Attachment A - PC Staff Report and Attachments part 1 — Long Beach City Council, September 19, 2023 (part 3 of 5)

recover Native American archaeological and/or tribal cultural resources, as practicable, and would convey such resources to the pertinent tribe or most likely descendant, as applicable.

Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-4 is applicable to the proposed project. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? The project site is currently developed with existing office buildings and surface parking. It is unlikely that the proposed project would discover unknown human remains. Nevertheless, development of the proposed project could unearth unknown human remains. The proposed project would be required to incorporate the conditions of approval (see “Existing Conditions”) that would require the preparation and implementation of an Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan during grading and construction activities. The Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan would include procedures in the event human remains are discovered, including compliance with applicable state and federal laws and treatment of remains in consultation with the MLDs and/or Native American monitors (where applicable). Additionally, the proposed project would be required to implement applicable mitigation measure from the PEIR (see below). Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

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

Preservation of the remains in place or project design alternatives shall be considered.

Applicability: Mitigation Measure CUL-6 is applicable to the proposed project.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 85

3.6 ENERGY
Issues

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

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

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 86 ends

SEASP Project Design Features
The SEASP includes a number of applicable PDFs related to reduce energy demands refer to Section 3.2, Air Quality.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is served by both electricity and natural gas connections. Electricity is supplied to the project site via infrastructure maintained by Southern California Edison (SCE) and natural gas is supplied via the City of Long Beach Energy Resources (formerly Gas and Oil) Department.

Current energy demands are derived from the operation of one two-story office building. Energy demand from the existing land use includes building energy (e.g., electricity used for lighting and natural gas used for heating) and energy demand from vehicle trips. Existing land uses generate approximately 615 average daily trips (Fehr & Peers 2023).

Electricity
The project site is in SCE service area, which spans much of Southern California—from Orange and Riverside counties in the south to Santa Barbara County in the west to Mono County in the north (CEC 2022). Total electricity consumption in SCE’s service area was 103,045 gigawatt-hours in 2021 (CEC 2023).4 Sources of electricity sold by SCE in 2021, the latest year for which data are available, were:
▪ 31.4 percent renewable, consisting mostly of solar and wind ▪ 2.3 percent large hydroelectric
▪ 22.3 percent natural gas
▪ 9.2 percent nuclear
▪ 0.2 percent other
▪ 34.6 percent unspecified sources—that is, not traceable to specific sources (SCE 2023)5 Gas
The City of Long Beach Energy Resources Department provides natural gas throughout the city of Long Beach, including the project site. The service area of City of Long Beach Energy Resources Department also serves the cities of Signal Hill in addition to portions of Los Alamitos, Bellflower, Compton, and Los Angeles County (Long Beach 2023b).
4 One gigawatt-hour is equivalent to one million kilowatt-hours. 5 The electricity sources listed reflect changes after the 2013 closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which is owned by SCE.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 87

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

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

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

In addition, electrical energy would be available for use during construction from existing power lines and connections, which could minimize or avoid the use of generators that are less efficient than tying into existing infrastructure. Construction trips would also not result in unnecessary use of energy since the project site is served by several regional freeway systems (e.g., SR-1, SR-22, and I-405) that provide the most direct routes from various areas of the region.

Overall, there would be no unusual project characteristics anticipated that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of California. Therefore, short-term construction activities that occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption during construction activities. A less than significant impact would occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or exacerbated effects compared to what was evaluated in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 88 ends

site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Long-Term Impacts During Operation
Operation of the proposed project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, and transportation energy on the project site similar to the energy use associated with the development allowed under the approved project. Operational use of energy would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of the mixed-use building; water heating; operation of electrical systems, use of on-site equipment and appliances; and lighting. Land uses accommodated under the proposed project would also result in additional demands for transportation fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity) associated with on-road vehicles.

Electrical Energy
Electrical service would be provided by SCE through connections to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure. While the proposed project would result in a new electricity demand, similar to the development allowed under the SEASP, the proposed project would adhere to all applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen requirements.

Compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of PDF-7 and PDF-8 would minimize wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands associated with the proposed project. PDF-7 encourages certain building orientation for improved energy efficiency to capture day lighting, and PDF-8 encourages other mechanisms to provide energy-efficient lighting in the SEASP.

Lastly, the proposed project would be solar ready and required to implement the PEIR Mitigation Measure AQ4, as modified, which requires the proposed project to initially enroll in a 100 percent renewable electricity service, such as Southern California Edison’s Green Rate program. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and the proposed project would not result in new or exacerbated effects compared to what was evaluated in the PEIR.

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

Transportation Energy
The proposed project would consume transportation energy during operations from the use of motor vehicles associated with residents, visitors, and employees. The efficiency of these motor vehicles is unknown—such as M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 89
the average miles per gallon—estimates of transportation energy use are based on the overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and related transportation energy use.

Based on the transportation report, the proposed project would generate a net increase of 920 daily trips and would increase transportation energy demand (Fehr & Peers 2023). However, PDFs would contribute to minimizing transportation-related fuel usage by incorporating transportation demand management strategies, extending bicycle lanes and sidewalks along Studebaker Road, providing a bus turnout along Pacific Coast Highway, and ensuring pedestrian accessibility. Furthermore, the proposed project would involve the construction of a mixed-use building of up to 390 multifamily dwelling units and 5,351 square feet of commercial space that would provide more housing and employment opportunities in the City. The proposed project’s location near other commercial uses and bicycle parking on-site supports multimodal transportation, which reduces the need for vehicle trips. These features and aspects of the proposed project would contribute to minimizing VMT and transportation-related fuel usage. Thus, it is expected that operation-related fuel usage associated with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than similar development projects allowed under the approved project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with respect to operation-related fuel usage.

Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The PEIR determined that the approved project would not conflict with Long Beach’s Sustainability City Action Plan, and no impact would occur.

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

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

Additionally, the proposed project’s design features would include installation of bicycle parking stalls, improvement to pedestrian walkways nearby, implementation of lighting that would comply with SEASP design M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 90 ends

guidelines to reduce light and glare, water-efficient landscaping consistent with LBMC, and incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-4 as discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality. As demonstrated in Table 7 and 8 within Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the design and orientation of the proposed project would ensure consistency with the GHG reduction and energy efficiency measures and strategies in the City’s Climate Action Plan (LB CAP). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS program.

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Issues

42. Less than
Significant
Impact
no no no no
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than
Significant
Impact
no no no no
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Less than
Significant
Impact
no no no no
iv) Landslides? No Impact. no no no no
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than
Significant
Impact
no no no no
M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 91
Issues

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

The SEASP is within a seismically active region—three historical earthquakes in the region caused fatalities and extensive property damage. Most of the SEASP area is within a liquefaction zone, and possible geotechnical hazards include liquefaction and lateral spreading. Construction within the SEASP would need to comply with applicable provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) and California Residential Code (CRC). Future development projects that would be accommodated by the SEASP would be required to have site-specific geotechnical investigation reports. With compliance with CBC, CRC, the design parameters, and recommendations of the geotechnical investigation report (which would be required as a condition of a grading permit and/or building permit, and would be ensured by the City’s Development Services Department during the development review and building plan check process), impacts resulting from strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and lateral spreading would be less than significant.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 92 ends

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

Soil erosion and loss of topsoil were evaluated in Chapter 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the certified PEIR.

The PEIR determined that drainage patterns would largely be maintained and would utilize the existing drainage facilities within the public right of way. As discussed under 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, below, the potential extension of Shopkeeper Road would require volume and peak flow mitigation to match existing (prebuilt) conditions. On-site storm drain systems would likely change with the individual project components but would still utilize the existing city and county facilities in the public right-of-way. Implementation of the SEASP would not result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

Development under the SEASP could subject persons and structures to hazards arising from collapsible soils, ground subsidence, or expansive soils by placing buildings on soils subject to subsidence, collapse, or expansion.

Compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical reports is required as a condition of a grading permit and/or building permit and would be ensured by the City’s Development Services Department during the development review and building plan check process. As a result, impacts related to subsidence, collapsible soils, or expansive soils are less than significant.

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

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

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

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, is based in part on the following technical report:
▪ Geotechnical Investigation Report: Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project, Group Delta, September 30, 2022. (A complete copy of this report is included in Appendix E.) ▪ Long Beach Marketplace – LID Feasibility Screening, Fuscoe Engineering (Fuscoe), August 1, 2022a. (A complete copy of this memorandum is included in Appendix F) The existing ground surface elevation is approximately 10 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 13 feet amsl. The asphalt-paved at-grade parking lot area between the existing buildings on the east and west sides of the project site shows significant surface undulations visually estimated to be about a few inches up to two feet with longitudinal cracks.

The eastern portion of the project site consists of landfill material extending to a maximum depth of approximately 30 feet at approximately the central region of the project site. The western portion of the project M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 93
site consists of non-landfill fill material extending to a depth of about 4.5 feet to 14.5 feet. The fill soils generally consist of silty sand, sandy silt, and silty clayey sand with traces of gravel and debris. Alluvium underlies the fill soils and consists of a relatively compressible layer of interbedded layers of clayey silt and silty clay with intermittent layers of medium dense silty sand to a depth of 20 feet. This layer is underlain by interbedded medium dense silty sand interbedded with stiff clays and silts to a depth of approximately 50 feet. Below 50 feet, the soil consists of dense to very dense sandy soil with occasional clayey interbeds.

Based on the field investigation conducted for the Geotechnical Investigation Report and previous field investigation data, groundwater is located at a depth of approximately 10 feet below existing grade and could vary between 0 feet amsl and 3 feet amsl. The Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Los Alamitos and Seal Beach also indicates the historically highest shallow groundwater at a depth of about 10 feet at the project site.

Like the SEASP area, the project site is in a seismically active region and is subject to ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismically induced settlement, and ground subsidence. There is potential for liquefaction-induced seismic settlement to adversely impact buildings. Liquefaction-induced settlements at the project site may be up to 2.1 inches. More significant liquefiable layers were identified to the depth of about 30 feet below grade.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone of the Newport-Inglewood Fault runs through land designated Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation approximately 900 feet to the northeast of the project site. The project site is not within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The potential for ground surface fault rupture at the project site is considered low.

The project site is located on a relatively flat terrain; the underlying sedimentary units are relatively flat lying, and no landslides are mapped the vicinity of the project site. The project site is not in a designated earthquakeinduced landslide hazard zone. The potential for landslide is considered negligible.

The SEASP states that the entire SEASP area is sensitive for paleontological resources. The SEASP incorporates policies and conditions of approval for new development (see Mitigation Measure CUL-3 in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources).

DISCUSSION
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 94 ends

substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
As discussed above under “SEASP PEIR Summary” and “Existing Conditions,” the project site would not be subject to surface rupture nor landslides. The project site would be subject to ground shaking and potential ground failure (such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, and subsidence) (Group Delta 2022). Consistent with the requirements of the SEASP PEIR, a Geotechnical Investigation Report was prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix E). The proposed project would be required to comply with CBC, CRC, and the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation. Compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report would be required as a condition of a grading permit and/or building permit and would be ensured by the City’s Development Services Department during the development review and building plan check process. Compliance with state and local regulations and the recommendations in the report would ensure that impacts are less than significant. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the SEASP PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the SEASP PEIR and would be consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Construction Phase
Site clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the proposed project may generate erosion of exposed soils. Grading activities in particular lead to exposed areas of loose soil as well as sediment stockpiles that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow. However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements, such as adhering to current the Construction General Permit (CGP) and associated local National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations to ensure that the potential for soil erosion is minimized. In accordance with the CGP, a construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared and implemented at all construction projects with one acre or greater of soil disturbance, and revised as necessary, as administrative or physical conditions change. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the SWPPP would be prepared in accordance with the site-specific sediment risk analyses based on the grading plans, with erosion and sediment controls proposed for each phase of construction for the proposed project. The SWPPP will require the implementation of best management practices (BMP) during construction. Further, the LBMC further regulates erosion during construction (e.g., Chapter 8.96, Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control, and Chapter 18.75, Grading, Exactions and Fills). Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would reduce impacts from erosion and the loss of topsoil during construction.

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 95
site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required.

Operation Phase
The proposed building would be constructed on two developed parcels (APN 7237-020-040 and -050). These parcels are entirely developed with impervious surfaces with the exception of small ornamental landscaped areas around the existing buildings and in the parking lot. The proposed project would increase the pervious surfaces on these parcels as the proposed project would include more landscaped areas. The Studebaker Road right-of-way improvements would develop a portion of the Pumpkin Patch Site that is within the Studebaker Road right of way that is unpaved, a small landscaped area, and paved surfaces. The Studebaker Road right-ofway improvements would increase the impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions. Once buildout, the project site would be entirely developed with impervious surfaces or landscaped. Therefore, the operation of the proposed project would not generate exposed soil or undeveloped land that could lead to erosion.

Operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with the LBMC, the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, and incorporate SUSMP measures to address post-construction stormwater runoff management. Site constraints, irrigation demand, and soil characteristics preclude the use of LID BMP measures (Fuscoe 2022a). Instead, the proposed project would implement flow-based SUSMP measures (i.e. pretreatment filters) to treat stormwater runoff onsite before it enters the stormwater drainage system. The proposed project would also pay an off-site runoff mitigation fee.

Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would be consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
As discussed in threshold (a), the project site would not be subject to surface rupture nor landslides. The project site would be subject to ground shaking and potential ground failure (such as liquefaction, lateral spreading and subsidence) (Group Delta 2022). Consistent with the PEIR, the proposed project would be subject to the CBC regulations and provisions, as adopted in Title 18, Long Beach Building Standards Code, of the LBMC and enforced by the City during plan review prior to building permit issuance. The CBC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition, and also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement the site-specific recommendations from its geotechnical investigation. The impacts of the proposed project as they relate to unstable soils or ground would be consistent with the conclusions in the PEIR and remain less than significant. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 96 ends

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

Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils can undergo dramatic changes in volume in response to variations in soil moisture content.

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

The proposed project would be subject to the CBC regulations and provisions, as adopted in Title 18, Long Beach Building Standards Code, of the LBMC and enforced by the City during plan review prior to building permit issuance. The CBC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition, and also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement the site-specific recommendations outlined in its geotechnical investigation. The impacts of the proposed project as they relate to expansive soils would be consistent with the conclusions in the PEIR and remain less than significant. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would be consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? As with the PEIR, the proposed project would connect to existing public sewer lines, and septic tanks are not proposed. No impact would occur. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would be consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts.

Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The two existing two-story office buildings do not include subterranean parking. The project site is fully developed with the two office buildings, surface parking, landscaping, and public rights-of-way; no unique geologic features exist onsite. The parcels where the proposed building would be developed is underlain by landfill material extending to a maximum depth of 30 feet on the eastern portion and non-landfill fill material extending to a depth of about 4.5 feet to 14.5 feet on the western portion. The proposed project includes the M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 97
development of one partially subterranean level approximately 8.9 feet below grade; therefore, subsurface excavation is anticipated that could extend beyond the landfill fill material. Development of the public rightof-way improvements would not require extensive excavations and would generally include grading for the proper base for the improvements.

Given sensitivity of the region and soils beneath landfill and fill material, development of the proposed project could unearth unknown paleontological resources. The proposed project would be required to incorporate the conditions of approval (outlined above under “Existing Conditions” under Section 3.5, Cultural Resources) that would require the preparation and implementation of an Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the protection of archaeological/paleontological resources during project grading and construction activities, and which would be prepared by a qualified professional. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to implement mitigation measure CUL-3 from the PEIR. Development of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource nor unique geologic feature. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would be consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist.

No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-3.

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 98 ends

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

The PEIR determined that the SEASP would be consistent with the statewide programs adopted to achieve the statewide GHG reduction targets outlined in the CARB Scoping Plan, the three primary transportationland use strategies outlined in the SCAG’S Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the applicable goals in the City of Long Beach’s Climate Action Plan (LB CAP). Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.

SEASP Project Design Features
The SEASP includes a number of PDFs to reduce energy demands; refer to Section 3.2, Air Quality.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing two-story office buildings and parking lot generates GHG emissions from transportation sources, energy (natural gas and purchased energy), and area sources (consumer products and cleaning supplies), water use/wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal. Existing land uses generate approximately 615 average daily trips (Fehr & Peers 2023).

DISCUSSION
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Implementation of a development project could contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHGs from on-site area sources and vehicle trips generated by the project, and indirectly through off-site energy production required for on-site activities, water use, and waste disposal. Because no single project is M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 99
large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG emissions, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis.

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

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

This comprehensive planning document will help the City comply with various local, regional, state, and federal regulations to significantly reduce GHG emissions. The City’s near-term target to reduce per-service-population emissions (i.e., residents plus employees) from 4.48 MTCO2e per service population in 2015 to 3.04 MTCO2e per service population in 2030 was selected based on CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. The long-term 2045 emission target was set to achieve citywide net carbon neutrality consistent with EO B-55-18. The LB CAP has been incorporated into the Long Beach General Plan Land Use Element update to meet the requirements of SB 379, which states that cities or counties must include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in their general plans to ensure the safety and protection of their communities.

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

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 100 ends

Demonstrate Consistency with LB CAP GHG Emission Reduction Actions All projects must demonstrate consistency with the City’s General Plan, evaluate if the proposed project screens out of the LB CAP Action Consistency checklist, and demonstrate consistency with the LB CAP GHG Emission Reduction Actions or document why the strategies or measures are not applicable/infeasible. Given the project’s size and service population, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a MTCO2e/service population greater than 1.4, which is the screening criteria. For this reason, the proposed project is required to show compliance with LB CAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist. The City’s LB CAP Action Consistency Checklist is drawn from Appendix D of the LB CAP EIR (Long Beach 2022c), and is presented below in Table 7, City of Long Beach CAP Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist. Table 7 demonstrates that the proposed project is consistent with City’s LB CAP Action Consistency checklist.

Table 7 City of Long Beach CAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist Applicable Reduction Objectives and Actions Consistency Analysis General Plan and 2019 Land Use Element Consistency

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

The growth projections outlined in the 2019 General Plan Land Use Element were used in the City’s LB CAP to estimate citywide GHG emissions over time. Therefore, new development projects must be consistent with the Land Use Element to be consistent with the LB CAP. In order for City staff to determine a project’s consistency with the Land Use Element, please answer the following question and provide explanation with supporting documentation.

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

If “No,” proceed to Item 2.

Consistent. The Land Use Element of the General Plan
designates the project site as Regional-Serving Facility (RSF) with the SEASP distinction, which means that the
SEASP guides development on the project site.6 The
SEASP designates the project site as Mixed-Use
Community Core (MU-CC).

The proposed project is the type of project envisioned for MU-CC SEASP land use designation. Additionally, the
SEASP provides development standards and design
guidelines for development within its boundaries. As
discussed throughout this Compliance Checklist, the
proposed project is consistent with the SEASP and the MUCC land use designation. Because the proposed project is consistent with this criterion, this analysis proceeds to the “LB CAP Action Consistency” portion of the LB CAP
Checklist, as instructed.

LB CAP Action Consistency
Building Energy

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

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

2. Participate in Southern California Edison at the Green Rate level (i.e., 100% carbon-free electricity) for all electricity accounts associated with Consistent. The proposed project would adhere to all
applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen requirements, which established energy
efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, and overall sustainable design standards. Additionally, similar to the SEASP, the proposed project would implement PDF-7
and PDF-8 to minimize wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands, as required by the SEASP (refer to Section 3.3, Air Quality, for a list of applicable PDFs).
6 The 2019 Land Use Element has not been certified by the California Coastal Commission. Reference to Regional-Serving Facility is mentioned here based on the threshold. Nevertheless, the SEASP has been certified by the City and the Coastal Commission and is the applicable land use designation for the project site.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 101
Table 7 City of Long Beach CAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist Applicable Reduction Objectives and Actions Consistency Analysis the project until which time SCE provides 100% carbon-free electricity for all accounts by default.

3. A combination of #1 and #2 above such that 100% of the project’s electricity is zero-carbon.

Supports LB CAP Measures: BE-1, BE-2, BE-3
Redevelopment projects would be required to achieve more rigorous energy efficiency standards than preexisting
development and would therefore increase energy
efficiency. The proposed project would be designed with energy conservation in mind by implementing SEASP
design requirements such as energy-efficient outdoor
lighting (SEASP 7.2.9). Additionally, the proposed project would be solar ready and all residential units in the
proposed project include all-electric appliances which
contribute to building decarbonization.

Lastly, the proposed project would be required to implement the PEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-4, as modified, which
requires the proposed project to initially enroll in a 100 percent renewable electricity service, such as Southern California Edison’s Green Rate program. As such, the
proposed project would be consistent with this criterion.

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

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

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

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

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

Supports LB CAP Measures: BE-6
Not Applicable. The proposed project is a mixed‐use
development with a total of 390 dwelling units (including 17 apartment units reserved for very low-income housing) and 5,351 square feet of ground‐floor commercial space.

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

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

Supports LB CAP Measures: BE-7
Consistent. The proposed project would adhere to all
applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and
CALGreen requirements. Additionally, the proposed
project’s design features would include implementation of lighting that would comply with SEASP design guidelines to reduce light and glare. The proposed project would be
consistent with this action.

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

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

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

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 102 ends

Table 7 City of Long Beach CAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist Applicable Reduction Objectives and Actions Consistency Analysis

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

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

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

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

5. Replace existing appliances with higher-efficiency models

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

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

8. Conduct other energy efficiency retrofits

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

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

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

2. Provide substantial storage, collection, and loading of recyclables in a manner that is convenient and safe for all users of the building. Ensure there are sufficient sizes and amount of collection containers for recyclables. Containers must be kept clean, be clearly labeled, and are co-located next to any other solid waste receptacles. Ensure sufficient pick up of collection containers to meet the needs of the occupants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 103
Table 7 City of Long Beach CAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist Applicable Reduction Objectives and Actions Consistency Analysis

6. TIER 1: Organics Composting
The project must comply with all state and local requirements for composting and organic waste collection, including but not limited to, Chapter 8.60 Solid Waste, Recycling, and Litter Prevention and Organic Waste Disposal Reduction in the City’s Municipal code. The project must also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supports LB CAP Measures: W-2, W-3
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
comply with the state and local requirements as stated in LBMC Chapter 8.60, Solid Waste, Recycling, and Litter
Prevention and Organic Waste Disposal Reduction.

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

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

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

Supports LB CAP Measures: W-4
Not Applicable. The proposed project would develop a
mixed‐use development with a total of 390 dwelling units (including 17 apartment units reserved for very low-income housing) and 5,351 square feet of ground‐floor commercial space. As stated previously under “TIER 1: Organics
Composting”, the proposed project would be required to
comply with the state and local requirements described in LBMC Chapter 8.60, Solid Waste, Recycling, and Litter
Prevention and Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, to ensure proper organic waste processing.

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

Transportation
M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 104 ends

Table 7 City of Long Beach CAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist Applicable Reduction Objectives and Actions Consistency Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supports LB CAP Measures: T-1, T-2, T-3, T-5, T-6, T-7, T-8, T-9 Consistent. The proposed project would develop a mixed‐ use development with a total of 390 dwelling units (including 17 apartment units reserved for very low-income housing) and 5,351 square feet of ground‐floor commercial space.

Since the proposed project meets the transportation
screening criteria of including ground floor retail less than 50,000 square feet, this consistency analysis would not need to cover checklist items #9 to #14 (items #9 to #14 are not included in this table).

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

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

1. Located in a transit priority area or transit corridor

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

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

4. Includes a mix of land uses

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

6. Does not provide more parking than required
Supports LB CAP Measures: T-6, T-8
Consistent. Although the proposed project is not located within a transit priority area or transit corridor, the proposed mixed-use development would provide a total 390 dwelling units (including 17 apartment units reserved for very lowincome housing) and 5,351 square feet of ground‐floor commercial space in an area that contains and is being
redeveloped to increase local-serving retail services. The project would support alternative modes of transportation by providing a bus turnout at an existing bus stop and
constructing new sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Additionally, the proposed project would implement electric vehicle
charging and energy efficiency design consistent with PEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-5 and AQ-6. Electric vehicle
charging shall be provided as specified in Section
A4.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the
CALGreen Code and preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided in CALGreen Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary
Measures). The proposed project would also provide
adequate bicycle parking as specified in CALGreen Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) to promote
nonvehicular transportation options.

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

Source: Long Beach, 2022b.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 105
Consistency with City’s LB CAP Adaptation Actions
All projects must demonstrate consistency with the LB CAP Adaptation Actions or document why the strategies are not applicable/infeasible. A project could result in a potentially significant GHG emissions impact if found inconsistent with the applicable LB CAP Adaptation Actions. Table 8, Consistency Analysis with the City of Long Beach CAP Actions, shows how the proposed project is consistent with the applicable LB CAP Adaptation Actions.

Table 8 Consistency Analysis with the City of Long Beach CAP Actions Applicable LB CAP Adaptation Action Consistency Requirement Consistency Analysis Extreme Heat (EH)

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

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

2. Cool pavements and reflective street materials

3. Shade canopy installations

4. Other heat island mitigation design features
Supports LB CAP Measures: EH-1, EH-2
Consistent. The proposed project would adhere to all applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen requirements.

Additionally, the ground level open space would include covered outdoor dining space and the common open space on the roof level would include cabanas/umbrellas and trees. Therefore, the proposed project would support this LB CAP Adaptation Action.

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

Supports LB CAP Measures: EH-3
Consistent. As described in in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, the proposed project would comply with the provisions of the LBMC Chapter 14.28, Trees and Shrubs, which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of trees in the city. Implementation of PDF-9 would also require landscaping to be drought tolerant and feature native wetland plants.

Therefore, the proposed project would support this LB CAP Adaptation Action.

