert at least 65 percent of all generated construction and demolition waste by salvage or transfer to an approved facility.

Additionally, Section 18.67.100, Compliance with CALGreen Recycling Requirements, would require the proposed project to provide readily accessible areas for storage and adequate space for recycling on the premise.

The applicant is also required to complete a Waste
Management Plan to ensure maximum amount of
construction and demolition waste to be diverted. The
proposed project would be consistent with the action.

6. TIER 1: Organics Composting
The project must comply with all state and local requirements for composting Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
comply with the state and local requirements as stated in LBMC Chapter 8.60, Solid Waste, Recycling, and Litter
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 93
Table 9 City of Long Beach CAAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist Applicable Reduction Objectives and Actions Consistency Analysis and organic waste collection, including but not limited to, Chapter 8.60 Solid Waste, Recycling, and Litter Prevention and Organic Waste Disposal Reduction in the City’s Municipal code. The project must also:

1. Provide proper storage, collection, and loading of organics in a manner that is convenient and safe for all users of the building. Ensure there are sufficient sizes of collection containers for organics. Containers must be kept clean, be clearly labeled, and are co-located next to any other solid waste receptacles.

Ensure sufficient pick up of collection containers to meet the needs of the occupants.

2. Ensure that all projects include space for multi-stream collection containers for both recycling and organics in any location where a solid waste container is traditionally housed. This includes both outdoor collection containers serviced by a waste hauler or indoor collection containers utilized by occupants. The project must provide educational material and training to occupants and tenants in how to properly separate organics from all other solid waste and place organics in a separate container designated for organics.

3. Ensure that all project occupants and tenants will separate compostables from all other refuse and place compostables in a separate container designated for composting.

4. Ensure containers are audited annually to ensure proper service levels and to check for contamination. Report findings back to occupants within 30 days and to the City as requested.

5. Work with waste hauler to provide educational material to tenants at least on an annual basis.

6. Provide compliance data to the City as required for any current auditing program.

Supports CAAP Measures: W-2, W-3
Prevention and Organic Waste Disposal Reduction.

As stated in Section 8.60.370, Mandatory organic waste
disposal reduction, the proposed project would automatically be enrolled to a collection service(s), participate in organic waste collection services, and supply adequate number of collection containers with sufficient labels. The proposed project would provide adequate disposal containers for trash, recycling, and compost. The materials would be collected by the City garbage waste hauler. The proposed project would be consistent with this action.

7. TIER 2: Incorporate On-site Composting, Mulching, and/or Anaerobic Digestion
The project may incorporate organic waste processing capabilities, such as composting, mulching, or anaerobic digestion facilities (where applicable).

Collaborate with agencies to share organic processing information with interested parties.

Supports CAAP Measures: W-4
Not Applicable. The proposed project would develop a
mixed‐use development with a total of 281 apartment units (including 13 apartment units reserved for very low income affordable housing) and 3,100 square feet of ground‐floor retail.

As stated previously under “TIER 1: Organics Composting”, the proposed project would be required to comply with the state and local requirements described in LBMC Chapter 8.60, Solid Waste, Recycling, and Litter Prevention and Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, to ensure proper organic waste
processing.

The proposed project would implement required organics
composting measures required under TIER 1. As discussed in Appendix D of the CAAP EIR (Long Beach 2022c), Tier 2
requirements are encouraged for all discretionary projects to the maximum extent feasible, but are not required to
demonstrate consistency with the CAAP.

Transportation
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 94 ends

Table 9 City of Long Beach CAAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist Applicable Reduction Objectives and Actions Consistency Analysis

8. TIER 2: Meets Transportation Screening Criteria Does the project meet one of the following transportation screening criteria?

1. Is the project located in a Transit Priority Area or High Quality Transit Area?

2. Does the project include local-serving retail (e.g., grocery stores, pharmacies, or restaurants) less than 50,000 square feet?

3. Does the project include 100 percent affordable housing units (excluding the Manager’s unit)?

4. Will the project result in less than 110 total daily vehicle trips at full buildout?
If “Yes,” skip checklist items #9 though #14 and proceed to checklist item #15 (Comply with the City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines) below.

If “No,” proceed to checklist item #6 below.

Supports CAAP Measures: T-1, T-2, T-3, T-5, T-6, T-7, T-8, T-9 Consistent. The proposed project would replace the existing building with a seven-level mixed‐use development with a total of 281 apartment units (including 13 apartment units reserved for very low income affordable housing) and 3,100 square feet of ground‐floor retail. Since the proposed project meets the transportation screening criteria of including ground floor retail less than 50,000 square feet, this
consistency analysis would not need to cover checklist items #9 to #14 (items #9 to #14 are not included in this table).

As discussed in Appendix D of the CAAP EIR (Long Beach
2022c), Tier 2 requirements are encouraged for all
discretionary projects to the maximum extent feasible but are not required to demonstrate consistency with the CAAP.

