Long Beach City Council
September 19, 2023

65863, cities must maintain, at all times during the planning period, adequate sites to meet their unmet share of RHNA. Under this law, cities generally may not take any action that would allow or cause the sites identified in its Site Inventory to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the City’s 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for lower and moderate-income households. Therefore, because the project parcel is on the site inventory, based on this the above -cited government code section known as “housing element no -net loss,” an analysis is require d to ensure that future development of the proposed project site does not preclude the City’s ability to meet its RHNA obligations.

Sites on the site inventory were analyzed and selected to demonstrate that the City ha s land use and zoning capacity to f acilitate the 2021 -2029 RHNA figure of 26,502 housing units in accordance with Housing State Law. Sites were selected for the inventory based on a set of objective criteria for analyzing the likelihood of housing being developed on the site, including based on lot size, improvement-to-land ratio (with a higher ratio indicating lower feasibility for dwelling unit potential), and whether the underlying zoning or General Plan PlaceType designation allows residential uses. In this case, the property, zoned SP-2-MU-CC, meets the criteria and w as included in the Housing Element site inventory. The subject site, which has existing office buildings, was projected through the site inventory as likely to facilitate a total of five potential moderate-income units and 21 potential market rate units.

Even though the proposed project is a residential development project that would facilitate 352 more market rate units and 17 more very-low income units than projected in the site inventory, the proposed project does not include five moderate-income units as projected in the site inventory. Therefore, the City must demonstrate that its plans, policies and zoning facilitate the production of the 26,502 -unit RHNA allocation. Although the site invent ory is the most well - known method for meeting this obligation, the City may meet its RHNA obligation through a combination of: (1) the projected number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) anticipated to be permitted based on recent trends; (2) d ocumenting approved and proposed residential development projects in the pipeline; and (3) through an inventory of sites with demonstrated land use and zoning capacity to accommodate the RHNA allocation.

ADU Production

As a result of substantial relaxation of de velopment standards and procedures by the State to facilitate ADU construction, since 2018 the City has seen significant increases in applications and permits for ADUs across Long Beach. Production of ADUs has more than quadrupled between 2018 and 2020, as shown below:

• 2018: 59 units
• 2019: 151 units
• 2020: 268 units
• 2021: 445 units
• 2022: 508 units

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
July 20, 2023

The above three-year period (2018, 2019 and 2020) yields an annual average of 159 units. To be conservative and based on the observed development tr ends in the City, the 6 th Cycle Housing Element assumed an annual average of 159 ADUs between 2021 and 2029, for a total of 1,275 units, representing nearly five percent (4.8 percent) of the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA. This is based on the average number of ADUs permitted between 2018-2020 (Adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element Technical Appendices, p. C -2). Around two -thirds of those units were designated in the affordable categories of the RHNA based on guidance from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

Given the progressively upward trend and an emerging trend of Junior ADUs, which are attached accessory units that occupy the existing square footage of a housing unit and therefore, are typically smaller in size, less expensive to const ruct, and a more affordable housing option, the City anticipates that the construction of ADUs will continue to increase. ADU production in 2021 totaled 445 units and in 2022, 508 ADUs were permitted. Based on the more recent data, using a five-year average (2018-2022), the City now estimates 2,290 ADUs will be developed during the Housing Element period, which is a net increase of 1,015 units. ADUs for the City’s RHNA were allocated within the affordable categories, which includes moderate - income units, and the revised projection represents additional capacity for additional units in the “ moderate-income” RHNA category. Furthermore, ADUs are more likely to be naturally affordable and have comprised a higher share of the housing production over time. This again is a conservative approach given the upward trend over time. This increase alone more than accounts for the lost potential of moderate-income units for the proposed project.

Policies and Programs for Moderate Income Units

Like many cities throughout the state, Long Beach has struggled to produce moderate income units. As part of the Housing Element, the City has committed to a multitude of strategies for increasing production of moderate income units. One of the primary mec hanisms for incentivizing the development of moderate income units is through the City’s Enhance Density Bonus (EDB) Program, which was adopted in 2021 to provide incentives and bonuses that go above and beyond those provided under state law in order to ga rner a larger number of affordable units than would otherwise be built. The EDB is designed with the greatest incentives for moderate income units because the City performed the poorest in providing moderate units in the 5th Cycle housing element of any category. In fact, in developing the site inventory, staff assumed that the subject site would produce moderate income units in exchange for incentives provided under EDB. Unfortunately, the EDB has not yet been certified in t he Coastal Zone (EDB was approved by the Coastal Commission in June 2023 but must still go back before the City Council).

Therefore, this project was not able to take advantage of the EDB program. Other strategies in the Housing Element for providing moderate income units include the inclusionary housing requirement for moderate income units in ownership projects (HE Policy 1-11); increasing the overall housing supply (Policy 1-1); providing for a variety of housing types in low density zones (i.e. duplexes, triplexes and ADUs, see HE Program 2 -4); facilitating “naturally occurring” affordable housing typologies like bungalows and courtyards (HE Action 1.1.2); and providing

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
July 20, 2023

assistance to first time homeowners including through downpayment assistance (HE Program

3.3). Some of the zoning strategies , such as the EDB and inclusionary program , are implemented, while others are underway through the Citywide rezoning efforts. The City’s new downpayment assistance program launched in spring 2023 through use of fund ing via the Consolidated Plan.

In summary, while the project does not provide the five moderate-income units allocated for the site as part of the original site inventory for the 2021 -2029 Housing Element , the project provides more housing units overall and provides a greater number units (17) at a deeper affordability level than what was projected as part of the site inventory, serving to offset some of the deficit that would be created by the approval of ot her projects in the City. Pursuant with state law, the City has identified that it has the additional capacity, capability, and feasibility to meet its RHNA obligation, based on the net increase in ADU production and through policies and programs to support the development of moderate-income units.

Lot Line Adjustment

According to the record of survey, there are three existing legal parcels on the project site.

Under existing conditions, the easternmost property line for APN: 7237 -020-050 (6615 East Pacific Coast Highway) shares a common property line with APN: 7237 -020-041 (6621 East Pacific Coast Highway). This shared property line bisects the surface parking lot that is shared between all three parcels and maintains access rights via the CC&Rs in place for the Marketplace Shopping Center, Marketplace Office Park (project applicant), and City -owned parcel. The easternmost shared property line between APNs 7237-020-050 and 7237-020-041 would be adjusted eastward and would remain within the existing surface parking lot (Attachment G - LLA and LM Exhibit). The adjusted property line would remain located between the buildings at 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway and 6621 East Pacific Coast Highway.

Prior to the lot line adjustment there are three legal parcels ( two parcels with frontage along East Pacific Coast Highway and o ne parcel with frontage along the unbuilt portion of Shopkeeper Road), and there would continue to be three legal parcels after the lot line is adjusted. The easternmost parcel to be adjusted (APN: 7237-020-041 [6621 East Pacific Coast Highway]) maintains a front lot line along Shopkeeper Road pursuant to Section 21.15.1150 (Front Lot Line) of the Long Beach Municipal Code (LBMC), due to the dimension of the lot line along Shopkeeper Road in comparison to the lot line dimension along the unbuilt section of Studebaker Road that forms the southern lot line.

The adjustment would increase the size of APN: 7237 -020-050 (6615 East Pacific Coast Highway) to 125,221 square feet in compliance with SEASP . The resulting lot size portion of APN: 7237-020-041 (6621 East Pacific Coast Highway) would be 68,691 square feet and there would be no change to the width of the remaining portion of the parcel as the adjustment would slightly reduce the existing depth of the lot. Furthermore, as conditioned, the remaini ng office building at APN: 7237 -020-041 (6621 East Pacific Coast Highway) would be required to maintain vehicular parking onsite and on the shared City-parcel (APN: 7237-020-904) through an amendment to the CC&Rs in place through agreements by all parties. Two rows of surface

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
July 20, 2023

parking lot areas would remain between the adjusted lot line, which would ensure the maintenance of adequate setbacks pursuant to SEASP. There would be no reduction in onsite open space for the office building to remain at APN: 7237 -020-041 (6621 East Pacific Coast Highway). Surface drainage and all applicable utility easements would be maintained with the adjustment. As such, the required findings to approve the lot line adjustment can be made in the affirmative.

Lot Merger

As previously noted, there are three existing legal parcels on the project site. The development site (6615 and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway) would be the location of the requested lot merger. The lot merger would merge the adjusted APN: 7237-020-050 (6615 East Pacific Coast Highway) and APN: 7237-020-040 (6695 East Pacific Coast Highway) to result in one 163,249- square-foot (3.75-acre) lot. There would be one legal parcel after the lots are merged. The APN:
7237-020-041 (6621 East Pacific Coast Highway) would remain a separate parcel.

Local Coastal Development Permit

In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, a Local Coastal Development Permit (LCDP) is required for applications that include a discretionary action or subdivision within the Coastal Zone. The purpose of the LCDP is to ensure that all public and private development in the Long Beach Coastal Zone is developed consistent with the City’s certified LCP.

The LCP identifies the project site within the SEASP area of the Coastal Zone. This sub-area where the project site is located encompasses the entire southeast corner of Long Beach .

Although principally a residential community, it also contains wetlands, considerable commercial development and two very large electric generating plants. Some land in SEASP is used for oil production. When this resource is depleted, the land will be available for other uses.

The operation of the mixed-use building, including the public outdoor open space, is consistent with the applicable development standards contained in the SP -2-MUCC Zoning District as applicable under State Density Bonus Law. This property is currently developed with two office buildings and surface parking areas which will be demolished to facilitate the mixed-use building. The other properties at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road in this extreme southeast corner of the City are currently developed with commercial uses and retail shopping centers, consistent with the certified SEASP.