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

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

Air Quality (AQ)

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

Supports LB CAP Measures: AQ-1
Consistent. While the proposed project does not specifically include photocatalytic tiles on outdoor surfaces, the proposed project would adhere to all applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen requirements. The proposed project’s design would not preclude the future use of photocatalytic tiles, and the exterior materials would be required to meet specific insulation performance standards established in the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The proposed project would be solar-ready. Additionally, the proposed project’s design features would include implementation of lighting that would comply with SEASP design guidelines to reduce light and glare.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 106 ends

Table 8 Consistency Analysis with the City of Long Beach CAP Actions Applicable LB CAP Adaptation Action Consistency Requirement Consistency Analysis The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this LB CAP Adaptation Action.

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

Supports LB CAP Measures: AQ-2
Not Applicable. The City is the responsible party for this measure. As mentioned in Section 3.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the proposed project would not convert farmland, forest land, nor timberland to nonagricultural uses. Additionally, proposed project would include planters and include development of a game lawn. This LB CAP Adaptation Action is not applicable to the proposed project.

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

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

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

Drought (DRT)

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

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

2. Low-flow or high-efficiency water fixtures

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

4. Drought-tolerant and native plant species only

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

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

Supports LB CAP Measures: DRT-3
Consistent. The Low Impact Development (LID) Feasibility Screening report determined that due to the project site constraints, stormwater infiltration and biofiltration would not be feasible (see Appendix F). For these reasons, the proposed project would instead implement flowbased Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) measures (i.e. pretreatment filters) and pay the City off-site runoff mitigation fees at $3.00 per square foot of non-infiltrated or non-treated stormwater to the City of Long Beach’s Stormwater Pollution Abatement Fund.

Additionally, landscaping would be present throughout the project site to provide passive open spaces around the proposed mixed-use building.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 107
Table 8 Consistency Analysis with the City of Long Beach CAP Actions Applicable LB CAP Adaptation Action Consistency Requirement Consistency Analysis Therefore, the proposed project would support this LB CAP Adaptation Action.

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

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

2. Install residential greywater systems that meet appropriate regulatory standards

3. Install rainfall capture systems

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

Sea Level Rise and Flooding

10. Comply with all City Floodplain and Sea Level Rise
Regulations
The project complies with all City and FEMA floodplain
regulations as necessary to limit, elevate, or provide
floodproofing standards in areas designated as vulnerable to flooding in order to minimize physical damage to development.

This includes compliance with all applicable FEMA, California Building Code, City Building Code Chapter 18.40 and
Floodplain Ordinance requirements.

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

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

Supports LB CAP Measures: FLD-1, FLD-2
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable City and FEMA floodplain regulations, including sea level rise regulations and ordinances. Based on the Sea Level Rise Analysis, the project site would not be impacted by the present day 100-year coastal storm event, and the project area would be projected to experience approximately 1.5 feet of flooding under the 6.7 foot sea level rise scenario (corresponding the 75-year design life). Further, the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) as amended by the LBMC.

Additionally, the Sea Level Rise Analysis provides recommendations to mitigate projected flood hazards, such as increasing site elevation and dry floodproofing at structure openings. Therefore, the proposed project would support this LB CAP Adaptation Action.

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

Supports LB CAP Measures: FLD-5
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Current Stormwater Management Plan and related stormwater management ordinances. A construction stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), in compliance with the Construction General Permit, must be prepared, which requires BMPs during construction activities to control the amount and quality of stormwater leaving the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would implement an Erosion Control Plan that specifies BMPs and erosion control measures to be used during construction to manage runoff flows and prevent pollution. If groundwater is encountered during construction, temporary pumps and filtration would be utilized in compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 108 ends

Table 8 Consistency Analysis with the City of Long Beach CAP Actions Applicable LB CAP Adaptation Action Consistency Requirement Consistency Analysis Operation of the proposed project would also be required to comply with the LBMC and municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit.

Although the project area would preclude the use of low impact development (LID) BMP measures, the proposed project would instead implement a flow-based SUSMP measure (i.e., pretreatment filters) and pay the City off-site runoff mitigation fee at $3.00 per square foot of noninfiltrated or non-treated storm water.

Based on the Sea Level Rise Analysis, the project site is not projected to experience flooding with 4.3 feet of sea level rise (the projection for the minimum 55-year design life with a time horizon of 2080).

Additionally, the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the CBSC as amended by the LBMC. Additionally, the Sea Level Rise Analysis provides recommendations to mitigate projected flood hazards, such as increasing site elevation and dry floodproofing at structure openings. Therefore, the proposed project would support of this LB CAP Adaptation Action.

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

Supports LB CAP Measures: FLD-10
Consistent. Based on the Sea Level Rise Analysis, the overall flood hazard exposure is limited within the project site and the 6.7 foot sea level rise scenario (corresponding to the 55-year design life) is the threshold at which flood hazard exposure becomes present within a small portion of the project area. However, the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the CBSC as amended by the LBMC and adaptation actions would not become necessary until after 2080. The Sea Level Rise Analysis also includes solutions to reduce these projected flood hazards, such as increasing site elevation through the project area and dry floodproofing at structure openings. Therefore, the proposed project would support this LB CAP Adaptation Action.

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

Supports LB CAP Measures: FLD-14, FLD-15
Consistent. The proposed project would construct a curb and widen Studebaker Road to include a center median and round-about feature.

The proposed project would also install bicycle improvements and a bus turnout on Pacific Coast Highway. Based on the Sea Level Rise Analysis, a small portion of the Studebaker Road and E. Pacific Coast Highway would experience flooding during the 6.7 foot sea level rise scenario. The proposed project’s right of way improvements would be designed in accordance with City of Long Beach’s practices and would be reviewed and approved by the City’s Public Works Department.

Therefore, the proposed project would support this LB CAP Adaptation Action.

Source: Long Beach 2022c.

As mentioned in the tables above, the proposed project includes development standards that promote energy efficiency and water efficiency. These include installation of bicycle parking stalls, improvements to pedestrian walkways nearby, implementation of lighting that would comply with SEASP design guidelines to reduce light and glare, water-efficient landscaping consistent with LBMC, and street tree installation. Additionally, the proposed project allows for residential and commercial uses within the same development, promoting M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 109
interactive use of on-site facilities, which reduces the need for vehicle trips. The project site is located next to an existing bus stop on an infill site with transit-supportive density (greater than 20 residential dwelling units per acre), all of which contribute to VMT reduction. The proposed project would support multimodal transportation by installing 196 bicycle parking stalls and pedestrian/bike path improvements to the existing Studebaker Road to help reduce long-term GHG emissions associated with operation of the proposed project.

The proposed project includes 144 electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) capable stalls, 5 percent of these stalls – eight stalls – would have the charging equipment installed. Additionally, the proposed project would be solar ready. All residential units in the proposed project include all-electric appliances which contribute to building decarbonization.

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

Moreover, the proposed project is within the SEASP buildout and is consistent with the MU-CC land use designation on the project site. As with the SEASP, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Moreover, the proposed project is within the SEASP buildout (the project is one of the first projects proposed within the SEASP area) and is consistent with the MU-CC land use designation on the project site. As with the SEASP, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. While the proposed project consistency analysis with the City’s LB CAP under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 presented above represents the basis for the significance determination contained in this Compliance Checklist, GHG emissions generated during construction and operation of the proposed project is presented below and compared against the South Coast AQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year significance threshold for informational purposes only (i.e., not utilized to determine project impact significance). See Table 9, Project Operational GHG Emissions (Year 2027).

Project GHG Emissions
Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from various sources, including vehicle use, emergency generator use, water consumption, and waste generation. Operational GHG emissions generated by the proposed project are presented in Table 9, Project Operational GHG Emissions (Year 2027). It is important to note that the operational GHG emissions in Table 9 represent unmitigated GHG emissions and include area-source GHG emissions associated with gasoline-fueled landscaping equipment use, which would be prohibited under Mitigation Measure AQ-4. Annual average construction emissions were amortized over 30 years and included in the emissions inventory to account for one-time GHG emissions from the construction phases of the proposed project (South Coast AQMD 2009). As shown in Table 10, the proposed project’s operational emissions combined with amortized construction emissions would be below the South Coast AQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e per year significance threshold.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 110 ends

Table 9 Project Operational GHG Emissions (Year 2027)
Source
GHG
(MTCO2e/Year)
Mobile 1,821
Area1 8
Energy2 537
Water/Wastewater3 26
Solid Waste 105
Refrigerants 0
30-Year Construction Amortization5 145
Total 2,641
Total SEASP GHG Emissions 148,060
Proposed Project vs SEASP EIR (145,419)
South Coast AQMD Bright-Line Threshold 3,000 MTCO2e/Yr
Exceeds Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.13 (see Appendix B)
Notes:
1 Area source emissions are from landscape equipment.
2 Energy source emissions are based on CalEEMod default electricity and natural gas consumption rates. 3 Solid waste emissions are calculated based on CalEEMod default solid waste generation rates. 4 Water/Wastewater emissions are calculated based on CalEEMod default water consumption rates. 5 Total construction emission are amortized over 30 years per South Coast AQMD Working Group methodology Conclusion
As discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s LB CAP according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 and would therefore not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. There is no new substantial information that would cause the significant and unavoidable operational GHG impact identified in the SEASP PEIR to be more severe due to the development of the project. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Mitigation Measures
See Mitigation Measures AQ-4 through AQ-6 in Section 3.3, Air Quality. As shown in Section 3.3, Mitigation Measure AQ-4 was updated to be consistent with the City’s LB CAP GHG Reduction Action Consistency Checklist.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 111

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues

SEASP PEIR
Determination
Are there
environmental
effects peculiar to
the project or the
parcel on which
the project would
be located?
Are there
environmental
effects that were
not analyzed as
significant effects
in the SEASP
PEIR?
Are there
potentially
significant offsite impacts and
cumulative
impacts which
were not
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
Are there
previously
identified
significant effects
which, as a result
of substantial
new
information which
was not known at
the time the
SEASP PEIR was
certified, are
determined to
have a more
severe adverse
impact than
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
yes yes no no
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Less than
Significant
no no no no
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
no no no no
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
no no no no
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Less than
Significant
no no no no
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less than
Significant
no no no no
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact no no no no

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The construction and operation of developments within the SEASP area have the potential to result in accidental upset of hazardous materials. However, all onsite activities, during both operation and construction, M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 112 ends

would be required to adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for the management and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the accidental upset of hazardous materials during construction of new developments in accordance with the SEASP would be properly managed, and impacts would be less than significant.

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

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

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

Operation of the future residential uses that would be accommodated under the SEASP would involve the use of small quantities of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as paints, household cleaners, fertilizers, and pesticides. Operation of the future commercial uses would also involve use of small amounts of hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Additionally, future residential and nonresidential uses consistent with the SEASP would be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the City of Long Beach and Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD). Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation would not occur. The PEIR determined that the buildout of the SEASP would result in a less than significant impact during operation for thresholds (a) and (c).

There are a number of sites and facilities in the SEASP area and in proximity to the SEASP area that are listed in hazardous materials sites databases. Individual development projects that would be allowed under the SEASP could impact areas of hazardous substance contamination existing or remaining from historical operations, resulting in a significant impact on the environment. Hazardous substance contaminated properties are regulated at the federal, state, and local level, and are subject to compliance with stringent laws and regulations for investigation and remediation. Future development would be required to comply with these existing laws and regulations. With incorporation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, impacts would be less than significant.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 113
The SEASP area is not within an airport’s land use plan; it is outside of the areas where land uses are regulated for air crash hazards and structure heights are limited to prevent airspace obstructions. The two nearest airports to the SEASP area are Long Beach Municipal Airport is approximately 2.5 miles northwest and the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base is 1.75 miles northeast of the SEASP area. There are no private air strips adjacent to or within the vicinity of the SEASP area. Implementation of the SEASP would not cause any hazards related to aircraft operating to or from public or private airstrips or heliports.

Future development would not interfere with any of the daily operations of the City’s Emergency Operation Center, LBFD, or Long Beach Police Department. Immediate access to the project area is provided by I-405, I-605, SR-22, Pacific Coast Highway, 7th Street, and 2nd Street. Emergency response and evacuation for the City is based on numerous access routes and bridges. The SEASP would not interfere emergency response plans or impede roadway access through removal of any streets. All construction activities would be required to be performed per the City’s and LBFD’s standards and regulations. Future developments would also be required to go through the City’s development review and permitting process and would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety standards and regulations, as set forth by LBFD and in Chapter 18.48 (Fire Code) of the City’s municipal code, to ensure that they do not interfere with the provision of local emergency services.

The SEASP would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City of Long Beach or Los Angeles County’s emergency response or evacuation plans and impacts would be less than significant.

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

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, is based in part on the following technical report:
▪ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Market Place Long Beach Office Park, 6615, 6621, and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway Long Beach, California 90803, (Accessors Parcel Numbers: 7237-020-040, -041, and -050), Carmel Partners Realty Investors, LLC, May 2018. A complete copy of this report is included in the Appendix G (the “Phase I ESA”).