15. TIER 2: High-Density, Mixed-Use, Transit-Oriented, Walkable Infill Project Design
Projects should maximize the following characteristics whenever feasible:

1. Located in a transit priority area or transit corridor

2. Includes local-serving retail (e.g., grocery stores, pharmacies, or restaurants)

3. Includes 100 percent affordable housing units or an otherwise high level of affordable housing as defined by the City for the project site

4. Includes a mix of land uses

5. Includes shared and reduced parking strategies, such as shared parking facilities, carpool/vanpool-only spaces, shuttle facilities, EV-only spaces, and reduced parking below allowable amount

6. Does not provide more parking than required
Supports CAAP Measures: T-6, T-8
Consistent. Although the proposed project is not located within a transit priority area or transit corridor, the proposed mixed-use development would provide a total of 281
apartment units (including 13 apartment units reserved for very low income affordable housing) and 3,100 square feet of ground‐floor retail. Additionally, the proposed project would implement electric vehicle charging and energy efficiency design consistent with PEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-5 and AQ-6. Electric vehicle charging shall be provided as specified in Section A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code and preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided in CALGreen Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures). The proposed project would also provide
adequate bicycle parking as specified in CALGreen Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) to promote
nonvehicular transportation options.

The proposed project would support this item. As discussed in Appendix D of the CAAP EIR (Long Beach 2022c), Tier 2 requirements are encouraged for all discretionary projects to the maximum extent feasible but are not required to
demonstrate consistency with the CAAP.

Source: Long Beach, 2022b.
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 95
Consistency with City’s CAAP Adaptation Actions
All projects must demonstrate consistency with the CAAP Adaptation Actions or document why the strategies are not applicable/infeasible. A project could result in a potentially significant GHG emissions impact if found inconsistent with the applicable CAAP Adaptation Actions. Table 10, Consistency Analysis with the City of Long Beach CAAP Actions, shows how the proposed project is consistent with the applicable CAAP Adaptation Actions.

Table 10 Consistency Analysis with the City of Long Beach CAAP Actions Applicable CAAP Adaptation Action Consistency Requirement Consistency Analysis Extreme Heat (EH)

1. Incorporate Cool Roofs, Cool Walls, Reflective Streets, Cool Surfaces, and Shade Canopies
The project incorporates the following features into its design, but not less than the California Energy Code:

1. Cool roofs and/or walls in place of dark roofs and/or conventional walls

2. Cool pavements and reflective street materials

3. Shade canopy installations

4. Other heat island mitigation design features
Supports CAAP Measures: EH-1, EH-2
Consistent. The proposed project would adhere to all applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen requirements. Additionally, the new open space would have shade structures and cabana/umbrellas installed. Therefore, the proposed project would support this CAAP Adaptation Action.

2. Incorporate Tree Plantings and Expands Urban Forest
Cover
The project enhances and expands urban forest cover and vegetation by planting trees and other vegetation. All trees and vegetation planted must be drought-tolerant or California native trees & plants.

Supports CAAP Measures: EH-3
Consistent. As described in in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, the proposed project would plant street trees along Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road. The proposed project would comply with the provisions of the LBMC Chapter 14.28, Trees and Shrubs, which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in the city. Implementation of PDF-9 would also require landscaping to be drought tolerant and feature native wetland plants. Therefore, the proposed project would support this CAAP Adaptation Action.

3. Incorporate Bus Shelter Amenities
For any project that includes the installation of a new bus shelter, the project must include bus shelter amenities such as shade structures.

Supports CAAP Measures: EH-7
Not Applicable. The proposed project would develop a mixed-use building with outdoor common open space, landscaping and passive open spaces, and parking stalls for vehicles and bicycles. The proposed project would not install a new bus shelter, and therefore this CAAP Adaptation Action is not applicable to the proposed project.

Air Quality (AQ)

4. Install Photocatalytic Tiles
The project includes the installation of photocatalytic tiles on outdoor surfaces, particularly in areas of the City with the poorest air quality.

Supports CAAP Measures: AQ-1
Consistent. While the proposed project does not specifically include photocatalytic tiles on outdoor surfaces, the proposed project would adhere to all applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen requirements. The proposed project’s design would not preclude the future use of photocatalytic tiles, and the exterior materials would be required to meet specific insulation performance standards established in the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Additionally, the proposed project’s design features would include EnergyStar appliances, implementation of lighting that would comply with SEASP design guidelines to reduce light and glare, and a new PV system 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 96 ends

Table 10 Consistency Analysis with the City of Long Beach CAAP Actions Applicable CAAP Adaptation Action Consistency Requirement Consistency Analysis as required by the Building Energy Efficiency Standards to reduce energy demand. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this CAAP Adaptation Action.

5. Include Urban Agriculture
The project includes urban agriculture in the form of community or private gardens.

Supports CAAP Measures: AQ-2
Not Applicable. The City is the responsible party for this measure. As mentioned in Section 3.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the proposed project would not convert farmland, forest land, nor timberland to nonagricultural uses. Additionally, proposed project would plant street trees, develop landscaping along the San Gabriel River and on the project site’s grounds, and include development of a multipurpose lawn. This CAAP Adaptation Action is not applicable to the proposed project.