The proposed mixed-use building includes incentives/waivers from certain development standards as allowed under the state density bonus law. The incorporation of affordable units is consistent with the certified L CP and Coastal Act, which encourages a mix of housing opportunities to meet the public access goals of the Coastal Act. Maximizing public access “for all the people,” is part of the Environmental Justic e policies adopted by the Coastal Commission. Without the co ncessions for massing, height, and parking, the project would be developed with market rate units only, which would not help to fully realize the robust public access policies and b road concern for equitable access to the Coast by all . The project

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
July 20, 2023

conditions of approval ensure that the affordable units are distributed throughout the various residential levels, including the upper floors, and shall be generally reflective of the mix of unit sizes and number of bedrooms in the overall project. The SEASP area is designated as a high resource area under state law and as reflected in the City’s Housing Element; therefore, the development of affordable units within SEASP helps meet the goals not only of the Coastal Act but also of the City’s H E Goal 6 of ensuring Fair and Equal Housing for Opportunity including in high resource areas where there has historically been a lack of affordable housing . The specific concession/waivers requested to support the project are not incongruent with the certified LCP and Coastal Act. The increased height by one-story to six-stories does not obstruct an established view corridor. Furthermore, this concession in height is not unlike the waiver process allowed under the SEASP for additional height granted to low-cost overnight visitor- serving accommodations. The incentives/waivers include increased height and parking reduction to support the additional density for the affordable dwelling units. A parking utilization study was prepared to demonstrate that the reduced parking rate provided in SB 1818 under the government code would address the anticipated demand for off -street parking based on traffic engineering principles. Therefore, the parking provided would be sufficient for the demand of the development. Furthermore , increased density is known to reduce both Vehicle Miles Traveled and energy consumed, consistent with Coastal Act and the City’s climate goals and policies.

The project incorporates new coastal access and wetland view recovery opportunities on the site with the inclusion of a public paseo/view corridor, public seating areas along Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road as well as direct, new, and improved access for pedestrians and bicyclists to the Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road public right-of-way consistent with LCP and Coastal Act goals for the Coastal Zone. Those policies (5.1 through 5.32) contained in Chapter 5 of the SEASP Document, shall be included as project design features implemented through the project conditions of approval (Attachment H – Conditions of Approval).

The project design includes bird-safe features, lighting, and a landscape palette all consistent with SEASP requirements. SEASP Chapter 8.3.14 includes requirements for glazing areas and building design to reduce the potential for bird strikes. The project has been designed to comply with SEASP requirements through the use of ultra-violet glass, glazing with less than 30 percent coefficient "reflectivity out" , and use of r ecessed and projecting balconies to cast shadows .

Landscaped areas next to the buildings, including courtyards, will be planted in accordance with the spacing requirements in SEASP. Furthermore, the glazing area on the building is limited to windows, storefronts, and railings, surrounded by opaque building materials and finishes. With the incorporation of bird-safe treatments on glazing areas and the proper placement of landscaping, the project design would be in conformance with the SEASP requirements. As required under SEASP, the proposed plant palette has been designed in conformance with Appendix D of SEASP. As conditioned , the final selection of landscaping shall be designed to maximize habitat potential when fully grown.

The SEASP planned for the establishment of an impact fee on new development for certain parcels with the purpose of funding the monitoring and maintenanc e of sensitive coastal

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
July 20, 2023

resources, along with improved public access. On November 1, 2022, the City Council adopted an ordinance and resolution to establish a Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Fee (Chapter

18.19 of the LBMC). As conditioned, the project would be required to pay the Sensitive Coastal Resource Impact Fee prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The collected fees would cover a baseline study, monitoring, and maintenance of 4 acres of buffer and 4 acres of adjacent wetlands in the SEASP area.

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

A total of 184 notices of public hearing were distributed on July 3, 2023, and six posters placed onsite in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 21.21 of the Zoning Regulations. The applicant conducted independent outreach on November 2, 2022, with Long Beach Affiliates and on June 21, 2023, with the Los Cerritos Wetlands Trust. As of the time of report preparation, staff is in receipt of no written communications in response to the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the project was analyzed as part of the previously certified Southeast Area Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (State Clearinghouse No.2015101075) (EIR 02 -16) (Attachment I – SEASP Program EIR). A Program EIR Compliance Checklist (PECC 03-23) was prepared for the specific project per CEQA in compliance with Sections 15162 and 15168 (c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines (Attachment J – SEASP Compliance Checklist [PECC 03-23]). Project activities have been determined to be within the scope of activities analyzed in the PEIR and will not result in any new significant impacts . The Southeast Area Specific Plan PEIR was originally circulated between February 17, 2017, and April 3, 2017, and certified by the City Council on September 19, 2017.

Based upon build out of the SEASP area, there are several topical areas within the SEA SP PEIR that have impacts and require the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce those impacts as applicable for each project proposed for the area (Attachment K – SEASP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program). Those topical areas requiring mitigation include Air Quality, Biology, Cultural, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Traffic.

All mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval for the proposed project . The SEASP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project imp lementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the PEIR that applies to the applicant’s proposal, specifications are made that identify the action required and the monitoring that must occur. In addition, the party responsible for verifying compli ance with individual mitigation measures is identified.

Air Quality mitigation measures require Energy Star Appliances, compliance with the Air Quality Management District’s rules relating to construction equipment, and installation of infrastructure relating to electric vehicles. Fair-share payments will be required as part of the traffic mitigation

CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
July 20, 2023

measures for future improvements to different intersections as noted in the mitigation monitoring table. These, and the remainder of the topical areas are discussed in greater detail and all mitigation measures included in the adopted MMRP.

The addition of the new mixed-use project will contribute to the needed housing units to the southeast portion of the City, which has not seen substantial construction of housing unit s, including affordable housing, since the 1970s and 1980s. As conditioned, the project would comply with all mitigation measures, contribute to the Sensitive Coastal Habitat Impact Fee, and construct needed pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle connections. Staff has analyzed the project in accordance with the required findings for an SPR , LCDP, Lot Line Adjustment, and Lot Merger entitlements and finds that positive findings can be made. As such, in conformance with the required findings, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested entitlements, subject to Conditions of Approval.

Respectfully submitted,

CK:ASR:AO:mc

Attachments: Attachment A - Vicinity Map
Attachment B – Site Photographs
Attachment C – Plans
Attachment D – Incentives and Waivers Report
Attachment E – Parking Demand Memorandum
Attachment F – Findings
Attachment G – LLA and LM Exhibit
Attachment H – Conditions of Approval
Attachment I – SEASP Program EIR
Attachment J – SEASP Compliance Checklist (PECC 03-23)
Attachment K – SEASP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

MARYANNE CRONIN

PROJECT PLANNER

ALEXIS OROPEZA

CURRENT PLANNING OFFICER

ALISON SPINDLER RUIZ, AICP

PLANNING BUREAU MANAGER

CHRISTOPHER KOONTZ, AICP

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

H-17 Correspondence – Joe Weinstein

From: Joe Weinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 1:58 PM
To: Council District 1 <[email protected]>; Council District 2 <[email protected]>; Council District 3 <[email protected]>; Council District 4 <[email protected]>; Council District 5 <[email protected]>; Council District 6 <[email protected]>; Council District 7 <[email protected]>; Council District 8 <[email protected]>; Council District 9 <[email protected]>; Mayor <[email protected]>; CityClerk <[email protected]> Subject: LB Council 09-19-2023 item 17 - Appeal of flood-zone project approvals

-EXTERNAL-

For the public record (by email, with attached copy in MS Word format)

On behalf of Citizens About Responsible Planning (CARP)

Dear Council members,

IN COMING DECADES THE PROPOSED PROJECTS WOULD BE IN OR SURROUNDED BY REPEATED FLOODING.

Approval of these poorly located projects will send the message that the City of Long Beach finds OK, and even desirable, the resulting losses to homeseekers’ and investors’ well-being and wealth.

The projects are in a large low-lying SE Long Beach zone which the City’s own Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (LB CAP), approved last year by the Council, shows has significant probability within decades – and then ever after - of being frequently and repeatedly flooded, with resulting loss of life-quality and property usability and value. Thanks to sea level rise, the zone - formerly classed as ‘100- year’ even ‘500-year’ flood zone - will be flooded at least several times a year from king tides or storm surges. Buildings themselves may escape flooding, but access to them will be repeatedly at risk, as will reliability of utility services. Year

after year of repeated flooding will make the buildings ever less attractive or even usable as residences, and the properties ever less valuable.

NEEDED: A BROADER PERSPECTIVE ON HEALTH AND SAFETY, SEASP, HOUSING,

AND STATE MANDATES

In support of the projects, Council member Duggan’s statement relies on half- truths, and never mentions the flooding. A broader perspective is needed.

Health and safety? Duggan’s statement finds that it suffices that ‘the State’ doesn’t view 2d-PCH traffic as a ‘health and safety’ problem. But anyhow there is a real problem – and it is far broader than 2d-PCH: the health and safety of flood zone residents.

Is SEASP the only relevant factor? Yes, the City produced SEASP to govern aspects of projects – whether or not the projects make sense - in this flood zone.

However, even if projects do conform fully to SEASP, they need not be OK, let alone required, when you consider other laws, policies, science – and common sense!

Housing? Yes, ‘the State’ wants the City of Long Beach to authorize new housing.

However, such new housing doesn’t have to be in the absolutely wrong and irresponsible place – in coming decades the riskiest, to life quality and property usability and values, within the entire state! Owing to flood plus quake, California’s riskiest zones in the coming decades are low-lying shores of SF Bay and San Pedro Bay, including much of SE Long Beach.

If new housing is truly required to be badly located, then the responsible course is to fight the requirement, not kow-tow to it. (Especially because latest state and local population projections vastly reduce needs for new housing.}

Speaking of state mandates: in line with plain common sense, the State asks coastal cities like Long Beach to simply refrain from putting new projects needlessly in harm’s way and thereby worsening sea-level-rise problems!

WE CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF LONG BEACH HAVE A DREAM:

That someday (and not too late!) the City of Long Beach will focus on sane and honorable approaches for our future in regards housing and sea-level rise and fair treatment of homeseekers and investors:

* The City will not promote housing in highest-risk locales!

* City officials and staff, including the Planning Commission, will no longer treat sea-level-rise as tabu, a factor to be disregarded in practice, to be mentioned mainly just in empty claims that the City is preparing for it.

* City officials and staff, including the Planning Commission, will actually read and heed LBDS’ document, the Long Beach Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (LB CAP) which the Council approved last year.

This ‘Plan’ contains no hard plans, but it does describe and detail serious climate- change challenges facing the city, and possible responses. In regards flooding

from sea-level-rise – in combination with king tides, extra precipitation, and storm surges - see descriptions and maps on these pages:

Executive Summary pp 11-12, 16
Main text pp 34, 45, 54-56, 98-115
Appendix C – pp 15-16, 18, 27,30, 39, 44, 52
Appendix D – pp 2-9

* City budgets will focus precious Tidelands funds not on creating extra-costly new vulnerable projects (like a BBAC) in the flood zone, but instead on badly needed protection of hundreds of existing flood-zone residences and businesses and facilities in Belmont Shore and elsewhere in SE Long Beach.