The Phase I ESA evaluated the three parcels that comprise the project site (including APNs 7237-020-040 and -050, and the entirety of parcel with APN 7237-020-041) (“Phase I ESA study area”). There are no indications of contamination issues associated with the current use of the project site; although the project site was previously used for oil production and as a landfill. The project site is located within the boundary of the Seal Beach Oil Field. One oil and gas production well (Conoco Inc. Bixby A Well 72 (API #03707143)) is located on the southeastern portion of the Phase I ESA study area and is listed as “plugged and abandoned.” A second oil and gas production well (Synergy Oil & Gas, LLC Bixby A Well 18 (API #03706991)) is located near the southeastern corner of the Phase I ESA study area. These wells are located at 6621 East Pacific Coast Highway (parcel APN 7237-020-041); this office building is offsite and would not be demolished. Past investigations at the project site conducted under Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) oversight M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 114 ends

indicate that industrial waste may have been disposed at the project site. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, and metals have been detected in groundwater and are attributable to the historical oil and gas exploration and potentially the historical landfill operations. Another ongoing concern at the project site relates to landfill gas (LFG) and migration of methane from adjoining oil field properties. A passive landfill gas control system supplemented by an intermittently operated air blower is present at the project site. In the 20 or more years since this system was installed, no methane has been detected in any of the on-site buildings.

The Phase I ESA concluded that the past presence of the landfill, two oil sumps, one or two oil wells, and oilrelated infrastructure at the project constitute Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs). Oil wells and associated oil pipeline/storage tank infrastructure located to the north and east of the Property also constitute a REC. The Phase I ESA reviewed the prior site investigations and remediation actions that had taken place at portions of the Phase I ESA study area from 1987 to 2017. Testing in 2017 indicated that VOC in soil vapor were all below regulatory screening levels except for one sample. Further testing of groundwater indicated that concentrations of different constituents had decreased over time. The testing in 2017 of soil indicated contamination at and near the building located at 6621 East Pacific Coast Highway, which building will not be demolished as part of the proposed project.

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

The project site is in a highly urbanized area and is not within a wildfire hazard severity zone. The nearest high wildfire severity zones are Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Palos Verdes Estate, approximately 13 miles west of the SEASP area and project site (CalFire 2023). Additionally, the project site is not located in an area designated as a fire threat by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC 2023).

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

While construction activities at the project site could involve the use of hazardous materials, such as petroleumbased fuels for maintenance and use of construction equipment and coatings used in construction, these materials would be transported to the site periodically by vehicles and would be present temporarily during construction. These potentially hazardous materials would not be of a type, or occur in sufficient quantities on-site, to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment, and their use during construction would be short-term. Additionally, as with proposed project operation, the use, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 115
Based on the age of existing onsite structures that are proposed for demolition, hazardous building materials such as lead-based paint (LBP) and asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) may be present within the structures.

The removal of building materials may result in the disposal of hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 would ensure proper handling of hazardous building materials (e.g., ACMs and LBPs) during construction to ensure the safety of humans and the environment. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 would reduce potential impacts associated with the transport and disposal of hazardous building materials to less than significant.

Although the onsite landfill was closed in accordance with regulations in effect at the time of closure (1961), current landfill closure standards are more stringent. Both the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the County Department of Health Services must approve any major development or redevelopment on older landfills. In granting approval for major new developments, the CIWMB may require that the entire former landfill site be brought up to current standard. In December 2022, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) enrolled the Phase I ESA study area in the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Postclosure Maintenance of Inactive Nonhazardous Waste Landfill within the Los Angeles region in accordance with Regional Water Board Order No. R4-2002-022. In May 2023, the Regional Water Board approved a Workplan for Additional Characterization and Postclosure Groundwater Monitoring Program (the “2023 Workplan”). Development of the proposed project would be required to adhere to regulations governing the closure of the former onsite landfill and development residential uses on a site that was former used for oil production, including but not limited to the applicable orders and regulations of the Regional Water Board.

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

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

Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Implementation of mitigation measures, as amended M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 116 ends

would address effects peculiar to the project site, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, consistent with the PEIR. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for individual development projects within the Southeast Area Specific Plan, the project applicant/developer shall submit an updated version of the Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to the City of Long Beach Development Services Department to identify environmental conditions of the development site and determine whether contamination is present. The updated Phase I ESA shall be prepared by an Environmental Professional in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527.13-21, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. If recognized environmental conditions related to soils or groundwater are identified in the updated Phase I ESA, the project applicant shall perform soil and soil gas sampling, as required, as a part of a Phase II ESA. A screening human health risk assessment shall be performed on the Phase II ESA data to determine if soil and soil gas concentrations pose a significant health risk for future project occupants and construction workers. If contamination is found at significant levels, the project applicant shall remediate all contaminated soils and soil vapor with the oversight and in accordance with state and local agency requirements (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Long Beach Fire Department, etc.). All contaminated soils and/or material encountered shall be disposed of at a regulated site and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations prior to the completion of grading. Applicable soil and soil vapor remediation efforts shall occur prior to the issuance of building permits. If soil vapor with elevated concentrations of VOCs or methane cannot be sufficiently removed below regulatory screening levels, the applicant shall retain a qualified environmental professional to identify long-term vapor mitigation measures based on the remaining extent of petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, and methane concentrations, and all recommendations shall be followed.

The project applicant/developer shall obtain approval from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and the County Department of Health Services for the development of the proposed project on a former landfill. The project applicant/developer shall implement remediation efforts associated with the former landfill use identified by CIWMB and/or other applicable oversight agency, including the Regional Board and the 2023 Workplan.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 117
Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report documenting the completion, results, and any follow-up remediation on the recommendations, if any, shall be provided to the City of Long Beach Development Services Department evidencing that all site remediation activities have been completed or that a vapor mitigation system is required to be incorporated into building plans and that all contaminants identified by the screening human health risk assessment in soil and soil vapor would be below human health risk thresholds, and any methane mitigation is prepared according to Long Beach Municipal Code standards. Further, Approval from CIWMB and other applicable oversight agencies related to the former landfill use shall be submitted to the City of Long Beach Development Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits demonstrating that the project site can be developed with residential and commercial uses with no risk to public health and safety.

Applicability: This mitigation measure has been amended to address soil and soil vapor conditions and the former landfill use onsite. This mitigation measure as amended applies to the proposed project.

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

Applicability: This mitigation measure has been amended to address soil and soil vapor conditions onsite. This mitigation measure as amended applies to the proposed project.

HAZ-3 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for any buildings or structures, the project applicant/developer shall conduct the following inspections and assessments for all buildings and structures onsite and shall provide the City of Long Beach Development Services Department with a copy of the report of each investigation or assessment.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 118 ends

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

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? As with the PEIR, all onsite activities, during both operation and construction, would be required to adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for the management and disposal of hazardous materials and the mitigation measures identified in the PEIR (as amended for the proposed project). As discussed under Threshold (a) above, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3.

Therefore, the accidental upset of hazardous materials during construction of the proposed project would be properly managed, and impacts would be less than significant. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR.

Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? As discussed under “Existing Conditions” in this section, there are no schools within a quarter mile of the project site. As discussed under threshold (a), above, the proposed project would be required to implement applicable mitigation measures identified in the PEIR. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 119
proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts.

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

Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 above. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Phase I ESA found the past presence of the landfill, two oil sumps, one or two oil wells, and oil-related infrastructure at the project site constitute RECs. Consistent with the PEIR and as modified above, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-2 that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR and the mitigation measure updated to reflect onsite conditions. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Mitigation Measures
Consistent with the PEIR, the proposed project would incorporate Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ2. Refer to Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-2 above. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? As discussed under “Existing Conditions” in this section, the project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. The proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would include the implementation of a mixed-use development on a project site that is zoned for mixed-use development and would be consistent with the SEASP. The proposed project would not remove any roadways and would enhance pedestrian and vehicular circulation along Studebaker Road meeting City standards for roadway/round about widths, and would not interfere with emergency access routes. As M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 120 ends

discussed in the PEIR, all construction activities would be required to be performed per the City’s and LBFD’s standards and regulations. For example, the proposed project would be required to provide the necessary onand offsite access and circulation for emergency vehicles and services during the construction and operation phases. The proposed project would go through the City’s development review and permitting process and would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety standards and regulations, as set forth by LBFD and in LBMC Chapter 18.48 (Fire Code), to ensure that they do not interfere with the provision of local emergency services (e.g., provision of adequate access roads to accommodate emergency response vehicles, adequate numbers/locations of fire hydrants). As with the PEIR, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
As with the SEASP as a whole, the project site is in a highly urbanized area and is not within a wildfire hazard severity zone. The nearest high severity zones are Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Palos Verdes Estate, approximately 13 miles west of the SEASP area and project site (CalFire 2022). The proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 121

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues

SEASP PEIR
Determination
Are there
environmental
effects peculiar to
the project or the
parcel on which
the project would
be located?
Are there
environmental
effects that were
not analyzed as
significant effects
in the SEASP
PEIR?
Are there
potentially
significant offsite impacts and
cumulative
impacts which
were not
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
Are there
previously
identified
significant effects
which, as a result
of substantial
new
information which
was not known at
the time the
SEASP PEIR was
certified, are
determined to
have a more
severe adverse
impact than
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
Less than
Significant
Impact
no no no no
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Less than
Significant
Impact
no no no no
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
Less than
Significant
Impact
no no no no
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
no no no no
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
no no no no
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than
Significant
Impact
yes no no no
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
no no no no
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
See discussion
below.

No no no no
M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 122 ends

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

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

Impacts would be less than significant.

The PEIR determined that drainage patterns would largely be maintained and would utilize the existing drainage facilities within the public right of way. A small portion of the SEASP area (existing Market Place adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway within the Mixed-Use Community Core area) drains easterly towards the existing wetlands owned by the City. If large increases of runoff were to occur to the existing wetlands, localized flooding and scour could occur near the discharge point. However, the drainage areas tributaries to the existing wetlands are all built out with high impervious conditions (>90 percent) and any future project would have, in most cases, lower impervious conditions and peak flow reductions based on landscaping and LID requirements.

One exception is the potential extension of Shopkeeper Road located within the Mixed-Use Community Core.

In the event Shopkeeper Road were extended southerly to Studebaker Road, design features consistent with the MS4 Permit would require volume and peak flow mitigation to match existing (pre-built) conditions.

Hydromodification requirements would not apply, based on the fact it would not drain into a riverine channel susceptible to hydromodification impacts. Under the proposed condition, overall drainage patterns, flow rates and flow volumes would be maintained based on the high level of impervious condition under the existing condition and would not increase the opportunity to erosion or scour downstream. On-site storm drain systems would likely change with the individual projects but would still utilize the existing city and county facilities within the public right of way. Implementation of the SEASP would not result in erosion or siltation on or offsite.

The City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County maintains storm drains. Based on the high existing impervious conditions in the development areas and the proposed change in land uses from the SEASP which are generally equal to or less than existing impervious conditions, runoff is not anticipated to increase over existing conditions. Buildout of the SEASP would not require the construction of new or expanded storm drainage systems. However, based on City’s Master Plan of Drainage, the PEIR identified five stormwater lines within the SEASP that are deficient and recommended upsizing (see Table 5.9-2 in the PEIR). With the M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 123
incorporation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4, the SEASP would result in a less than significant impact to water flow rates and runoff entering the storm drain system.

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

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

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

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, is based in part on the following technical reports:
▪ Geotechnical Investigation Report: Proposed Long Beach Marketplace Project, Group Delta, September 30, 2022. (A complete copy of this report is included in Appendix E.) ▪ Long Beach Marketplace – LID Feasibility Screening, Fuscoe Engineering (Fuscoe), August 1, 2022a. (A complete copy of this memorandum is included in Appendix F) ▪ Long Beach Marketplace, Sea Level Rise Analysis, Moffatt and Nichol, June 2023. (A complete copy of this report is included in Appendix H.)
The project site contains two office buildings, a surface parking lot with some landscaping throughout the project site, and public rights-of-way. The portion of Pumpkin Patch site within the public right of way and onsite is unpaved. The historic observed high groundwater levels are roughly 10 feet below the ground surface (Group Delta 2022). The project site is in flood Zone X, which indicates that the project site is in an area of reduced flood zone area due to levee (Moffat and Nichol 2023). The San Gabriel River is approximately 520 feet south of the closest point of the project site, across the Pumpkin Patch site. Near the project site, the San Gabriel River flows in a northeast to southwest direction towards the Pacific Ocean.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 124 ends

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

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

DISCUSSION
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
The proposed project would involve ground disturbing activity over the entire project site, and excavation at depths to approximately 10 feet below ground surface (Group Delta 2022). As discussed in the PEIR and under “SEASP PEIR Summary” in this section, the construction and operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements governing water quality. Construction activities such as earth moving, maintenance and operation of construction equipment, potential dewatering, and handling, storage, and disposal of soils and materials could contribute to pollutant loading in stormwater runoff.