6. Use Electric Lawn and Garden Equipment, Outdoor Power Equipment, and Other Small Equipment
The project prohibits the use of gasoline-powered small equipment, including lawn and garden equipment and outdoor power equipment, for all tenants and owners. The project provides educational materials to tenants regarding the SCAQMD Electric Lawn and Garden Equipment Incentive and Exchange Program, Commercial Lawn & Garden Battery Buy-Down Rebate Program, and Residential Lawn Mower Rebate Program as well as the new requirements of AB1346.

This requirement must be stipulated in the contract specifications for the project’s future tenants and any landscaping contracts for the property or tenants.

Supports CAAP Measures: AQ-4
Consistent. The proposed project would result in the development and operation of a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, which would result in the occupancy of the project site by residents, workers, and visitors that could use gasoline-powered small outdoor equipment. PEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would require the use of electric-powered small outdoor equipment and ensure that tenant and landscaping contracts include this provision. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this CAAP Adaptation Action.

Drought (DRT)

7. Implement Water Use Efficiency and Water Conservation The project incorporates water use efficiency and conservation measures, including:

1. CalGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 voluntary water conservation measures

2. Low-flow or high-efficiency water fixtures

3. Water-efficient landscapes with lower water demands than required by the DWR 2015 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO)

4. Drought-tolerant and native plant species only

5. Other applicable strategies to reduce water use
Supports CAAP Measures: DRT-1
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of the most current CALGreen Code, which contains requirements for indoor water use reduction and site irrigation conservation. Additionally, development projects in the SEASP area are required to implement water-efficient landscaping and low impact development standards, consistent with the LBMC and SEASP, would reduce the amount of water needed for outdoor use, such as PDF-9 would require landscaping to be drought tolerant and feature native plants. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this action.

8. Incorporate Green Infrastructure and Green Streets
The project shall incorporate green infrastructure such as permeable pavement, bioretention areas, bioswales, or vegetated strips.

Supports CAAP Measures: DRT-3
Consistent. While the proposed project does not include the development of streets, the proposed project would incorporate low impact development (LID) features (i.e., permavoid planter boxes), would retain stormwater onsite. Landscaping would be present throughout the project site to provide passive open spaces around the proposed mixeduse building and related landscaping along the trail adjacent to the San Gabriel River. Therefore, the proposed project would support this CAAP Adaptation Action.
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 97
Table 10 Consistency Analysis with the City of Long Beach CAAP Actions Applicable CAAP Adaptation Action Consistency Requirement Consistency Analysis

9. Use Recycled Water and Greywater for Non-Potable Uses; includes Rainfall Capture
The project uses recycled water and/or greywater for non-potable uses and incorporates water reuse strategies onsite, such as rainfall capture systems. The project would:

1. Require use of reclaimed / recycled water and/or grey water for outdoor uses

2. Install residential greywater systems that meet appropriate regulatory standards

3. Install rainfall capture systems

4. Install dual plumbing for the use of recycled water
Supports CAAP Measures: DRT-4, DRT-5
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of the most current CALGreen Code, which contains requirements for indoor water use reduction and site irrigation conservation. For example, the stormwater runoff from buildout of the proposed project would be captured via roof drains to “permavoid” planter boxes. Additionally, the proposed project would implement BMPs to control the amount and quality of the stormwater leaving the project site and not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements pertaining to surface or ground water quality (refer to Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality). Therefore, the proposed project would implement this CAAP Adaptation Action.

Sea Level Rise and Flooding

10. Comply with all City Floodplain and Sea Level Rise
Regulations
The project complies with all City and FEMA floodplain
regulations as necessary to limit, elevate, or provide floodproofing standards in areas designated as vulnerable to flooding in order to minimize physical damage to development. This includes compliance with all applicable FEMA, California Building Code, City Building Code Chapter 18.40 and Floodplain Ordinance requirements.

The project also complies with all applicable sea level rise regulations and ordinances, such as the Local Coastal Program.

The project applicant must notify all residents, tenants, and occupants if the project is located on a FEMA floodplain map and a sea level rise inundation map and shall provide these maps to residents, tenants, and occupants.

Supports CAAP Measures: FLD-1, FLD-2
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable City and FEMA floodplain regulations, including sea level rise regulations and ordinances. Further described in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site would not be impacted by the present day 100-year event, and the entire project site is at least 4.5 feet above the present-day base flood elevation of 8 feet. The elevated site condition significantly reduces flood risks to the project site, and no significant localized depressions were identified on or adjacent to the project site.

Further, the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the California Building Standards Code (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.

11. Comply with the City’s Current Stormwater Management Plan
The project must comply with the City’s Current Stormwater Management Plan and all related ordinances related to
stormwater management and sea level rise scenarios evaluated by the City.

Supports CAAP Measures: FLD-5
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Current Stormwater Management Plan and related stormwater management ordinances. A construction stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must be prepared, which requires BMPs during construction activities to control the amount and quality of stormwater leaving the project site. Operation of the proposed project would also be required to comply with the LBMC and municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit and incorporate low impact development (LID)/site design and source control BMPs to address post-construction stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff would be collected via roof/area drains and adequately retained on-site. See Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality.
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 98 ends

Long Beach City CouncilJuly 18, 2023

Long Beach City Council
July 18, 2023