* Instead of having to file appeals against ill-considered approvals for poorly located projects, we will be supporting substantial City efforts to deal with the inconvenient realities of sea-level-rise.

CONCLUSION: AT STAKE - THE BASIC AIM OF LONG BEACH GOVERNMENT

Decision on these appeals amounts to deciding the basic aim of Long Beach government. Is this aim to confront the city’s impending challenges, such as sea- level rise, and help us residents solve the city’s problems? Or is it to promote disregard of inconvenient facts and common sense, and thereby entice homeseekers and investors into needless sacrifice of well-being and wealth? Joe Weinstein

LB Council 09‐19‐2023 item 17 – Appeal of flood‐zone project approvals

For the public record  (by email, with aƩached copy in MS Word format)

On behalf of CiƟzens About Responsible Planning (CARP)

Dear Council members,

IN COMING DECADES THE PROPOSED PROJECTS WOULD BE
IN OR SURROUNDED
BY REPEATED FLOODING.

Approval of these poorly located projects will send the message that the City of Long Beach finds OK, and even desirable, the resulƟng losses to homeseekers’ and investors’ well‐being and wealth.

The projects are in a large low‐lying SE Long
Beach zone which the City’s own
Climate AcƟon and AdaptaƟon Plan (LB CAP), approved last year by the Council, shows has significant probability within decades – and then ever aŌer ‐ of being frequently and repeatedly flooded, with resulƟng loss of life‐quality and property usability and value.   Thanks to sea level rise, the zone ‐ formerly classed as ‘100‐ year’ even ‘500‐year’ flood zone ‐ will be flooded at least several Ɵmes a year from king Ɵdes or storm surges.  Buildings themselves may escape flooding, but access to them will be repeatedly at risk, as will reliability of uƟlity services.  Year aŌer year of repeated flooding will make the buildings ever less aƩracƟve or even usable as residences, and the properƟes ever less valuable.

NEEDED:  A BROADER PERSPECTIVE ON HEALTH AND SAFETY , SEASP , HOUSING, AND STATE MANDATES

In support of the projects, Council member Duggan’s statement relies on half‐ truths, and never menƟons the flooding.   A broader perspecƟve is needed.

Health and safety?  Duggan’s statement finds that it suffices that ‘the State’ doesn’t view 2d‐PCH traffic as a ‘health and safety’ problem.  But anyhow there is a real problem – and it is far broader than 2d‐PCH:  the health and safety of flood zone residents.

Is SEASP the only relevant factor?  Yes, the City produced SEASP to govern aspects of projects – whether or not the projects make sense ‐ in this flood zone.

However, even if projects do conform fully to SEASP , they need not be OK, let alone required, when you consider other laws, policies, science – and common sense!

Housing?  Yes, ‘the State’ wants the City of Long Beach to authorize new housing.

However, such new housing doesn’t have to be in the absolutely wrong and irresponsible place – in coming decades the riskiest, to life quality and property usability and values, within the enƟre state!  (Owing to flood plus quake, California’s riskiest zones in the coming decades are low‐lying shores of SF Bay and San Pedro Bay, including much of SE Long Beach.)

If new housing is truly required to be badly located, then the responsible course is to fight the requirement, not kow‐tow to it.  (Especially because latest state and local populaƟon projecƟons vastly reduce needs for new housing.}

Speaking of state mandates: in line with plain common sense, the State asks coastal ciƟes like Long Beach to simply refrain from puƫng new projects needlessly in harm’s way and thereby worsening sea‐level‐rise problems!

WE CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF LONG BEACH HAVE A DREAM:

That someday (and not too late!) the City of Long Beach will focus on sane and honorable approaches for our future in regards housing and sea‐level rise and fair treatment of homeseekers and investors:

* The City will not promote housing in highest‐risk locales!

* City officials and staff, including the Planning Commission, will no longer treat sea‐level‐rise as tabu, a factor to be disregarded in pracƟce, to be menƟoned mainly just in empty claims that the City is preparing for it.

* City officials and staff, including the Planning Commission,  will actually read and heed LBDS’ document, the Long Beach Climate AcƟon and AdaptaƟon Plan (LB CAP) which the Council approved last year.

This ‘Plan’ contains no hard plans, but it does describe and detail serious climate‐ change challenges facing the city, and possible responses.  In regards flooding from sea‐level‐rise – in combinaƟon with king Ɵdes, extra precipitaƟon, and storm surges ‐ see descripƟons and maps on these pages:

ExecuƟve Summary pp 11‐12, 16
Main text pp 34, 45, 54‐56, 98‐115
Appendix C – pp 15‐16, 18, 27,30, 39, 44, 52
Appendix D – pp 2‐9

* City budgets will focus precious Tidelands funds not on creaƟng extra‐ costly new vulnerable projects (like a BBAC) in the flood zone, but instead on badly needed protecƟon of hundreds of exisƟng flood‐zone residences and businesses and faciliƟes in Belmont Shore and elsewhere in SE Long Beach.

*  Instead of having to file appeals against ill‐considered approvals for poorly located projects, we will be supporƟng substanƟal City efforts to deal with the inconvenient realiƟes of sea‐level‐rise.

CONCLUSION:  AT STAKE ‐ THE BASIC AIM OF LONG BEACH GOVERNMENT

Decision on these appeals amounts to deciding the basic aim of Long Beach
government.  Is this aim to confront the city’s impending challenges, such as sea‐ level rise, and help us residents solve the city’s problems?  Or is it to promote disregard of inconvenient facts and common sense, and thereby enƟce homeseekers and investors into needless sacrifice of well‐being and wealth?

Joe Weinstein
President, CiƟzens About Responsible Planning
4000 Linden Ave.,  Bixby Knolls
Long Beach CA 90807    562‐566‐8437
H-17 Correspondence – Victor Yundt

From: Victoria Yundt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 7:54 PM
To: Maryanne Cronin <[email protected]>; CityClerk <[email protected]> Cc: Richard Drury <[email protected]>; Layne Fajeau <[email protected]>; Madeline Dawson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Appellant SAFER Supplemental and Rebuttal Comment on 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (SPR22-082, CDP22-049) September 19, 2023 City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item 17

-EXTERNAL-

Dear Mayor Richardson, Honorable Members of the City Council of Long Beach, Ms. Cronin, and Ms. De La Garza:

On behalf of Appellant Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), please find attached supplemental and rebuttal comments regarding the proposed mixed-use development at 6615 East Pacific Coast Highway (“Project”) in the City of Long Beach (“City”) to be heard on appeal at the September 19, 2023 City Council hearing as Agenda Item 17.

If you could please confirm receipt of this email and attached comment letter, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,
Victoria
--
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
P: 510.836.4200
C: 510.607.8242
F: 510.836.4205
[email protected]
(she/her)
Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachment(s) may contain privileged or confidential information.

Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited by law. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you.

September 18, 2023

VIA EMAIL

Rex Richardson, Mayor
Mary Zendejas, Councilmember
Cindy Allen, Councilmember
Kristina Duggan, Councilmember
Daryl Supernaw, Councilmember
Megan Kerr, Councilmember
Suely Saro, Councilmember
Roberto Uranga, Councilmember
Al Austin, Councilmember
Joni Ricks-Oddie, Councilmember
City of Long Beach City Council
411 West Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90802
Maryanne Cronin, Planner
City of Long Beach
411 W. Ocean Blvd.

Long Beach, CA 90802
[email protected]

Monique De La Garza, CMC,
City of Long Beach
411 W. Ocean Blvd. (Lobby Level)
Long Beach, CA 90802
[email protected]

Re: Appellant SAFER Supplemental and Rebuttal Comment on 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (SPR22-082, CDP22-049)
September 19, 2023 City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item 17

Dear Mayor Richardson, Honorable Members of the City Council of Long Beach, Ms. Cronin, and Ms. De La Garza:

I am writing on behalf of Appellant Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), a California nonprofit benefit corporation, regarding the proposed mixed-use development at 6615 East Pacific Coast Highway (“Project”) in the City of Long Beach (“City”). City staff has determined that the Project is exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Sections 15162, 15168, and 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and that the Project was adequately analyzed in the environmental impact report prepared for the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SCH No. 2015101075), certified in 2017 (“SEASP EIR”).

As discussed in SAFER’s July 20, 2023 comment submitted to the Planning Commission (“July 20 Comment”), after reviewing the Section 15183 Compliance Checklist prepared for the Project, and the SEASP EIR that the Project relies upon, we conclude that the Project does not meet the requirements for an exemption under CEQA Section 15183, nor does it satisfy CEQA Sections 15162 or 15168(c)(2). The Project fails to comply with the SEASP because it exceeds Comment on 6615 E. PCH Project
City Council Agenda Item 17
September 18, 2023

height and density limits. The Project fails to implement numerous mitigation measures required by the SEASP. The Project has significant impacts not analyzed in the SEASP.

Notably, on July 13, 2023, wildlife biologist, Noriko Smallwood, M.S., conducted a site visit. Ms. Smallwood positively identified at least six special status species on or adjacent to the Project site. Only two of these six species were evaluated for the Project site and all were found not to occur on the site. Furthermore, none of these species are identified in the SEASP EIR and there are no adequate mitigation measures for the Project’s impacts on these species. Dr. Shawn Smallwood concluded that the Project will have significant adverse impacts on these and other species. (See July 20 Comment, Exhibit A). Also, the City fails entirely to analyze the cumulative impacts of the 6615 PCH project with the 6700 Pacific Coast Highway (6700 PCH) project which is proposed almost directly across the street. Dr. Smallwood concludes that the two projects will have significant cumulative impacts on sensitive species. This is further supported by Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s September 17, 2023 Rebuttal Letter to Glenn Lukos Associates Response to Dr. Smallwood’s July 15, 2023 comments. (“Smallwood’s Rebuttal Letter”)

SAFER maintains that all comments raised in its July 20, 2023 stand, continue to be accurate, and are supported by substantial evidence, and refutes all claims made by the City and Applicant in response to those comments. In addition, SAFER provides supplementary expert comments, attached as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, supporting its argument that the Project will have significant environmental impacts that were not properly analyzed or mitigated in the SEASP EIR or the 15183 Consistency Checklist, as it relates to air quality and biological resources. As evidence by environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”), CEQA requires that an updated, new initial study and a subsequent EIR be prepared because the City failed to provide substantial evidence that the Project would not result in significant air quality or health risk impacts from construction and operations.

SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council grant the appeals filed by SAFER and other concerned citizen groups and deny the applications for Site Plan Review (SPR 22-082) and a Local Coastal Development Permit (LCDP 22-049) and decline to adopt findings and determinations related thereto for a project within the appealable area of the Coastal Zone consisting of the demolition of all existing structures on the site, and construction of a new mixed-use Project. We urge the City to require preparation of a CEQA environmental review document to analyze and mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts prior to issuing any Project approvals.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927 (Pocket Protectors). The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Comment on 6615 E. PCH Project
City Council Agenda Item 17
September 18, 2023

Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v.

Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.

Here, the City contends that no subsequent EIR is necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c)(2) because the Project is within the scope of activities analyzed in the SEASP and will not result in any new significant impacts. Specifically, the City’s agenda for the hearing provides:

Recommendation to determine that the project is consistent with and within the scope of the project previously analyzed as part of the Southeast Are Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2015101075) (PECC 03-23) and subject to the Southeast Area Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and warrants no further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15168 and 15162. (July 20, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda, p. 4).

However, CEQA section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a subsequent EIR when:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant Comment on 6615 E. PCH Project
City Council Agenda Item 17
September 18, 2023

effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

(14 CCR § 15162).

Given that there have been substantial changes to the Project and Project circumstances, and new information of substantial importance has come out since the certification of the SEASP EIR, a subsequent EIR must be prepared.

The City also appears to rely on CEQA section 15183 to claim that the Project is exempt from CEQA review. But it is important to note that the City chose to prepare a CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Checklist for the Project but is requesting that the Planning Commission approve the Project based on its alleged compliance with CEQA sections 15162 and 15168 (c)(2) without conducting any analysis to determine that no subsequent CEQA review is necessary under these sections.

CEQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. 14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354. “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and ‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.” Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125. The determination as to the appropriate scope of a categorical exemption is a question of law subject to independent, or de novo, review. San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1375 (“[Q]uestions of interpretation or application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. Thus, for example, interpreting the scope of a CEQA exemption presents ‘a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court.’”)

Here, the City contends that the proposed Project is exempt from CEQA review under Section 15183. Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a project to avoid environmental review if it is:

“consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified . . . except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” 14 CCR 15183 (emphasis added).

The intention of this section is to “streamline” CEQA review for projects and avoid the preparation of repetitive documents. While this section is considered an exemption from CEQA, environmental review is still required for various types of impacts, including those “peculiar to Comment on 6615 E. PCH Project
City Council Agenda Item 17
September 18, 2023

the project or parcel on which the project would be located,” those which “were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR,” “are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR,” or “[a]re previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.” Section (f) of the exemption states that a Project’s environmental effects are not peculiar to a project if “uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted” which serve to mitigate environmental impacts, “unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect.” (Emphasis added). The standard set forth by the statute for this analysis is substantial evidence.

Here, there is substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project will have significant impacts which were not addressed in SEASP EIR. The Section 15183 Exemption therefore does not apply, and the City must prepare appropriate CEQA documents for this Project.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The City’s Conclusions Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.

1. There is no evidence that the Project will not result in a new significant air quality impact related to construction or operations.

In determining that CEQA’s subsequent review provisions apply to the proposed Project, the City relied on emissions calculated with CalEEMod. 2022.1. (Ex. 1, pp. 1-3; Consistency Checklist, p. 200.) This model relies on recommended default values, or on site-specific information related to a number of factors. For example, SWAPE explains that “CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type.” (Ex. 1, p. 1.) When more specific project information is known, the user may change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The model is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions. However, SWAPE notes that the City’s use of CalEEMod. 2022.1 “poses a problem as the currently available version of CalEEMod 2022.1 is described as a ‘soft release’ which fails to provide complete output files. Specifically, the ‘User Changes to Default Data’ table no longer provides the quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values.” (Id. p. 2; Consistency Checklist, Appendix B, pp. 82, 83.) Therefore, “the output files associated with CalEEMod Version 2022.1 fail to present the exact parameters used to calculate Project emissions.” (Ex. 1, p. 2.) As a result, SWAPE explains:

[A] full CEQA analysis should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files for CalEEMod Version 2022.1, or includes an updated air model using an older release of CalEEMod. (Ex. 1, pp. 2-3.)
Comment on 6615 E. PCH Project
City Council Agenda Item 17
September 18, 2023

Thus, without preparing either an updated air quality analysis that includes the complete output files for the CalEEMod 2022.1 used by the City, or preparing an updated air model using an older release of CalEEMod, the City fails to provide substantial evidence that the Project will indeed not have a significant air quality and/or GHG impact from project-generated emissions.

In addition, SWAPE also reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files provided in the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis (“AQ & GHG Analysis”) included as Appendix B to the CEQA Consistency Checklist, and found that several model inputs used to generate a project’s construction and operation emissions were not consistent with information disclosed in the CEQA Consistency Checklist. (Ex. 1 , p. 2.) As a result, SWAPE concludes that the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. (Id.) Because the CEQA Consistency Checklist uses incorrect estimates for emissions, its air quality analysis cannot be relied upon to determine the Project’s emissions, and the City’s conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence. The particular errors identified by SWAPE are discussed below. These errors should be corrected in a subsequent CEQA document, such as a subsequent EIR or MND prior to approval of the Project. SWAPE’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Specifically, SWAPE found that several values used in the CEQA Consistency Checklist and AQ & GHG Analysis’s air quality analysis were either inconsistent with information provided in the CEQA Consistency Checklist or otherwise unjustified (Ex. 1, pp. 3-5), including:

1. Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths. (Id., pp. 3-4.)

2. Unsubstantiated Changes to Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix. (Id., pp. 4-5.)

An initial study and mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report is needed to adequately address the air quality impacts of the proposed Project, and to mitigate those impacts accordingly.

2. There is no evidence that the Project will not result in a new significant health risk to nearby sensitive receptors.

Neither the SEASP EIR nor the CEQA Consistency Checklist evaluated the significant health risk impacts to individuals and workers from the Project’s operational and construction- related diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions as a result of the Project. According to SWAPE, the CEQA Consistency Checklist incorrectly concluded that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). (Ex. 1 , pp. 5-7; [citing CEQA Consistency Checklist, pp. 56-57].) However, as discussed below, SWAPE found that the CEQA Consistency Checklist’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, and its subsequent less-than- Comment on 6615 E. PCH Project
City Council Agenda Item 17
September 18, 2023

significant impact conclusion, were incorrect for several reasons. (See Ex. 1, pp. 5-7.) These errors should be corrected in a subsequent CEQA document prior to approval of the Project.

First, the CEQA Consistency Checklist’s use of a screening-level localized significance threshold (“LST”) analysis to determine the health risk impacts posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of the Project’s operational toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions is incorrect. (Ex. 1 , p. 5.) SWAPE found that the CEQA Consistency Checklist’s LST analysis only evaluates impacts from criteria pollutants. (Id.) Because the LST method cannot be used to determine whether emissions from TACs—specifically DPM, a known human carcinogen—would result in a significant health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors, the City failed to analyze the health impacts of the exposure to TACs, such as DPM, from the Project. (Id.)

Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the City failed to quantitatively evaluate construction and operational-related TACs, or make a reasonable effort to connect emissions to health risk impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors from the Project. (Ex. 1 , p. 6.) SWAPE identified potential emissions from both the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and daily vehicle trips. (Id. [citing CEQA Consistency Checklist, pp. 52, 169 & Table 14].) As such, the City failed to meet the CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions.

Third, the CEQA Consistency Checklist’s conclusion is also inconsistent with the most recent guidance published by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines.1 (Ex. 1 , pp. 6-7.) OEHHA recommends that projects lasting at least 2 months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily exceeds. (Id., p. 6.) The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. (Id. p. 7) Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumed that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommended that health risk impacts from the Project be evaluated. (Id.) An initial study and mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report is therefore required to analyze these impacts. (Id., pp. 6-7.)

Fourth, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the City failed to compare the excess health risk impact of the Project to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. (Ex. 1 , p. 7.) Without conducting a quantified construction and operational HRA, the City failed to evaluate the cumulative lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors from the Project’s construction and

1 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.

Comment on 6615 E. PCH Project
City Council Agenda Item 17
September 18, 2023

operation together. This is incorrect, and as a result, the CEQA Consistency Checklist’s evaluation cannot be relied upon to determine Project significance. OEHHA guidance requires that the excess cancer risk be calculated separately for all sensitive receptor age bins, then summed to evaluate the total cancer risk posed by all Project activities. Therefore, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted and compared to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.

An initial study and mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report is needed to adequately address the air quality and health risk impacts of the proposed Project, and to mitigate those impacts accordingly.

B. Wildlife Biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s Rebuttal to the City’s Responses to SAFER’s July 20 Comment is Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Have Significant Biological Impacts Peculiar to the Project that Constitutes New Information Not Analyzed or Mitigated in the SEASP EIR of Consistency Checklist.

As noted above, the conclusions stated in Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s July 15, 2023 comments, attached as Exhibit A to SAFER’s July 20 Comment, stand, and constitute substantial evidence that:

(1) 6615 PCH and 6700 PCH will have significant cumulative biological impacts; (2) The Project has biological impacts that are peculiar to the Project, which is new information requiring subsequent CEQA review;
(3) The may not rely on the SEASP EIR because it fails to implement feasible mitigation measures for biological impacts required in the SEASP EIR; and (4) The Project will have significant biological impacts that were not analyzed in the SEASP EIR.

As evidence by Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s September 17, 2023 Rebuttal Letter to Glenn Lukos Associates’ (“GLA”) Response to Dr. Smallwood’s July 15, 2023 comments, none of GLA’s or the City’s claims that the Project will not have significant biological resources impacts are correct or supported by substantial evidence. As Dr. Smallwood notes, many of the responses from GLA to Dr. Smallwood’s claim s are “either based on ignorance or [are] disingenuous.”