The proposed project would be required to implement a SWPPP in compliance with the Construction General Permit (CGP), since the project site is larger than an acre, and the SWPPP would outline best management practices (BMPs) that would be implemented when construction commences, before any site clearing and grubbing or demolition activity. Additionally, the proposed project would implement an Erosion Control Plan that specifies BMPs and erosion control measures to be used during construction to manage runoff flows and prevent pollution. The proposed project would also implement a SWPPP and SMP that defines soil stockpiling areas and procedures in place to ensure no contamination runoff (see Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).

Furthermore, the proposed project is not expected to require dewatering during construction. If groundwater is encountered during construction, temporary pumps and filtration would be utilized in compliance with the NPDES permit. Similar to the PEIR, dewatering activities would require that project applicant either obtain permission to discharge to the sanitary sewer system through the local sewer agency or to file for the general WDR permit to discharge to the MS4. Any such temporary system would comply with all relevant NPDES requirements related to construction and discharges from dewatering operations. Construction (including potential limited dewatering) of the proposed project would also not result in discharges that would cause regulatory standards to be violated in the San Gabriel Watershed.

Site constraints, projected irrigation demand, and onsite soil characteristics preclude the use of infiltration, capture and use, or biofiltration LID BMP measures (Fuscoe 2022a). Therefore, during operation, the proposed project would utilize flow-based SUSMP measures (i.e., pretreatment filters) to manage water quality of stormwater runoff and properly collect and discharge surface runoff into the stormwater drainage system. In addition, the proposed project would include payment off-site runoff mitigation fees.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 125
As such, during construction and operation, the proposed project would implement BMPs to control the amount and quality of the stormwater leaving the project site, and the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The project site lies above the southeast end of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles West Coast Groundwater Basin. Similar to the PEIR, the project site is already developed with limited to no potential for infiltration, and runoff from the project site is directed to storm drains in public rights of way. The project site is not used for groundwater recharge activities nor extraction. The proposed project would comply with NPDES requirements in the case that groundwater is encountered during construction. The proposed project would not include any water wells or permanent dewatering. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations governing water quality (see threshold (a) and PEIR Chapter 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality). The operation of the proposed project would not rely directly on groundwater supply as a water source. According to the Long Beach Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), approximately 40 percent of the City’s water supply is sourced from local groundwater (LBWD 2020). The proposed project is within the buildout capacity of the SEASP; therefore, the project would adequately be served by LBWD, and water use for the proposed project is projected to be within the projected allowable use of the City UWMP and SEASP. The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies nor interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? During construction, exposed and stockpiled soils could be subject to erosion and conveyance into nearby storm drains during storm events. Consistent with the PEIR, the proposed project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and SMP for contaminated soils per Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 and implement BMPs during construction, which would ensure that construction of the proposed project would not result in siltation on or offsite. The proposed project would also be required to comply with all applicable City grading permit regulations that require necessary measures, plans, and inspections to reduce sedimentation and erosion. During operation, the proposed project would be completed developed with M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 126 ends

impervious surfaces and landscaped areas. The proposed project would implement flow-based SUSMP measures (i.e., pretreatment filters) and pay off-site mitigation fees. The proposed project would not result in undeveloped land with exposed soil. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion and siltation on- or off-site. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR.

The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Construction activities could potentially temporarily alter existing drainage patterns and flows on the project site by modifying flow direction and making the project site temporarily more impermeable. As discussed under threshold (a), the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements and implement best management practices during construction and operation.

Further, consistent with the PEIR, Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4 would be required to be implemented as part of the SEASP along with the proposed project. The proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onor offsite. Furthermore, the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts.

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

HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of permits for any development or redevelopment projects pursuant to the Southeast Area Specific Plan, the City of Long Beach shall ensure that the following drainage improvements are fully funded for and implemented:
▪ Any development or redevelopment project that would impact existing storm drain facilities within the Southeast Area Specific Plan area (public and private) that is less than 24-inches in size shall fully fund upsizing of such facilities to a minimum 24-inch or greater pipe size as prescribed by City of Long Beach Public Works Department.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 127
▪ Any development or redevelopment project that would impact the four segments of City of Long Beach’s storm drains in Pacific Coast Highway for which improvements were recommended by the 2005 Master Plan of Drainage Update shall fully fund upsizing of those storm drain segments as indicated below or other final size as prescribed by City of Long Beach Public Works Department.
• Segments 220835 and 220015 to 30 inches;
• Segment 220805 to 54 inches;
• Segment 220710 to 84 inches.
▪ Any development or redevelopment project that would impact the four segments of City of Long Beach’s storm drains in Seville Way (Segment 220810) for which improvements were recommended by the 2005 Master Plan of Drainage Update shall fully fund upsizing of that storm drain segment to 48 inches or other final size as prescribed by City of Long Beach Public Works Department.

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

HYD-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any development or redevelopment projects pursuant to the Southeast Area Specific Plan, project applicants/developers of such projects shall prepare a site-specific hydrology and hydraulic study of the on-site and immediate offsite storm drain systems to determine capacity and integrity of the existing systems. The hydrology and hydraulic study shall be submitted to City of Long Beach Public Works Department for review and approval.

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. The project applicant would prepare a hydrology and hydraulic report for City of Long Beach Public Works Department review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.

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

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 128 ends

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

Applicability: The LID Feasibility Screening memorandum (Appendix F) determined that site constraints, irrigation demand, and soil characteristics preclude the use of LID BMP measures. The proposed project would utilize SUSMP measures (i.e. pretreatment filters).

Therefore, this mitigation measure does not apply to the proposed project. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
The project site is in “Zone X,” which is an area of reduced flood risk due to a levee (Moffat and Nichol 2023). FEMA describes this as an area protected from the 1 percent annual chance (100-year) year flood by a levee system, while noting that overtopping or failure of any levee system is possible. This levee is a Provisionally Accredited Levee by FEMA and is designed to be protected from the FEMA-defined present day 1 percent annual chance (100-year) flood. The project site is protected from open ocean wave impact due to its inland location. Under existing conditions, the project site would not be impacted by the current 100-year combined coastal and fluvial flood event as presented in the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (Moffatt and Nichol 2023; see Appendix H).

The Sea Level Rise Analysis evaluated the potential for future flood hazards due to sea level rise (SLR). Sea level rise scenarios of 3.7 feet, 4.3 feet, and 6.7 feet were used to analyze potential flood hazards during the project design life (55 years). Time horizons for the sea level rise scenarios are based on the medium-high risk aversion sea level rise projections within the 2018 State of California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) Sea Level Rise Guidance. The scenarios were analyzed for flood hazards due to SLR under two baseline conditions:
▪ No storm: represents high spring tide conditions. The highest water surface elevation during a typical spring tide was determined to be 6.5 feet NAVD88.
▪ 50-year storm: A simultaneously occurring 50-year (2 percent chance) stormflow in the San Gabriel River and the Los Cerritos Channel in conjunction with a high spring tide. Outflow from Colorado Lagoon is not included due to negligible contribution. The peak flows are very conservative and are higher than FEMA’s 100-year peak discharges.

Floodwater elevations at the project site associated with each selected SLR scenario, time horizon, and storm condition are presented in Table 10, Water Levels Associated with each Analyzed Sea Level Rise and Storm Scenario.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 129
Table 10 Water Levels Associated with each Analyzed Sea Level Rise and Storm Scenario Sea Level Rise Scenario Time Horizon1
No Storm Water Elevation
(feet, NAVD88)
50-Year Storm Water Elevation
(feet, NAVD88)

3.7 feet 2075 10.2 10.5

4.3 feet 2080 10.8 11.5

6.7 feet 2100 13.2 14.0
Source: Moffat and Nichol 2023.
1Time horizons are based on high-emissions, medium-high risk aversion projections.

Under a 3.7-foot sea level rise scenario, flooding is absent within the project site. Flood projections under the no-storm condition and 50-year storm condition are limited to the wetland area located north of 2nd Street as well as select low-lying portions of the roadway.

Under a 4.3-foot sea level rise scenario, flooding occurs within low-lying areas but remains absent from the project site (Figure 3-4). This scenario represents a threshold at which flood projections extend into the low-lying area to the east of the project site as floodwaters originating from the Los Cerritos Channel travel across 2nd Street at multiple locations. No overtopping of the San Gabriel River levees is projected under this sea level rise scenario. Groundwater hazard modeling results show no projected areas of emergent groundwater within the project site. The groundwater table depth is projected to be between two to five meters depth over the majority of the project site under this sea level rise scenario, with limited areas of one to two meters in depth.

Under the current topographic conditions, the 6.7-foot sea level rise scenario is the threshold at which flood becomes present within the project site and increases substantially in areas surrounding the project site. Flood projections for the no-storm condition extend across small areas at the western boundary of the project site due to floodwaters travelling south along Pacific Coast Highway and across neighboring development. Flood projections for the no-storm condition also extend over a small portion of the proposed project right-of-way improvement area along Studebaker Road. Additional flooding is projected at the eastern portion of the project site under the 50-year storm condition as floodwaters extend inland from the low-lying areas to the north and east of the project site. No overtopping of the San Gabriel River levees is projected under this sea level rise scenario.

The northwestern portion project site is projected to experience approximately 1.5 feet of flooding under the 6.7 feet sea level rise scenario, not projected to occur until after the 55-year Project design life. Projected flood depths at the eastern portion of the project site with 6.7 feet sea level rise are shallower at approximately 0.5 feet. At each location flood projections remain within a limited area.

The project site is currently paved and developed with structures. While the proposed project would place a building and Studebaker Road right-of-way improvements within the potential flood area under the 6.7 feet sea level rise scenario, the proposed project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the project site since the project site is already developed. Further, the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the CBC as amended by the LBMC and incorporate the recommendations outlined in the Sea Level Rise Analysis. This includes raising the elevation of selected M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 130 ends

portions of development and paved areas and floodproofing retrofits, as recommended by the Sea Level Rise Analysis. The proposed project would be constructed to include sea level rise adaptation techniques outlined in the Sea Level Rise Analysis, which can include increased site elevation and dry proofing (Moffat and Nichol 2023).

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? As with the SEASP area, the project site is not subject to seiches or mudflows. As discussed under threshold

3.10(iv) above, the project site is not expected to experience flooding based on existing conditions. However, future sea level rise increases the potential for flooding at the project site. In addition, the project site is within a tsunami inundation zone. The proposed project would experience a low risk of flooding (Moffatt and Nichol 2023). Further, the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the CBC as amended by the LBMC and incorporate the recommendations outlined in the Sea Level Rise Analysis. In addition, in August 2019, the USACE completed a safety study of the Whittier Narrows Dam and classified its risk of failure as “extremely high.” The USACE determined that in rare, extremely high rainfall events certain dam failures could occur (USACE 2023a). The Whittier Narrows Dam inundation map shows that the project site has the potential to experience up to zero to 15 feet of flooding (the six to 15-feet inundation area is limited to the eastern side of the project site) (USACE 2023b). Inundation due to dam failure is rare; in addition, USACE is in the process of implementing safety modifications to the dam; the project is expected to be completed by 2030 (USACE 2023c).

While the proposed project is expected to use small amounts of hazardous materials during construction and operation (e.g., paints, cleaners, oils, etc.), the construction and operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable regulations for proper handling, usage, and storage of potentially hazardous materials. Further, as further discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, construction activities could expose contaminated soils. However, with implement mitigation measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, contaminated soils would be properly handled and disposed of (see Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Therefore, the proposed project would not release pollutants due to project inundation.

As required by the PEIR, the proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures HYD5 and HYD-6. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 131
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the adopted MMRP are applicable to the proposed project. Refer to Appendix A for the full list of mitigation measures associated with the certified PEIR.

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

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project.

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

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The project site lies above the southeast end of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles West Coast Groundwater Basin, which has a Basin Plan implemented by the State Water Resources Control Board. The Basin Plan which covers the SEASP area, provides all relevant information necessary to carry out federal mandates for the antidegradation policy, 303(d) listing of impaired waters, and related Total Maximum Daily Loads, and provides information relative to NPDES and Waste Discharge Requirements permit limits. The project site is already developed, and runoff from the project site is directed to the storm drains in public rights of way. The project site is not used for groundwater recharge activities nor extraction. Construction activities would be limited to the project site.

The proposed building would be constructed on two developed parcels (APN 7237-020-040 and -050). These parcels are entirely developed with impervious surfaces with the exception of small ornamental landscaped areas around the existing buildings and in the parking lot. The proposed project would increase the pervious surfaces on these parcels as the proposed project would include more landscaped areas. The Studebaker Road right-of-way improvements would develop a portion of the Pumpkin Patch site within the public right of way (which currently contains unpaved surfaces), a small landscaped area, and paved surfaces. The Studebaker Road right-of-way improvements would increase the impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would implement SUSMP measures (i.e., pretreatment filters) and pay off-site runoff mitigation fees. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations governing water quality (see threshold (a) and PEIR Chapter 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality). The proposed project would not rely directly on groundwater supply as a water source. As described under threshold (b), the proposed M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 132 ends

project is within the buildout capacity of the SEASP; therefore, the project would adequately be served by LBWD, and water use for the proposed project is projected to be within the projected allowable use of the City UWMP and SEASP. The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies nor interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Basin Plan. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts.