Specifically, Dr. Smallwood’s Rebuttal Letter proves, among many other things, the following:

• GLA’s biological surveys were grossly inadequate, (Ex. 2, pp. 1-4); • GLA’s claims regarding occurrence likelihood of special-status species on the Project site are either based on “ignorance or [are] disingenuous,” (Ex. 2, 4-9); Comment on 6615 E. PCH Project
City Council Agenda Item 17
September 18, 2023

• GLA’s desktop review was grossly inadequate, (Ex. 2, pp. 9-10); • With respect to GLA’s claims regarding the Project’s impacts to nesting avifauna, Dr.

Smallwood states: “The response provides no evidence that wading birds are not nesting on the project site. In my estimation, the GLA biologists were on site doing wildlife survey for about 25 minutes, which was grossly insufficient time for determining whether wading birds are nesting on site,” (Ex. 2, p. 10); • With respect to GLA’s responses to Dr. Smallwood’s substantial evidence regarding the Project’s significant adverse impacts on avifauna due to window collisions, Dr., Smallwood states:

GLA mischaracterizes my comments. In my comments, I outlined the major design features and landscape settings associated with high bird-window collision mortality, and I provided some examples of mitigation efficacy. Two examples of mitigation efficacy involved marking windows with stickers, and another involved use of a bird deterrent film. Another study reduced mortality by adding window shades, and another study reported on the efficacy of using fritted glass.

Along with the references to these studies, I also cited additional studies that have tested types of glass for the purpose of reducing bird-window collision mortality.

GLA asserts that the Project would be constructed consistent with SEASP Section

8.3.14, which requires bird-safe building treatments to prevent bird strikes, but GLA does not specify which bird-safe treatments would be implemented, nor the extent to which they would be implemented. Nor does GLA say whether the efficacy of the treatments would be measured or what would happen if they were found to be ineffective. GLA’s assertion appears empty. (Ex. 2, pp. 10-11); • GLA’s wildlife movement analysis was inadequate, (Ex. 2, pp. 11-12); • GLA failed to even respond to one of the most important issues that the Project will have on wildlife: cumulative impacts, (EX. 2, p. 12). Thus, there is no substantial evidence whatsoever to rebut Dr. Smallwood’s conclusion that the Project will have significant cumulative impacts.

Thus, the City failed to provide any substantial evidence to support its claims that the Project would not have new significant impacts on biological resources from construction and operations, meaning that a new initial study followed by an EIR or MND is required.

III. CONCLUSION

In light of the above comments, the City must prepare an EIR for the Project and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments.

Comment on 6615 E. PCH Project
City Council Agenda Item 17
September 18, 2023

Sincerely,

Victoria Yundt
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP

EXHIBIT 1

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
September 15, 2023
Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway Mixed-Use Project Dear Mr. Drury,
We have reviewed the July 2023 Compliance Checklist (“Checklist”) for the 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway Mixed-Use Project (“Project”) located in the City of Long Beach (“City”). The Project proposes to demolish the existing structures and construct 390 residential units, 5,351-square-feet (“SF”) of commercial space, and 576 parking spaces on the 5.8-acre site.

Our review concludes that the Checklist fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. A full CEQA analysis should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and health risk impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files
Land use development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”). 1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be

1 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide.

2 justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated, and “output files” are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.

According to the Checklist, CalEEMod Version 2022.1 is relied upon to estimate Project emissions (p. 200). However, this poses a problem as the currently available version of CalEEMod 2022.1 is described as a “soft release” which fails to provide complete output files.2 Specifically, the “User Changes to Default Data” table no longer provides the quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 82, 83):

However, previous CalEEMod Versions, such as 2020.4.0, include the specific numeric changes to the model’s default values (see example excerpt below):

The output files associated with CalEEMod Version 2022.1 fail to present the exact parameters used to calculate Project emissions. To remedy this issue, the Checklist should have provided access to the model’s “.JSON” output files, which allow third parties to review the model’s revised input parameters. 3 Without access to the complete output files, including the specific numeric changes to the default values, we cannot verify that the Checklist’s air modeling and subsequent analysis is an accurate reflection of the proposed Project. As a result, a full CEQA analysis should be prepared to include an

2 “CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Soft Release.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2022, available at: https://caleemod.com/. 3 “Video Tutorials for CalEEMod Version 2022.1.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/tutorials.

3 updated air quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files for CalEEMod Version 2022.1, or includes an updated air model using an older release of CalEEMod. 4 Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions As previously discussed, the Checklist relies on CalEEMod Version 2022.1 to estimate the Project’s air quality emissions and fails to provide the complete output files required to adequately evaluate model’s analysis (p. 200). Regardless, when reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis (“AQ & GHG Analysis”) included as Appendix B to the Checklist, we were able to identify several model inputs that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the Checklist. As such, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. A full CEQA analysis should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “COLB-09.5” model includes changes to the default construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 82, 83).

As a result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 75, 76):

4 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.

4 As previously stated, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 5 As demonstrated above in the “User Changes to Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Based on applicant info., see assumptions file” (Appendix B, pp. 82) Regarding the Project’s anticipated construction duration, the Checklist states:
“The proposed project would be constructed in one phase, which would last approximately 40 months” (p. 22).

However, the changes to the individual construction phase lengths remain unsubstantiated. While the Checklist states that the total length of Project construction would be 40 months, the Checklist fails to substantiate the individual construction phase lengths. Until specific evidence is provided, the model should have included proportionately altered individual phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 40 months.

The construction schedule included in the model presents an issue, as the construction emissions are improperly spread out over a longer period of time for some phases, but not for others. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).
6 By disproportionately altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As a result, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. Until we are able to verify the revised construction schedule, the model may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

5 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
6 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 32.

5 Unsubstantiated Changes to Operational Vehicle Fleet Mix Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “COLB-09.5 OPS” model includes changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 139).

However, these changes remain unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, the output files for CalEEMod 2022.1 do not present the numeric changes to any model defaults. Upon further review of the output files, the model’s fleet mix percentages are not provided whatsoever. Until the Checklist verifies that the model includes the correct breakdown of every vehicle type that will access the Project site during operations, we cannot verify that the values included in the model are accurate. 7 These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses operational vehicle fleet mix percentages to calculate the Project’s operational emissions associated with on-road vehicles.8 By including several unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, the model may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The Checklist concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Regarding the health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the Checklist states:
“As shown in Table 5, 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” (p. 56).

As demonstrated above, the Checklist concludes that a construction HRA is not necessary as the emissions generated during Project construction would not exceed the applicable localized significance

7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 38.
8 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 36.

6 thresholds (“LST”) Furthermore, regarding the health risk impacts associated with Project operations, the Checklist states:
“Implementation of the proposed project would replace two-story office buildings 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. 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” (p. 57).

As demonstrated above, the Checklist concludes that neither an operational HRA is not necessary as the Project would not generate a significant amount of truck trips during operations. However, the Checklist’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than- significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons.

First, the use of a LST analysis to determine the health risk impacts posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of the Project’s operational toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions is incorrect.

While the LST method assesses the impact of pollutants at a local level, it only evaluates impacts from criteria air pollutants. According to the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), LST analyses are only applicable to NO
x, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions, which are collectively referred to as criteria air pollutants.9 Because LST methods can only be applied to criteria air pollutants, they cannot be used to determine whether emissions from TACs, specifically Diesel Particulate Matter (“DPM”), a known human carcinogen, would result in a significant health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors. As a result, health impacts during Project operation from exposure to TACs, such as DPM, were not analyzed, therefore leaving a gap in the Checklist’s analysis.

Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”
10 This poses a problem, as according to the Checklist, construction of the Project would produce criteria air pollutants through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a duration of approximately 40 months (p. 52). Furthermore, the Checklist states that operation of the Project is anticipated to generate 1,535 daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 169, Table 14). However, the Checklist fails to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project construction and operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would

9 “Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.” South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Revised July 2008, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf.
10 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 7 trigger adverse health effects. Without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the Checklist is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

Third, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.11 Additionally, according to OEHHA:
“Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).” 12 As the Project’s anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 40-month construction period. Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).13 While the Checklist fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, a full CEQA analysis should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.

Fourth, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the Checklist fails to compare the Project’s excess cancer risk to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. 14 In accordance with
the most relevant guidance, a full CEQA analysis should be conducted, including an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation.

11 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 12 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 13 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-4. 14 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, March 2023, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.
8 Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G,
C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Cha
racterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment A
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for l arge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern C alifornia drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of r eleases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations t hroughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by t he former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of M TBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of p erchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water tr eatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against p rovisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in C alifornia and New York.
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles t hat met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients an d regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring n etworks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at m ilitary bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development th rough work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater T echnical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the p rotection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through d esignation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M. F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment B

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022

Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist

Publications:

Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48

Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342

Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993

Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022

In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022

In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022

In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022

In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022

In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022

In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022

In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022

In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022

In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022

In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022

In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022

In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022

In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022

In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021

In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021

In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021

In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020

In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018

In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017

In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017

In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018

In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015

In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015

In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015

In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015

In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014

In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012

In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011

In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010

In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009

EXHIBIT 2
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616

Maryanne Cronin, Project Planner
Long Beach Development Services
411 W Ocean Blvd Fl 3
Long Beach CA 90802 17 September 2023

RE: 6615 Pacific Coast Highway Project

Dear Ms. Cronin,

I write to reply to responses to my 15 July 2023 comments on the proposed project at 6615 Pacific Coast Highway (Site Plan Review SPR22-082 and Local Coastal Development Permit LCDP22-049). My replies are in the order of responses from Glenn Lukos Associates (“GLA”), but many of them follow portions of paragraphs that GLA wrote in responses to my comments.

III. Adequacy of Biological Surveys

GLA Response: The Smallwood Letter asserts that the biological surveys were inadequate, stating that:

Only two biologists visited the site on one day for the purpose of (1) general reconnaissance survey and vegetation mapping; (2) general biological surveys; (3) habitat assessments for special-status plant species; (4) habitat assessments for special status wildlife species; (5) assessment for the presence of wildlife migration and colonial nursery sites; and (6) evaluation for federal and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands. It is hard to believe that all 6 objectives could have been achieved with excellence within whatever time was allotted for the survey on 16 March 2023. An explanation is needed.

When considering the adequacy of the surveys, it is important to note that the majority of the Project site is fully developed, with 5.61 acres of the 5.75-acre property consisting of existing buildings, asphalt parking lot area, ornamental landscaping with engineered planters and areas of turf, and highly disturbed areas in the Pumpkin Patch property.

Assessing such intensively developed areas for biological resources requires little time.

Reply: The last sentence above is true only if an objective of the survey is to not see the wildlife using the site. Wildlife often occur within intensively developed areas, and in fact I have never surveyed a developed site that was entirely devoid of wildlife, and I have surveyed many such sites. I will add that survey of such sites requires more than “little time” because wildlife occurrences at any site are often seasonal, and their detectability varies by day and night, by species and survey methods, and by chance.

Committing little time to a survey a site, whether developed or not, is the surest way to confirm a preconceived notion that wildlife should be absent, but doing so is 2 inconsistent with any standards in wildlife biology or risk analysis. GLA’s commitment of “little time” to the survey was inadequate.

GLA Response: The limited undeveloped areas on the Pumpkin Patch property comprise 0.14 acre of the overall Project site and are vegetated with non-native weedy species or consist of bare ground that are very unlikely to provide live-in or breeding habitat for special-status species. Although a biologist may observe many species in transit during an extended site visit, these observations do not indicate that the property represents important live-in habitat or even important foraging habitat for these species, such that development of the property would result in impacts considered significant pursuant to Appendix G.IV(a) of the 2017 State CEQA guidelines, which asks if a project would:

Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Reply: Whereas the response characterizes the species of wildlife detected by Noriko as “in transit,” GLA provides no evidence that the animals she observed were in fact in transit, other than to point out that birds in a few of her photos were flying. It is hard to believe that the pocket gophers Noriko detected were in transit, nor the family of black phoebes. In fact, the fledgling black phoebes huddled with their parents were not in transit (Photos 1 and 2, and see Photos 9 and 10 in my comment letter of 15 July 2023).

At the time of Noriko’s survey – 13 July – birds are generally not in transit, anyhow.

Birds are in transit in spring and fall, but not in the middle of summer.

Photos 1 and 2. This family of black phoebes was on the project site, and not in transit as GLA claims. Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 13 July 2023.

3 Whereas the cited CEQA standard is the first that appears on the CEQA Checklist, it is not the standard that applies to the question of whether a project is exempt from CEQA review. One of the standards for determining that a project should not be exempt is if the site provides habitat value to wildlife.

GLA Response: Furthermore, GLA is very familiar with the Project site and surrounding areas, having spent extensive time assessing and surveying for biological resources at the Pumpkin Patch portion of the Project site, as well as the Marketplace Marsh and Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) Complex, for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project during the period from 2011-2017.3

Reply: I appreciate familiarity with the biota of a particular area. However, familiarity is no excuse for short-cutting a job as important as what needs to be done in support of a sound environmental review. Evidence stemming from experience would be useful, but no experience alone.

GLA Response: In addition to general biological surveys, a jurisdictional delineation, vegetation mapping, habitat assessments, and focused botanical surveys, GLA also conducted multiple years of protocol surveys at the Pumpkin Patch site for listed fairy shrimp, focused burrowing owl surveys, and focused Belding’s savannah sparrow surveys, all of which had negative results. Given past experience on the Pumpkin Patch site, GLA has amassed substantial knowledge of the undeveloped portion of the Project site. Thus, GLA’s survey effort is more than adequate given its history with the Pumpkin Patch site and its overall lack of sensitive biological resources.

Reply: GLA’s survey effort was obviously inadequate, regardless of GLA’s history with the Pumpkin Patch site. Noriko surveyed the site for less than two hours, which is not long, but she still detected 23 species of vertebrate wildlife as well as Monarch and 6 special-status species total, whereas 2 biologists from GLA detected only 16 species, only one of which (turkey vulture) has any special status (Birds of Prey).

One of our survey methods is to record the time into each survey when each newly detected species is first detected. This method allows us to fit a predictive model to the cumulative number of species detected as a function of survey time. The pattern in the data is the same across all of our surveys, but the rates of species detections vary by site and time of year and time of day. The model fit to Noriko’s survey findings at 6615 PCH predicts that she would have detected 38 species of vertebrate wildlife had she continued her survey that morning on 13 July 2023. It also reveals how much survey time would have been needed for her to have detected the same number of species that was detected by GLA’s two biologists when they surveyed the site on 16 March 2023 (as indicated by the dashed horizontal line in Figure 1). The model predicts Noriko would have detected 16 species in 40 minutes. However, two biologists average 25% to 40% more species detections than does one biologist. Adjusting for this difference and assuming the more conservative assumption of a 25% difference, and also assuming GLA’s biologists were just as capable as Noriko at detecting species of wildlife, the GLA biologists surveyed the project site for only about 25 minutes. The commitment of only 4 about 25 minutes to a wildlife survey as important as one needed in support of an environmental review was inadequate.

Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationship
between the
number of
vertebrate
wildlife species
detected and the
elapsed survey
time of Noriko’s
visual-scan
survey on 13 July
2023. Note that
the relationship
would differ if the
survey was based
on another
method or during
another season.

IV. Occurrence of Special-Status Species on the Project Site

GLA Response: Because the Project site is almost fully developed, it does not generally provide live-in habitat for special-status species.

Reply: And yet, there they were. Noriko found multiple species of vertebrate wildlife living on the project site, and she photographed them. The response would have the reader believe that the animals Noriko saw on the project site were not actually living there because GLA decided that those species could not be living on a previously developed site. However, the very definition of habitat is that part of the environment that is used by a species (Hall et al. 1997, Morrison et al. 1998), and which is observed or measured by the scientist (Smallwood 2002). GLA does not get to decide what Noriko sees.

GLA Response: The 100-foot buffer that extends into the Pumpkin Patch property beyond the Project site boundary contains eucalyptus trees that have low potential to provide roosting and breeding habitat for common, urban-adapted raptor species; however, these trees would not be impacted by the Project.

Minutes into survey
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
Y
Model prediction
r2 = 0.98, loss = 16.1
Actual count of species
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0 5
10 15
20 25
5 Reply: The wildlife nesting or roosting on those trees would be adversely affected by the project. The project would remove the foraging opportunities afforded wildlife that are nesting or roosting in those trees.

GLA Response: One small stand of three immature eucalyptus trees within the Project impact area at the edge of the Pumpkin Patch has very low potential to provide roosting and breeding habitat for common, urban-adapted raptors;

Reply: Statements like this one reveal the bias in the response, as the response attempts to have it both ways. Earlier responses to other comments claimed that the site’s having been developed precludes use of it by wildlife, but this response is conveniently directed toward “urban-adapted raptors.” The truth is some species of wildlife are more urban-adapted than others. One such raptor is Cooper’s hawk and another is red-shouldered hawk, both of which Noriko saw on the site but which earlier responses claimed must have been animals “in transit.” The animals Noriko saw on the project site were not in transit in July, but rather were on their home ranges; they were living there. A small stand of eucalyptus is likely of critical importance to urban-adapted raptors that otherwise have few remaining options for roosting and nesting on an increasingly urban landscape.

GLA Response: …because these trees [the ones on the Pumpkin Patch] are immature and surrounded by development, special-status raptors are unlikely to use them.

Reply: And yet they did. The logic of the responses, such as this one, appear to be speculative explanations in support of pre-conceived, or perhaps convenient, notions of how and where wildlife should occur. My comments were based on evidence, whereas GLA’s are speculative.

GLA Response: The removal of this small stand of immature eucalyptus trees does not constitute a significant impact because it would not have a substantial adverse effect on any special-status raptor species through habitat modification, and as explained below, Cooper’s hawk and red-shouldered hawk are both common raptor species.

Reply: It is unclear what the response means by characterizing Cooper’s hawk and red- shouldered hawk as common raptor species. By their nature, raptors occur relatively rarely; this is because they are top predators. By their nature, raptors are rare. Both Cooper’s hawk and red-shouldered hawk occur much more rarely than do species such as mourning dove or house finch. The fact that both Cooper’s hawk and red-shouldered hawk are protected by CFG Code 3503.5 means that they are special-status species.

Cooper’s hawk is also listed on California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Taxa to Watch List.

GLA Response: Monarch butterflies are migratory and can be found on almost any site in southern California including residential areas.

6 Reply: The response’s premise is inaccurate and misleading. Noriko and I have surveyed many sites in southern California, and we have detected Monarch on very few of them. Since we began recording Monarchs in our surveys in 2019, we have detected Monarchs at 13 sites in California after 437 surveys totaling 1,019 hours. We averaged 1 Monarch detection for every 78.4 survey-hours, which is a very low rate of detection, and one that is inconsistent with GLA’s assertion. Eleven of the sites where we detected Monarchs were in southern California, which identifies southern California as very important to the conservation of the species. Monarchs have declined rapidly, to the point that the species was emergency-listed under the federal Endangered Species Act.

As I commented earlier, GLA’s responses would be more credible if they were evidence- based. GLA surely has the means to report exactly how often their biologists have detected Monarch during their site surveys. Surely, GLA has not detected Monarch on almost any site their biologists have visited.

GLA Response: As a federal candidate species, monarch butterflies receive no federal protection. This species is also included in the CDFW Special Animals List; however, this designation only applies to monarchs when they occur as part of the California overwintering population, and not as foraging individuals in transit during the breeding and dispersal season.

Reply: As a federal candidate species, and as a CDFW Special Animal, Monarch is a special-status species that needs to be given special consideration in environmental review. The species’ status as a federal candidate listing as threatened or endangered does not apply solely to California’s overwintering population.

GLA Response: The Project site does not contain any milkweed plants, which this species uses as a larval host plant. Monarch butterflies occasionally occur on the site in transit or in search of forage, but do not roost or overwinter.

Reply: The response is based on the false premise that Monarch’s use only milkweed as a larval host plant, and is otherwise conclusory. Whereas Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed, these butterflies rely on many species of flowering plants for food (https://www.fws.gov/story/spreading-milkweed-not-myths). Even Monarch caterpillars eat more than just milkweed. Whereas the presence of milkweed would indicate a higher likelihood of occurrence of Monarch, any given site can provide habitat to Monarchs with or without milkweed. Also important to Monarchs are opportunities for roosting in shrubs and trees, as well as habitat used in migration.

GLA Response: This species is included in the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern list (BCC).

Reply: I agree. This is what I commented. Allen’s hummingbird is a special-status species.