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

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues

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

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

Additionally, implementation of the SEASP would occur within the confines of the SEASP area and would not introduce roadways or other infrastructure improvements that would bisect or transect the surrounding communities. The residential and commercial uses of the SEASP would also be compatible with and similar to M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 133
the surrounding land uses. Therefore, the proposed land use plan would not physically divide established communities, but would have a beneficial impact of bringing together individual neighborhoods and creating gateways, landmarks, and destinations that strengthen the project area’s community character. No impacts related to division of established communities would occur and no mitigation is necessary.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The 5.8-acre project site is currently developed with two two‐story office buildings with surface parking, limited landscaping, the Studebaker Road right-of-way, and a portion of the public right of way along the Pacific Coast Highway. The project site has a SEASP land use designation of Mixed‐Use Community Core. The applicable zoning for the project site is established in the SEASP (SP-2). Within SEASP, the project site is in the Mixed‐ Use Community Core (MU-CC) designation.

DISCUSSION
a) Physically divide an established community?
The proposed project would develop a mixed-use building on a developed project site, and the mixed-use building would be limited to the developed parcels with APN 7237-020-040 and -050. The proposed project would include roadway improvements along Studebaker Road to improve circulation, provide landscaping, and sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Additionally, the proposed project would include construction of a bus turnout and bicycle lane improvements along Pacific Coast Highway. These project features would improve circulation in the community. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The proposed project is the type of project envisioned for the Mixed-Use Community Core land use designation and is consistent with existing and future planned redevelopment in the project area. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed project includes the construction and operation of a mixed-use development on a project site designated as MU-CC. As discussed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, the proposed project is consistent with applicable development standards of the SEASP, and the proposed project would be designed to be consistent with the SEASP’s design guidelines. The proposed project is the type of project envisioned for the MU-CC designation.

Therefore, as with the PEIR, the proposed project is consistent with Long Beach General Plan, Zoning Code, Local Coastal Program, and Bicycle Master Plan and the Airport Environs Land Use Plan and South Coast Association of Governments RTP/SCS. As shown in Table 11, SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis, the proposed project is consistent with applicable SEASP policies. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 134 ends

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

Table 11 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
POLICY 5.1: Identification of ESHA is made on a case-by-case basis, based upon site-specific evidence, and in consultation with a qualified professional. When sensitive biological resources are suspected on or near a project site and a project has the potential to impact those resources, biological evaluations are required. In addition to surveying the project site, the following lists and designations of rare species and habitats, among other information sources, are consulted to assist in the determination of whether habitats onsite are ESHA:
a) Federal and State listed Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species b) Plants, animals, and natural communities ranked as global or state G1 or S1 (critically imperiled), G2 or S2 (imperiled), or G3 or S3 (vulnerable to extirpation or extinction) by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and NatureServe
c) California Fully Protected Species, California Species of Special Concern, and their habitats.
d) Listed critical habitat occupied by the respective rare species e) California Native Plant Society (CNPS) plant species designated 1B (rare or endangered in California and elsewhere) and 2 (rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere) f) Federal and State plants, animals, and natural communities that are candidates for listing or delisting may be considered
Consistent. As discussed under Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, the project site does not contain habitat nor specialstatus plants or animal species. The project site does not contain an ESHA.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 135
Table 11 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
POLICY 5.2: Wetland delineations in the SEASP area must be conducted consistent with the provisions of this chapter. At the time of local Coastal Development Permit application submittal, new projects located on a property where any portion of that property is located within 100 feet of any designated wetland, or within 100 feet of a potential wetland based on site specific characteristics or nearby wetland delineations, or within 100 feet of a Coastal Habitats/Wetlands/ Recreation land use designation area where no nearby wetland delineations exist, or within 100 feet of a documented sensitive coastal habitat area require the preparation of a biological study to determine the location and extent of wetlands resources, on a site, if any. When a wetland delineation is required by the City for a new development application or permit, one of two options may be provided by the applicant:

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

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

POLICY 5.3: Wetland delineations must be conducted during the middle or end of the rainy season, which may occur during winter or spring depending on the local annual rain pattern.

Not Applicable. Consistent with the SEASP definition, the proposed project is considered a redevelopment project. 7 The
project site is beyond 100 feet from the nearest wetland. The Biological Technical Report prepared for the proposed project (Appendix C) evaluated jurisdictional waters and determined that the project site does not contain any blue-line streams, jurisdictional waters, or wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act or the California Coastal Act. The proposed project is outside of the jurisdictional limits of the San Gabriel River.

The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR.

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

Not Applicable. This policy is directed to the City to develop climate adaptation measures that consider strategies to avoid loss of habitat area and value, including moving the line of development. The proposed project is on a developed project site that does not contain wetlands (see Section 3.4, Biological Resources). As discussed in Section 3.4, the proposed project would not result in the loss of habitat nor interfere with wetlands or habitat.

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

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

Not Applicable. The proposed project is on a developed
project site that does not contain wetlands nor jurisdictional waters (see Section 3.4, Biological Resources). The proposed project is not adjacent or within the San Gabriel River or LCWC, nor would it include uses of the marine environment.

SECTION 30231 BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTIVITY; WATER QUALITY:

The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other Consistent. As discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would incorporate
adequate best management practices to retain and treat
stormwater runoff on-site. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not impact groundwater nor
7 “Redevelopment” is defined on page 68 of the SEASP. The proposed project meets the following definition for a redevelopment project “(3) demolition or rebuild of an existing home or other principal structure, or portions thereof, which result in: (1) Replacement (including demolition, rebuild, renovation, reinforcement, or other type of alteration) of 50% or more of major structural components including exterior walls, floor, roof structure, or foundation, as calculated by linear feet, surface area, volume, or weight, or a 50% increase in gross floor area. Alterations are not additive between individual major structural components.”
M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 136 ends

Table 11 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
substantially interfere with surface flow. The proposed project would not alter a natural stream. The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR.

SECTION 30232 OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SPILLS:

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

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

SECTION 30233 DIKING, FILLING OR DREDGING; CONTINUED
MOVEMENT OF SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENTS:
(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:
(1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities.
(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps.
(3) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities.
(4) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines.
(5) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas.
(6) Restoration purposes.
(7) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities. (b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for these purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems.

I In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to, the coastal wetlands identified in its report entitled, “Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands of California”, shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of south San Diego Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not include diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 137
Table 11 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
For the purposes of this section, “commercial fishing facilities in Bodega Bay” means that not less than 80 percent of all boating facilities proposed to be developed or improved, where the improvement would create additional berths in Bodega Bay, shall be designed and used for commercial fishing activities.
(d) Erosion control and flood control facilities constructed on watercourses can impede the movement of sediment and nutrients that would otherwise be carried by storm runoff into coastal waters. To facilitate the continued delivery of these sediments to the littoral zone, whenever feasible, the material removed from these facilities may be placed at appropriate points on the shoreline in accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Aspects that shall be considered before issuing a coastal development permit for these purposes are the method of placement, time of year of placement, and sensitivity of the placement area.

SECTION 30236 WATER SUPPLY AND FLOOD CONTROL:

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

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

SECTION 30240 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS;
ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS:
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not contain nor is it adjacent to an ESHA (see Section 3.4, Biological Resources).

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

I Visitor-serving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas shall be located in existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors.

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

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

POLICY 5.11: There shall be no net loss of wetland acreage or habitat value as a result of any land use or development activities. Specifically, Consistent. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not impact wetlands nor habitat.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 138 ends

Table 11 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
when wetland impacts are unavoidable and consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act, replacement of the impacted wetland shall be required through the creation of new wetlands at a ratio determined by the appropriate regulatory agencies, but at a ratio no less than four acres provided for each acre impacted so as to ensure no net loss of wetland acreage. Replacement of wetlands on-site or adjacent to the impacted wetlands, within the same wetlands system and in-kind mitigation, shall be given preference over other mitigation options.

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

Consistent. The proposed project would not impact or displace wetlands, open coastal waters, or other sensitive habitat areas.

The project site is fully developed and is not adjacent to wetlands, open coastal waters, nor other sensitive habitat areas. The proposed project would incorporate landscaping throughout. The proposed project would not install or operate unpermitted bulkheads, patios, or other structures that encroach onto wetlands, open coastal waters, or other sensitive habitat areas. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy.

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

POLICY 5.14: For allowable impacts to ESHA and Wetlands, the City shall require mitigation in the form of habitat creation, or wetland creation, or substantial restoration/enhancement for allowable impacts to ESHA and other sensitive resources that cannot be avoided through the implementation of siting and design alternatives.

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

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not contain nor is it adjacent to ESHA (see Section 3.4, Biological Resources).

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

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

POLICY 5.17: Projects Within 100 Feet of Wetlands, ESHA, or Sensitive Coastal Habitat Areas for projects located on a property where any portion of that property is located within 100 feet of any designated Consistent. The proposed project is not within 100 feet of or adjacent to any other jurisdictional wetlands nor ESHA. The Biological Technical Report prepared for the proposed project M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 139
Table 11 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
wetland or ESHA, as defined in this chapter, or within 100 feet of a potential wetland or ESHA based on site specific characteristics or nearby wetland delineations, or within 100 feet of a sensitive coastal habitat area, as defined in this chapter, the property owner shall be required to submit a CDP application complete with biological surveys and a wetland delineation, if applicable, and a Site Plan Review application, and shall be consistent with the provisions of this chapter. (Appendix C) confirms no wetlands or sensitive habitats are present onsite. The applicant would not be required to prepare or provide applicable permits. A wetland delineation is not required for the proposed project, since it is 100-feet outside of a wetland. Also see response to Policy 5.2 above.

POLICY 5.18: Standards Applicable to All Areas Adjacent to Jurisdictional Waters, ESHA, and Wetlands Development projects within 100 feet of Coastal Act wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat (ESHA), and all land within the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands, and Recreation land use shall comply with the following:
»Prior to approval of a trails/access plan within or adjacent to wetlands or ESHA, the location, design, and text for urban-open space interface signage shall be developed. The signage shall be located at all pedestrian access points. The signage shall educate users on the responsibilities associated with the open space interface and shall address relevant issues, including the role of natural predators in the wildlands and how to minimize impacts of human and domestic pets on native communities and their inhabitants.
»Prior to approval of any development adjacent to the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands, and Recreation land use, the project applicant shall submit a photometric plan demonstrating that the project will be designed and shielded so that the nighttime lighting shall be no greater than 0.10 footcandles at the edge of the habitat. This limits spill light (light trespass) to levels that do not greatly exceed the intensity of moonlight (approximately 0.1foot-candles).
»Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant and/or subsequent builder shall prepare an urban-open space interface brochure to be approved by the Long Beach Development Services Department to educate residents on the responsibilities associated with living near sensitive biological habitat. The brochure shall address relevant issues, including noise, dark skies, nesting birds, bird-safe buildings, and the role of natural predators in the wildlands and how to minimize impacts of human and domestic pets on native communities and their inhabitants. The approved brochure, along with attachments, shall be included as part of the rental/lease agreements and as part of the sales literature for future developments.

Not Applicable. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project does not contain nor is it adjacent to jurisdictional waters and wetlands nor an ESHA.

The project site is not within 100 feet of Coastal Act wetlands, ESHA, and does not contain land within the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands, and Recreation.

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

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

Consistent. The proposed project would be required to pay all applicable fees included in Chapter 18.19 of the Long Beach Municipal Code.

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

However, a smaller buffer between wetlands and ESHA and paved Not Applicable. The proposed project is a redevelopment project, and this policy does not apply to the proposed project.

As discussed in this Compliance Checklist, the proposed project would be required to implement all applicable mitigation M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 140 ends

Table 11 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
areas at the MarketPlace parcel that exist at the time of certification of this Plan may be approved, but under no circumstances can be less than 50 feet. A reduced buffer can only be approved if the City finds a 100-foot buffer is infeasible and makes findings that the approved buffer is the widest feasible buffer and will sufficiently protect the wetland or ESHA. Any portion of the buffer less than 100 feet shall require contribution to the Wetland Conservation and Monitoring Fund at the current market rate per each quarter of an acre as established by the City. The buffer area must be designed to shield the existing wetland or ESHA from lighting, noise, urban runoff, and human intrusion resulting from the project. New buildings, public facilities, roadways, and fuel modification zones are not permitted within the buffer. b) In addition, buffers should:
i) Prevent disturbances to wetlands or ESHA from adjacent development.
ii) Minimize the effects of erosion, sedimentation, and pollution arising from urban, industrial, and agricultural activities; however, to the extent possible, erosion, sedimentation, and pollution control problems should be dealt with at the source not in the wetland or buffer area. iii) Allow for passive recreational uses within the area, only if it can be shown, by the written findings of a qualified biologist, that these uses will not adversely impact the wetland ecosystem or the ESHA or the buffer’s function. These uses may include bird watching, walking, jogging, and bike riding, and may include the construction of paths and interpretive signs and displays. All access, trails, or paths should be constructed to minimize impact to plants and animals and to maximize the buffer area. c) Buffers are natural areas that transition from urbanized areas to wetland or ESHA habitat. No new residential, commercial, or industrial buildings will be located within 100 feet of a delineated wetland. Existing roadways already within buffers may be maintained, but not expanded.