7 GLA Response: …any potential for impacts to nesting Allen’s hummingbird is fully addressed through the nesting bird avoidance measures such that there is no potential for significant impacts on this species.

Reply: This is not true. Not only would it be very difficult to locate an Allen’s hummingbird nest within only days before construction begins, but the proposed building with its extensive glass windows would pose substantial risk of mortal collisions.

GLA Response: Western gull (BCC) is a common species along the California coast that is generally limited to areas with tidal waters. The Smallwood Letter includes a photo of a Western gull over the Project site, which indicates that the individual observed was in transit. The Project site does not contain suitable live-in or breeding habitat for Western gull and the Project has no potential for significant impacts to Western gull.

Reply: Western gull is relatively common where it is common, but elsewhere it is not.

The restricted geographic range of western gull is the principal reason the species was named to the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s list of Birds of Conservation Concern.

The response asserts that because the western gull that Noriko photographed was in flight, it was in transit and therefore the site provides no live-in or breeding habitat. The implication is that a site over which an animal is in transit is unimportant to the species, and that the only sites that are important are breeding sites. This response is either based on ignorance or is disingenuous. Even where animals live, animals must transit their home range to find forage, cover and breeding opportunities. A western gull observed in July is a bird that is living within its home range; it is not going someplace far away. And whatever the gull was doing – wherever it was transiting to or from – it was doing something that was important to it, and ultimately it was doing something that was important to breeding success. After all, no animal can successfully breed without finding sufficient forage and cover year-round.

GLA Response: Double-crested cormorant is identified as a Watch List species by CDFW when occurring in a breeding colony. The Smallwood Letter includes a photo of a double-crested cormorant flying over the Project site, which indicates that the individual observed was in transit. The Project site does not contain suitable live-in or breeding habitat for double-crested cormorant, and therefore the Project has no potential for significant impacts to double-crested cormorant.

Reply: See my reply under Western gull. The response falsely implies that a bird in transit is in migration, which is not the case of a bird seen in flight in mid-July. The double-crested cormorant photographed by Noriko was likely a member of a nearby breeding colony, and was on its way to or from someplace important to that cormorant and likely to the other cormorants in the breeding colony. GLA provides no evidence to the contrary.

8 GLA Response: Cooper’s Hawk Cooper’s hawk is a common, urban-adapted raptor species in southern California; its lack of rarity is indicated by its state rank of S4 indicating that it is apparently secure in California. Additionally, Cooper’s hawk is a CDFW Watch List species by when nesting. Watch List species are taxa that were previously designated by CDFW as Species of Special Concern (SSC), but do not currently meet SSC criteria. Cooper’s hawk is categorized as a bird of prey by the California Fish and Game Code; however, this designation confers no special status except that individuals of this species and its nests/eggs are protected from take (i.e., being killed or destroyed).

Reply: If this part of the response was accurate, then it is a mystery why the State of California went to the trouble of providing the same protections to raptors as does the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In fact, the State of California was compelled to specifically protect raptors with its own statute. That the State of California went to the trouble of designating raptors as protected species qualifies these species as special- status species. But in any case, the natural rarity of Cooper’s hawk confers special status to Cooper’s hawk under CEQA’s definition of special-status species inclusive of rare species.

GLA Response: The Smallwood Letter states that a Cooper’s hawk flew over the site.

Cooper’s hawk flyovers are common in urban and suburban areas of Southern California and this observation does not indicate that the Project site has habitat value for the species. There is low potential for Cooper’s hawk to nest in the mature eucalyptus trees in the 100-foot buffer area included in the Study Area; however, these trees will not be impacted for the Project. There is very low potential for this species to breed in the small stand of immature of eucalyptus in the Project site; however, this is unlikely because Cooper’s hawks generally nest in large, protected stands of mature trees. Given that Cooper’s hawk is a relatively common species, and that the immature eucalyptus stand represents marginal nesting habitat for the species, the removal of this small patch of trees would not constitute a substantial adverse effect to this species through modification of habitat, and therefore the Project has no potential for significant impacts to Cooper’s hawk.

Reply: Again, the response is either based on ignorance or it is disingenuous. Cooper’s hawks maintain home ranges, which they patrol and in which they forage, find cover and find breeding opportunities. No Cooper’s hawk lives on a single small property such as that of the project site. And no breeding site is of itself sufficient to maintain a Cooper’s hawk or its nest attempt; the hawk requires a much larger home range inclusive of multiple properties. But whereas the Cooper’s hawk Noriko observed on the project site occupies a larger home range that includes the project site, loss of the project site as habitat would contribute to habitat fragmentation that at some point would destroy the viability of the hawk’s home range.

GLA Response: Red-shouldered hawk is a common resident raptor species in southern California and often occurs in riparian areas and suburban residential areas.

Red-shouldered hawk is not identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of 9 Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Redshouldered hawk is categorized as a bird of prey by the California Fish and Game Code; however, this designation confers no special status except that individuals of this species and its nests/eggs are protected from take (i.e., being killed or destroyed).

Reply: This part of the response repeats the same flaw of the response directed to Cooper’s hawk.

GLA Response: The Smallwood Letter states that red-shouldered hawk was observed with a prey item adjacent to the Project site and concludes that the hawk was foraging on the site. However, given that most of the Project site is developed, it is more likely that the individual was foraging in the nearby Marketplace Marsh or LCWA complex or other surrounding open space areas. The Project has no potential for significant impacts to raptor foraging, including by the red-shouldered hawk.

Reply: The response is based on convenient speculation, but Noriko detected another 22 species of vertebrate wildlife on the project site, including multiple species that are prey species of red-shouldered hawk. Noriko found pocket gophers and California ground squirrels on and just off the site, as well as house finches, cliff swallows, mourning doves, black phoebe and others. There are likely many more species that occur on the site and which Noriko did not detect in the short time she was present on her survey. I have to agree with Noriko that the prey item held by the red-shouldered hawk was probably captured on the project site.

Adequacy of Desktop Review

GLA Response: The Smallwood Letter includes an analysis and table with an extensive list of wildlife that occur in the vicinity or region of the Project sites based on iNaturalist and eBird records. The Smallwood Letter asserts that many of these taxa have potential to occur on the Project site and should have been included in the analysis.

However, Project site does not constitute suitable habitat for any of these species, which, if redeveloped, would result in habitat modification that would represent a substantial adverse effect.

Reply: If this was the case, then it is curious why GLA sent two biologists to the site for the purposes “…of (1) general reconnaissance survey and vegetation mapping; (2) general biological surveys; (3) habitat assessments for special-status plant species; (4) habitat assessments for special status wildlife species; (5) assessment for the presence of wildlife migration and colonial nursery sites; and (6) evaluation for federal and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands.” If the site was deemed unsuitable for any of the special- status species I listed in my comment letter, then what were the GLA biologists really doing on the project site?

The fact is that Noriko detected six special-status species of wildlife on the project site, and she did this in less than two hours. Had she continued her survey, or if she were to repeat her survey during other times of the day or the year, she would detect more special-status species. The pattern in her data indicate that she would have eventually 10 detected 29 special-status species on the project site over the period of a year or longer.

Noriko’s survey validated the need for my list of special-status species in my comment letter. Such a list is basic due diligence.

GLA Response: The vast majority of these taxa would not occur on the site except in transit. As previously stated, GLA has extensive past experience at and in the vicinity of the Project site, and has conducted focused surveys for listed fairy shrimp, burrowing owl, and Belding’s savannah sparrow at the Pumpkin Patch, none of which occur at the Project site.

Reply: The list of special-status species in my comment letter does not include fairy shrimp. Of the species that are included in my Table 3 of my 15 July 2023 comment letter, I would not expect some of them to occur on the project site. My point was that the species listed in Table 3 should be included in analyses of occurrence likelihoods.

There should be explanations for each of the species determined unlikely to occur on the site, per standard environmental review.

V. Impacts to Nesting Avifauna

GLA Response: The Smallwood Letter states that GLA mischaracterizes the use of the site by wading birds, and that many species of wading birds were observed at the site; however, none of the wading birds included in the Smallwood Letter were observed in a nesting role. GLA maintains its position that, although wading birds may occasionally occur at the site, there is no evidence that they breed at the site. Any potential impacts to nesting birds, including raptors and wading birds, are adequately addressed by the measures included in the Project and SEASP to protect nesting birds referenced above in Section IV.

Reply: The response provides no evidence that wading birds are not nesting on the project site. In my estimation, the GLA biologists were on site doing wildlife survey for about 25 minutes, which was grossly insufficient time for determining whether wading birds are nesting on site.

VI. Impacts to Avifauna Associated with Window Collisions

GLA Response: The Smallwood Letter and the Sierra Club Appeal raise the issue of impacts to avifauna associated with window bird strikes, and the Smallwood Letter additionally asserts that the presence of a new six-story building would affect bird migration. The bird strikes data cited in the Smallwood Letter do not indicate whether the buildings incorporated “bird-safe glass” except for one instance where only two collisions with a building with bird-safe glass were noted in 63 days compared to a nearby building on the same campus without bird-safe glass that produced 61 bird fatalities in the same 63 days, indicating that bird-safe glass greatly reduced bird strikes.

The proposed Project will be constructed consistent with SEASP Section 8.3.14, which requires bird-safe building treatments to prevent bird strikes. The Smallwood Letter additionally asserts that the proposed six-story building would disrupt the migratory patterns of these birds. However, migratory birds have the ability to adjust their flight 11 around a development while staying within the flyway to and from their wintering and breeding grounds.

Reply: GLA mischaracterizes my comments. In my comments, I outlined the major design features and landscape settings associated with high bird-window collision mortality, and I provided some examples of mitigation efficacy. Two examples of mitigation efficacy involved marking windows with stickers, and another involved use of a bird deterrent film. Another study reduced mortality by adding window shades, and another study reported on the efficacy of using fritted glass. Along with the references to these studies, I also cited additional studies that have tested types of glass for the purpose of reducing bird-window collision mortality.

GLA asserts that the Project would be constructed consistent with SEASP Section 8.3.14, which requires bird-safe building treatments to prevent bird strikes, but GLA does not specify which bird-safe treatments would be implemented, nor the extent to which they would be implemented. Nor does GLA say whether the efficacy of the treatments would be measured or what would happen if they were found to be ineffective. GLA’s assertion appears empty.