In addition, the future alignment of the completion of Shopkeeper Road between 2nd Street and Studebaker Road, as described in Chapter 7, Mobility, Section 7.6.8, must be found consistent with the wetland protection policies and the buffer policies.

D) Developments with wetland buffers will be required to prepare and record covenants regarding maintenance obligations of buffer areas.

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

3.4, Biological Resources, above. The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR conclusions related to biological resources.

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

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

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 141
Table 11 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
POLICY 5.22: Development shall analyze sea level rise and groundwater rise over the expected life of the development in considering increased potential for mobilization of surface and subsurface pollutants.

Consistent. A Sea Level Rise Analysis was prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix H). As discussed in Section

3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project is consistent with the PEIR and would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLICY 5.29: The trimming and/or removal of any trees that have been used for breeding, roosting, and nesting within the past five (5) years, as determined by a qualified biologist or ornithologist shall be undertaken in compliance with all applicable codes and regulations of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Migratory Bird treaty Act, and shall be conducted under the parameters of a Tree Maintenance Program which shall be prepared and included as part of the LCP’s Implementation Plan.

Consistent. The project site includes trees that may be used for breeding, roosting, and nesting within the past five years.

Tree removal and trimming during the construction and
operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with this policy. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations protecting nesting birds, such as the MBTA. Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-8, which outlines a process for bird surveys prior to construction. The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR.

POLICY 5.30: If an active nest of any species listed pursuant to the federal or California Endangered Species Act, California bird species of special concern, or a wading bird (herons or egrets) as well as owls or raptors is found, construction activities shall avoid breeding/nesting season (January through September). If construction is determined to be necessary during the breeding/nesting season, construction activities within 300 feet (500 feet from any owl or raptor nests) shall not exceed noise levels of 65 dB peak until the nest(s) is naturally vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The 65 dB peak noise levels may only be increased if a noise study demonstrates the ambient noise level is above 65 dB at the Consistent. The proposed project would comply with the
policy. As discussed in the biological technical report and the in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, this policy was incorporated into Mitigation Measure BIO-8.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 142 ends

Table 11 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
subject site, and shall not be allowed to exceed the ambient level. When construction is determined to be necessary during the breeding/nesting season, breeding/nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction with a follow-up survey conducted 3 days prior to commencement of construction on sites where there is probable cause to believe that nesting birds may exist.

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

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

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

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

1. Annually, prior to tree trimming or removal, a qualified biologist or ornithologist shall survey the trees to be trimmed or removed to detect breeding, roosting, or nesting activity and submit a survey report to the City of Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine, a representative of the Audubon Society, and the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission. The survey report shall include identification of all trees with breeding, roosting, or nesting activity. The Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine shall maintain a database of survey reports that includes a record of breeding, roosting, and nesting trees that is available as public information and to be used for future tree trimming and removal decisions.

2. Any trimming of trees with a history of breeding, roosting, or nesting activity within the past five (5) years shall be supervised by a qualified biologist or ornithologist and a qualified arborist to ensure that adequate breeding, roosting, and nesting support and foliage coverage is maintained in the tree, to the maximum extent feasible, in order to preserve the breeding, roosting, and nesting habitat. Trimming of any such trees shall occur in a way to preserve the breeding, roosting, and nesting activity, unless the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine, in consultation with a qualified arborist, determines that such trimming is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public. The amount of trimming at any one time shall be limited to preserve the suitability of the tree for breeding, roosting, or nesting habitat.

3. Trimming may not proceed if a nest is found and evidence of courtship or nesting behavior is observed at the site. In the event that any birds continue to occupy trees during the non-nesting season, trimming shall not take place until a qualified biologist or ornithologist Consistent. The project site is in the Coastal Zone. The project would be required to comply with the policy during construction and operation. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological
Resources, the project site generally consists of ornamental landscaping and trees, which do not provide suitable habitat for special-status species. Additionally, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-8 to further protect nesting, breeding, and roosting species. The proposed project is consistent with the PEIR.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 143
Table 11 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
has assessed the site, determined that courtship behavior has ceased, and given approval to proceed within 300 feet of any occupied tree.

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

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

2. Prior to commencement of tree trimming and/or removal the City of Long Beach Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine shall notify in writing the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission, the Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the intent to commence tree trimming or removal.

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

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

A. Lighting shall be designed to achieve the minimum degree of illumination necessary for public safety, minimize light trespass into adjacent non-target areas, and limit the illumination of open space and sensitive coastal habitat areas to the maximum extent feasible. Lighting shall be downward directed, shielded, energy efficient, dark skyNot Applicable. The proposed project is a redevelopment project. The project site does not contain nor is it within 100 feet of jurisdictional wetlands, ESHA, or open water
communities.

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

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 144 ends

Table 11 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy Analysis
compatible, and shall incorporate state-of-the-art improvements in lighting technology when replaced thereafter. Replacement bulbs or fixtures shall be upgraded to incorporate best available technology over the life of the installation. Programmable timing devices shall be utilized to turn off unnecessary lights where feasible. Illuminated signs shall not be allowed.

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

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

D. Amplified music shall not be permitted.

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

Notes:
•Policies related to land use other than MU-CC are not included in this table. •Policies related to oil production or resource extraction are not included in this table. •Policies related to overnight accommodations are not included in this table.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 145

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
Chapter 5.11, Mineral Resources, of the certified PEIR found that there are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites in Long Beach, and the SEASP area is not in a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) where significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present. Furthermore, the SEASP is not designated as a Scientific Resource Zones (SZ) area or an Identified Resource Areas (IRA) area. However, the SEASP features substantial subsurface petroleum deposits. The SEASP concentrates new development in developed and urbanized areas.

New development is not proposed that would encroach onto or result in activities that would impact the existing oil operations. The certified PEIR determined that implementation of the SEASP would not change or impact ongoing oil operations, including oil extraction activities. Future development in accordance with the Specific Plan would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource, and impacts relating to mineral resources recovery sites would be less than significant.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The SEASP area has oil production, and the SEASP includes policies and standards for the continued operation of oil extraction in the SEASP area. Oils operations occur on the eastern side of the SEASP, to the east of the project site. As discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, two oil wells and associated infrastructure were located below the existing building located at 6621 Pacific Coast Highway (which building will not be demolished as part of the proposed project); further those wells are listed as “plugged and abandoned.” Therefore, no mineral or oil extraction activities exist on-site (DOC 2023c); the project site is developed with two two-story office buildings. The project site is not in an MRZ (CGS 2010).

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 146 ends

DISCUSSION
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The project site is developed with two two-story office buildings. The project site includes two oil wells that are listed as “plugged and abandoned.” below the existing building located at 6621 Pacific Coast Highway (which building will not be demolished as part of the proposed project). No mineral or oil extraction exist onsite and resource extraction has not occurred onsite since 1964. The project site is not in an MRZ and development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region nor a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local plan, specific plan, or other land use plan that would be a value to the region. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 147

3.13 NOISE
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
Construction Noise
Two types of temporary noise impacts could occur during construction activities associated with development that would be accommodated by SEASP. First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads. The second type of temporary noise impact is related to demolition, site preparation, grading, and/or physical construction on the individual project site. Construction of individual development projects associated with SEASP would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment and would have the potential to affect noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of that project. Per Section 8.80.202 (Construction Activity-Noise Regulations) of the City’s municipal code, construction activities are prohibited from 7:00 pm to 7:00 am Mondays through Fridays and before 9:00 am and after 6:00 pm on Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays unless a permit has been issued.

Construction of individual development projects associated with SEASP would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of each development project, potentially affecting existing and future M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 148 ends

sensitive uses in the vicinity. Because these construction activities may occur near noise-sensitive receptors and noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time (depending on the project type), construction noise impacts associated with implementation of the SEASP are considered potentially significant. Even after the implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, construction noise impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Operational Noise
Buildout of SEASP would result in an increase in residential and commercial development within the SEASP area. The primary noise sources from these land uses are landscaping and maintenance activities, mechanical equipment, and air conditioning systems. Future commercial uses may also include loading docks that would generate relatively high noise levels from truck movement and/or loading/unloading activities. Noise generated by residential or commercial uses is generally short and intermittent, and, unlike industrial uses such as warehouses, these (residential and commercial) uses are not a substantial source of noise. The City regulates noise produced by air conditioning units, landscape maintenance, and loading activities in Section 8.80.200 (Noise Disturbances-Acts Specified) of the municipal code. The City’s noise ordinance is based on the receiving land use and protects noise-sensitive uses regardless of neighboring uses. Noise that exceeds the limitations of the municipal code is considered a violation and is punishable by a fine or imprisonment. Consequently, stationary-source noise from these types of proposed land uses would be regulated and would not substantially affect the noise environment. Therefore, noise impacts from stationary sources would be less than significant.

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

Vibration (Construction and Operation)
Vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to exceed the FTA criteria for human annoyance of 78 VdB and structural damage of 0.200 in/sec and therefore, result in a substantial impact.

Vibration impacts may occur from construction equipment associated with development in accordance with the implementation of the SEASP. Therefore, construction vibration impacts are considered potentially significant. The PEIR incorporates Mitigation Measure N-2 that would reduce potential vibration impacts from construction to a less than significant level.

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

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 149
Industrial operations can possibly generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. With the potential for sensitive uses within the SEASP area to be exposed to annoying and/or interfering levels of vibration from industrial operations, such operations-related vibration impacts associated with implementation of the SEASP are considered potentially significant. The PEIR incorporates Mitigation Measure N-3 that would reduce potential vibration impacts from industrial uses to a less than significant level.

Airport
The SEASP area falls outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours for the two nearest airports (Los Alamitos JFTB and Long Beach Airport). Furthermore, the SEASP area also falls outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for LAX (approximately 19 miles northwest of the SEASP area). In addition to airports, there are also a couple of nearby heliports. However, heliport operation is sporadic, and heliports are required to maintain an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2,000 feet of the aircraft. Therefore, it is anticipated that aircraft noise would not elevate the ambient noise environment of the SEASP area.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and, when overexposed, is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, State of California, and City of Long Beach have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities.

The project site is in an urbanized area and is developed with two operational office buildings, associated surface parking, Studebaker public right of way, and a portion of the public right of way along the Pacific Coast Highway. The project site is surrounded by surface parking and commercial uses to the north; an existing twostory office building on parcel with APN 7237-020-041 and the Los Cerritos Wetlands to the northeast (beyond the office building on parcel with APN 7237-020-041); Pumpkin Patch site and the San Gabriel River to the southeast; and the Pacific Coast Highway to the west. The nearest noise sensitive receptor to the project site is an apartment complex approximately 0.38 miles southeast of the project site, across the San Gabriel River in the City of Seal Beach. The noise environment in the project site area is primarily characterized by traffic along Pacific Coast Highway; vehicle movement in parking lots on-site and the surrounding properties; and human activity on-site, along public rights of way, and neighboring properties.

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

The SEASP includes the following policies related to noise:
▪ Policy 5.30. If an active nest of any species listed pursuant to the federal or California Endangered Species Act, California bird species of special concern, or a wading bird (herons or egrets) as well as owls or raptors is found, construction activities shall avoid breeding/nesting season (January through September). If construction is determined to be necessary during the breeding/nesting season, construction activities within 300 feet (500 feet from any owl or raptor nests) shall not exceed noise levels of 65 dBA peak until the nest(s) is naturally vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 150 ends

nesting. The 65 dBA peak noise levels may only be increased if a noise study demonstrates the ambient noise level is above 65 dBA at the subject site and shall not be allowed to exceed the ambient level. When construction is determined to be necessary during the breeding/nesting season, breeding/nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction with a follow-up survey conducted 3 days prior to commencement of construction on sites where there is probable cause to believe that nesting birds may exist.

DISCUSSION
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Construction
In terms of the proposed construction activities, the demolition, grading, and site paving activities are expected to generate the highest noise levels, since they involve the largest and most powerful equipment. Construction equipment for the proposed project could include standard equipment such as concrete saws, dozers, graders, tractors, loaders, backhoes, excavators, generators, forklifts, welders, rollers, paving equipment, air compressors, and a crane.

Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile-source noise from the transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris/soil hauling, and (2) stationary-source noise from use of construction equipment on individual project sites. Construction activities for the project are anticipated to last approximately 40 months. The following discusses construction noise impacts to the off-site sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site.

The transport of workers and materials to and from the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along local roadways. Individual construction vehicle pass-by trips may create momentary noise levels of up to approximately 85 dBA (Lmax) at 50 feet from the vehicle, but these occurrences would generally be infrequent and lasting for a short period of time. Additionally, site access would be through Pacific Coast Highway, which has more than hundreds of existing daily vehicle trips according to the PEIR. Adding projectrelated construction traffic would add less than 3 dBA in traffic noise along any access roads. Therefore, noise impacts from construction-related truck traffic would be less than significant at noise-sensitive receptors along the construction routes.