VII. Wildlife Movement

GLA Response: As stated above in Section III., GLA has extensive experience at the Pumpkin Patch portion of the Project site and surrounding properties and is very familiar with wildlife movement in the vicinity.

Reply: It would be helpful, then, if GLA would report the data implied to have been gathered on wildlife movement in the project vicinity.

GLA Response: CEQA Appendix G.IV(a) asks if the Project would 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 property is almost fully developed, and while wildlife may use it for local movement, it does not constitute an “established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor.”

Reply: This part of the response neglects the use of the word “or” in the CEQA Checklist question. The first phrase of the question refers to any movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species, and does not require the presence of one or more corridors.

GLA Response: The nearby wetlands are much more likely to be used by wildlife for local and regional movement given the lack of traffic and human use in those areas.

Reply: Like earlier responses, this one is conveniently speculative. If GLA has data on wildlife movement in the vicinity, as implied earlier, then those data should be brought to bear in support of GLA’s assertion that the site is unimportant to wildlife movement.

Earlier GLA responses repeatedly pointed out that the wildlife seen and photographed 12 by Noriko were in transit. If these animals were in transit, then they were moving, so it would seem that the project site is important to wildlife movement.

GLA Response: The proposed Project would not interfere substantially with wildlife movement. The Smallwood Letter includes data for a wildlife traffic collision study on Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, which is a rural road largely surrounded by open space and agricultural uses. Data from a rural road is not applicable to an urbanized setting in Long Beach. The proposed Project would redevelop an existing developed site that is adjacent to the Pacific Coast Highway (a major thoroughfare). Further, the Project site does not currently function as a wildlife movement corridor.

Reply: GLA neglects to acknowledge that I adjusted down the prediction of vehicle- caused wildlife mortality that can be based on the study completed in Contra Costa County. In fact, given the more urbanized landscape of the study site, I assumed mortality would be 10% to 25% of the rate estimated at the Contra Costa County study site. Even if the mortality caused by project-generated traffic is only 5% of the Contra Costa County study, the annual death toll to wildlife would be 428. However it is predicted, the annual number of wildlife that would be killed as a result of project- generated traffic would be many, and none of it has been investigated in the environmental review, and none of it would be mitigated as the environmental review stands.

Cumulative Impacts

I note that no responses were directed to my comments regarding cumulative impacts.

Thank you for your consideration,

______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

LITERATURE CITED

Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.

Morrison, M. L., B. G. Marcot, and R. W. Mannan. 1998. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships:

Concepts and Applications. 2nd edition. University of Wisconsin Press Madison, WI.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.

Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust
for Long Beach and Seal Beach
PO Box 30165
Long Beach, CA 90853
www.lcwlandtrust.org
September 18, 2023
Mr . Christopher Koontz
Director
Development Services Department
City of Long Beach
411 W . Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
Re: Withdrawal of Appeal (6615 E. Paci fic Coast Highway – Carmel Partners Project) Dear Mr . Koontz:

On July 28, 2023, Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (“LCWLT”) submi \ed an appeal (“Appeal”) regarding the City of Long Beach Planning Commission’s approval of Site Plan Review SPR22-082, Lot Line Adjustment LLA22-002, Merger LMG22-012, and Local Coastal Development Permit LCDP22-049 for the mixed-use Project proposed at 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway by the applicant, Carmel Partners.

Since filing the Appeal, LCWLT and Carmel have worked to resolve all concerns related to the Appeal, such that the City’s approval of the Project would result in net benefits to wetland resources.

Accordingly, LCWLT hereby withdraws the Appeal. We would like to thank Carmel Partners for its efforts and commitment to resolving this ma\er .

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Lambe
Los Cerritos Wetlands Trust
cc: Carmel Partners

H-17 Correspondence – Melinda Cotton

From: Melinda Cotton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2023 11:14 AM
To: Rex Richardson <[email protected]>; Council District 2 <[email protected]>; Council District 3 <[email protected]>; Council District 1 <[email protected]>; Council District 4 <[email protected]>; Council District 5 <[email protected]>; Council District 6 <[email protected]>; Council District 7 <[email protected]>; Council District 8 <[email protected]>; Council District 9 <[email protected]>; CityClerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Christopher Koontz <[email protected]>; Maryanne Cronin <[email protected]> Cc: Ann Cantrell <[email protected]>; Anna Christensen <[email protected]>; Elizabeth Lambe <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Appeals and Ask Council to reject projects at 6615, 6621, and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway (LB Council Sept. 19th Agenda)

-EXTERNAL-

As a long time resident of Belmont Shore, relying on 2nd Street and Pacific Coast Highway as our ONLY way to travel south to Orange County, East to the 405 and 605 Freeways and more, I ask that you support the Appeal before you and reject the oversized projects at 6615, 6621 and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway. This stretch of Pacific Coast Highway is already too dense and crowded for its existing traffic load, much less the addition of a thousand new residences (with only 17 low income/affordable dwellings) and thousands of square feet of commercial/retail space.

As Seal Beach City Council Member Lisa Landau stated at the July 20th Planning Commission meeting, this additional traffic on PCH will significantly and negatively impact residents of Seal Beach, as well, who she believed were not properly noticed. In case of earthquakes, or other emergency situations - those living and working in Belmont Heights, Belmont Shore, Naples, the Peninsula, Seal Beach, etc. would be dangerously hindered in escaping the area due to the existing traffic tie-ups, much less those arising from this new oversized project.

In addition, the project site is within 3200 ft. of existing and expanding oil operations, within 1500 ft. of earthquake faults, on soils subject to liquefaction, a tsunami zone subject to sea level rise and downriver from a massive industrial corridor with multiple power plants and the world’s largest lithium battery storage facility.

In addition there is no acknowledgement of a Puvungna Sacred Site and need for additional tribal consultation. And, the SEASP Program EIR is inadequate and doesn't address cumulative impacts to the Los Cerritos Wetlands and Alamitos Bay wildlife and plants.

Again, I urge the City Council to support the Appeals before you, and reject these projects.

Sincerely,

Melinda Cotton
Belmont Shore

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Application Number: 2208-10 (SPR22-082, LCDP22-049, LMG22-012), 2201-12 (LLA22-002), APL23-011, APL23-012, and APL23-014

Application Date: 8/12/2022 and 1/11/2022

Project Location: 6615, 6621, and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway (APNs: 7237-020-050,7237-020-040, and 7237-020-041)

Project Applicant: CP VI MARKETPLACE LLC
c/o Hunter Weaver of Carmel Partners, LLC

Project Appellant: Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) (APL23 -011); Elizabeth Lambe, on behalf of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (APL23 -012); and Ann Cantrell and Anna Christensen, on behalf of Sierra Club Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force (APL23-014)

Approval(s) Requested: Third-Party Appeals, Site Plan Review, Local Coastal Development Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, Lot Merger

Proposed Project: Three (3) third-party appeals of entitlement approvals granted by the Planning Commission on July 20, 2023 for a Site Plan Review (SPR22 -082) and Local Coastal Development Permit (LCDP22-049) for a project consisting of the demolition of two existing office buildings (6615 and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway) on the site, and the construction of a new six-story mixed-use project consisting of 390 residential dwelling units (seventeen [17] of which are affordable [very low income]), 5,351 square feet of commercial/retail space in a building with 576 vehicular parking spaces in an above grade parking structure, 196 bicycle parking spaces, and 45,141 square feet of public and private open space area within the Mixed -Use Community Core (MU-CC) designation of the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SP-2) located at 6615, 6621, and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway. A request to approve a lot line adjustment to reposition the eastern property line between two parcels (APNs: 7237-020-050 and 7237-020-041); and merge two (2) lots (APNs: 7237-020-050 and 7237 -020-040) into a single 163,249 -square-foot (3.75- acre) lot is included as part of the project request. The City Council’s decision will be final. (District 3)

Environmental Review: Per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15162, 15168 (c)(2), and 15183 project activities are within the scope of activities analyzed in the Southeast Area Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.2015101075) (EIR 02 -16) and will not result in any new significant impacts. The Southeast Area Specific Plan Program EIR was originally circulated between February 17, 2017, to April 3, 2017. The Program EIR was certified by the City Council on September 19, 2017, and is available for review at the Ci ty’s website at
https://www.longbeach.gov/lbds/planning/environmental/reports/.

This project IS in the Coastal Zone and IS NOT appealable to the Coastal Commission.

The City Council will hear this item at the meeting detailed below:

Meeting Date: September 19, 2023
Meeting Time: 5:00 PM
Meeting Place: 411 W. Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90802

MONIQUE DE LA GARZA
City Clerk

Dated: 8/22/2023
Prepared by: Maryanne Cronin

For more information or to submit written testimony, contact Maryanne Cronin, Planner, at [email protected] or (562) 570-5683.

The public will have the option to use eComment to provide comments on agenda items. Written comments may also be submitted by email to [email protected]. A staff report will be available for public review on or about September 15, 2023. This report may be viewed on the City website at www.longbeach.gov.

If you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or issues raised via written correspondence delivered to the City prior to the public hearing.

City Clerk
Plaza Level City Hall
411 W. Ocean Blvd., First Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802

Application No. 2208-10 (SPR22-082, LCDP22-049, LMG22-012), 2201-12 (LLA22-002), APL23-011, APL23-012, and APL23-014
Meeting Date – September 19, 2023
H-17 Correspondence – Corey Smith

From: Corey Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:26 AM
To: Maryanne Cronin <[email protected]>; CityClerk <[email protected]> Subject: Support homes at 6615 PCH

-EXTERNAL-

Hi there,

My name is Corey Smith and I run the Housing Action Coalition. We're a non-profit that advocates for the construction of more homes across California and I'm reaching out to express support for Carmel's proposed housing at 6615 Pacific Coast Highway.

While we've not had the chance to review the details of this proposal, we've worked w/ Carmel for years around the state and fully understand their commitment to not only creating new homes, but helping create new communities.

Please do everything to keep this project moving forward so everyone has a place to live.

Respectfully,
Corey Smith
Executive Director, Housing Action Coalition

--
Corey Smith 陈锐 | Pronouns: He/Him
Executive Director | Housing Action Coalition
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 720, San Francisco, CA 94111 Cell: (925) 360-5290

Email: [email protected] | Web: housingactioncoalition.org Please note the new email and website.

To opt out of all HAC emails, respond to this email with "unsubscribe all".