On-site project construction would increase ambient noise on a temporary and intermittent basis. Noise generated by on-site construction equipment is based on the type of equipment used, its location relative to off-site sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of noise-generating activities. Each stage of construction involves different kinds of equipment and has distinct noise characteristics. Because quantifying noise levels from several pieces of equipment is based on a logarithmic scale, noise levels from construction activities are typically dominated by the loudest several pieces of equipment. The dominant equipment noise source is typically the engine, although work-piece noise (such as dropping of materials) can also be noticeable.

The noise produced at each construction stage is determined by combining the noise contributions from each M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 151
piece of equipment used at a given time, while accounting for the ongoing time variations of noise emissions (commonly referred to as the acoustical usage factor). Heavy equipment, such as a bulldozer, can have maximum, short-duration noise levels of up to 85 dBA at 50 feet. However, overall noise emissions vary considerably, depending on what specific activity is being performed at any given moment. Noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load and power requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction phase would result in different noise levels from construction activities at a given receptor.

Since noise from construction equipment is intermittent and diminishes at a rate of at least 6 dBA per doubling of distance (conservatively ignoring other attenuation effects from air absorption, ground effects, and/or shielding/scattering effects), the average noise levels could vary considerably, because mobile construction equipment would move around the project site with different loads and power requirements.

The proposed project would be required to comply with LBMC Section 8.80.202 (Construction Activity Noise Regulations), which regulates noise for construction activities. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure N-1 from the SEASP PEIR, which requires reducing noise levels during construction (see below). The PEIR found that noise levels from individual pieces of construction equipment could exceed the ambient noise environment at noise-sensitive land uses depending on where construction would occur (as specific construction/project sites were unknown). Given that the proposed project is within the SEASP PEIR study area, Mitigation Measure N-1 would be required. However, the distance between the project site and the nearest sensitive land use is approximately 1,200 feet (when measured from the southernmost project site boundary). At that distance, the loudest noise level found in the PEIR (which involved an impact pile driver) is found to produce a noise level maximum of 101 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. This piece of equipment would attenuate to 73 dBA Lmax at 1,200 feet. Given that the PEIR evaluated construction noise at 50 feet or less from a noise-sensitive land use, the proposed project’s construction noise at the nearest sensitive receptor is well within the construction noise levels evaluated in the PEIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not change or worsen the significant and unavoidable determination from the PEIR.

Operation
Operation of the proposed project would generate noise such as people talking, use of outdoor common areas, including the rooftop pool, property maintenance, and vehicles entering and existing the project site. These types of noise sources are typical noise sources associated with mixed-use, commercial, and residential development and already exist in the project site area. Operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with LBMC Section 8.80, Noise, which sets forth regulations to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise. For example, the proposed project would be required to comply with LBMC Section 8.80.130 (Disturbing noises prohibited) and Section 8.80.200 (Noise disturbances specified). Noise that exceeds the limitations of the municipal code is considered a violation and is punishable by a fine or imprisonment.

Consistent with the PEIR, operation of the proposed project would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards.

Construction and operation impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. There is no new substantial information that would make the significant and unavoidable noise impacts identified in the SEASP PEIR more severe due to development of the project. Thus, pursuant to M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 152 ends

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

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

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

Construction is prohibited on Sundays.
▪ All internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers.
▪ Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses.
▪ Stockpiling is located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. ▪ Construction traffic shall be limited to the haul routes established by the City of Long Beach.

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction
Vibration Annoyance
Groundborne vibration is rarely annoying to people who are outdoors, so it is usually evaluated in terms of indoor receivers. For annoyance, vibration is typically noticed nearby when objects in a building generate noise from rattling windows or picture frames. Since construction activities are typically distributed throughout the project site, vibration annoyance impacts are typically based on average vibration levels (levels that would be experienced by sensitive receptors most of the time). However, to represent the worst-case vibration level, distances to the nearest sensitive receptor buildings are measured from the edge of the proposed building façade to the nearest sensitive receptor’s façade. Since measurements occurs from the edge of the proposed building façade; for vibration annoyance, the FTA vibration level limit of 83 VdB (which accounts for infrequent events) will apply to the surrounding commercial and office receptors/primarily daytime land uses.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 153
This is to account for the fact that construction activity would not continue along the edges of the area of work/ building façade for long periods of time and would continue further away from the edge of the site (thus, the FTA infrequent event criterion for institutional/daytime land uses is used).

Table 12, Worst-Case Annoyance Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment, shows the vibration levels from typical earthmoving construction equipment at the nearby buildings. As shown in the table, construction-generated vibration levels could exceed 83 VdB at limited durations at the nearby office buildings to the north and northeast of the project site when accounting for during pile driving activities only. Therefore, impacts related to construction vibration annoyance would be potentially significant. However, with the implementation of mitigation measure N-2, impacts would be reduced to less than significant through the use of a traditional pile driving alternative.

Vibration Damage
The proposed project would include pile driving. Consistent with Mitigation Measure N-2 from the SEASP PEIR, a vibration analysis was prepared (noise vibration calculations are included in Appendix I). Construction operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The effects from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at Table 12 Worst-Case Annoyance Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment Equipment
Vibration Levels (VdB)
Reference Levels at
25 feet
Commercial Offices at
6601 CA-1 (190 feet
North)
Commercial Offices at
6621 CA-1 (80 feet
Northeast)
Commercial Offices
at 6700 CA-1 (250
feet South)
Commercial
Uses at 6500
E Pacific
Coast
Highway (340
feet West)
Pile Driver (Impact) 112.0 85.6 97.7 82.0 78.0
Pile Driver
(Sonic/Vibratory) 105.0 78.6 90.7 75.0 71.0
Vibratory Roller 94.0 67.6 79.7 64.0 60.0
Static Roller 82.0 55.6 67.7 52.0 48.0
Hoe Ram 87.0 60.6 72.7 57.0 53.0
Large Bulldozer 87.0 60.6 72.7 57.0 53.0
Caisson Drilling 87.0 60.6 72.7 57.0 53.0
Loaded Trucks 86.0 59.6 71.7 56.0 52.0
Jackhammer 79.0 52.6 64.7 49.0 45.0
Small Bulldozer 58.0 31.6 43.7 28.0 24.0
FTA Threshold - 83 83 83 83
Exceeds Threshold? - Yes Yes No No
Sources: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. New Zealand Transport Agency 2012.

Bold numbers indicate values that exceed the FTA annoyance criteria.

Distances are from the edge of the overall construction to the nearest receptor building within each land use type.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 154 ends

moderate levels, to slight architectural damage at the highest levels. Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that can damage structures.

Consistent with Mitigation Measure N-2, a vibration level of 0.2 inches/section (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) is used to assess vibration damage. Also to note, a vibration level of 0.2 in/sec PPV is used as the building damage limit for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (which is conservatively applied to the surrounding office structures) (FTA 2018). Vibration damage is measured from the edge of the proposed building facade to the nearest structure’s façade because vibration damage is determined by measuring instantaneous PPV generated by equipment. Table 13, Vibration Damage Levels for Typical Construction Equipment, summarizes vibration levels for typical construction equipment at a reference distance of 25 feet and at the nearest operating buildings. The nearest structure to proposed construction activities is the commercial buildings to the northeast approximately 80 feet or less from the project site.

Table 13 Vibration Damage Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Equipment
PPV (in/sec)
FTA Reference at
25 feet
Commercial Offices
at 6601 CA-1 (190
feet North)
Commercial Offices
at 6621 CA-1 (80 feet
Northeast)
Commercial Offices at
6700 CA-1 (250 feet
South)
Petco at 6500 E
Pacific Coast
Highway (340 feet
West)
Pile Driver (Impact) 1.52 0.072 0.265 0.048 0.030
Pile Driver (Sonic) 0.73 0.035 0.128 0.023 0.015
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.010 0.037 0.007 0.004
Static Roller 0.05 0.002 0.009 0.002 0.001
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.004 0.016 0.003 0.002
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.004 0.016 0.003 0.002
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.004 0.016 0.003 0.002
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.004 0.013 0.002 0.002
Jackhammer 0.035 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.001
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
Sources: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. New Zealand Transport Agency 2012.

NA= Not Applicable
Bold = Threshold exceedance
As shown in Table 13 vibration levels by impact drivers would cause an exceedance of 0.2 in/sec PPV at the nearby structures approximately 80 feet northeast of the proposed project. Consistent with Mitigation Measure N-2, a pole driving alternative is required to reduce vibration levels below 0.2 in/sec PPV. Structures that are set back at a distance of 135 feet would be below the 0.2 in/sec PPV and 83 VdB thresholds established by the FTA (FTA 2018). Mitigation Measure N-2 is modified to require alternative pile driving technology, such as Vibro Stone Columns piling (VSC) or another technology that would produce comparable vibration levels as VSC piling, when necessary to avoid vibration levels above 0.2 in/sec PPV. VSC piling requires the usage of a vibrating poker known as a vibroflot which is fitted to a purpose-built vibropiling rig which is typically fitted with tier 3 noise engine and is used to penetrate the ground. Penetration is achieved using the vibroflot’s own mass, the pull-down facility of the rig (when used) and pressurized air flushes. VSC primarily penetrates the M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 155
ground using high frequency vibration in order to “drill” into the ground (Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering, 2023). Thus, VSC piling could occur approximately 8 feet from surrounding buildings if they are in good condition without causing building damage. Therefore, when conservatively assuming buildings in “good condition” are those that can withstand the most vibrational noise before damage occurs under FTA thresholds (0.50 in/sec PPV for structures made of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster)). In order to be below the 0.50 threshold, VSC piling can be conservatively assumed to produce vibrational noise of 0.089 in/sec PPV and 87 VdB at 25 feet (0.492 in/sec PPV at 8 feet). Thus, when using VSC piling over traditional piling methods, the nearest commercial/office building 80 feet to the northeast would face vibrational noise levels of 0.017 in/sec PPV and 72.7 VdB. Therefore, the threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV criterion for vibration damage nor the 83 VdB criterion for human annoyance for infrequent events at institutional/daytime land uses would not be exceeded and impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure N-2, as modified, the proposed project’s vibration impacts would be less than significant. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required.

Effect on Biological Resources
Vibration associated with construction could affect habitats in the vicinity of the construction site. Similar to buildings with human habitants, bird nests or burrowing holes could be affected by relatively high ground vibration, causing annoyance and/or damage. There are no vibration thresholds adopted or established for wildlife habitats by any government agencies. Therefore, the protection from vibration impact would be through avoidance with Mitigation Measure BIO-4. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4, vibration impacts to wildlife species would be less than significant. Implementation of this mitigation measure would therefore result in vibrations from construction occurring at 500 feet or further from wildlife species.

As a result of this measure the highest possible vibration that could be felt at 500 feet away would at most be

0.017 in/sec PPV from a pile driver to as low as 0.000 to 0.002 in/sec PPV from non-pile driving equipment.

Given that Mitigation Measure N-2, as amended, would require the use of an alternative technology to traditional pile driving which as shown above were in line with the in/sec PPV output of non-pile driving equipment, wildlife species would feel vibrations levels from construction activity that would be non-existent or similar to the local environment. Additionally, as a point of reference, the vibrations emitted at this distance would be below the criterion set for buildings easily susceptible to vibration damage (e.g. historical buildings which have an FTA criterion of 0.1 in/sec PPV before damage from physical vibrations occur).

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

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 156 ends

Operation
Operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial levels of vibration because there are no known sources of vibrational energy associated with the proposed project, such as industrial machinery or railroad operations.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from the adopted MMRP are applicable to the proposed project. Refer to Appendix A for the full list of mitigation measures associated with the certified PEIR. Any minor modifications and/or project-specific clarifications to the mitigation measures from the certified PEIR are shown are shown with strikethrough for deleted text and underline for new, inserted text. Refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-4 in Section 3.4, Biological Resources. Mitigation Measure N-3 does not apply to the proposed project because the proposed project is not an industrial project. Refer to Appendix A for a full list of SEASP mitigation measures.

N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for development projects requiring pile driving or blasting, the project applicant/developer shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. The maximum levels shall not exceed 0.2 inch/second, which is the level that can cause architectural damage for typical residential construction.

If maximum levels would exceed these thresholds, alternative methods such as static rollers, nonexplosive blasting, and drilling piles as opposed to pile driving shall be used. The applicant/developer shall use an alternative to traditional pile driving when necessary, such as Vibro Stone Columns piling (VSC) or another technology that would produce comparable vibration levels as VSC to keep vibration levels below 0.2 in/sec PPV. Traditional pile driving can be used for piles that are at a distance from an existing offsite building where vibration levels would not exceed 0.2 in/sec PPV and 83 VdB.

Applicability: Consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure N-2, the mitigation measure was modified to require the use of an alternative technology to traditional pile driving where vibration levels would exceed 0.2 in/sec PPV. As shown under Threshold (b), above, an alternative form of pile driving would be needed to reduce vibration levels below the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold established by Mitigation Measure N-2.

Traditional pile driving would be allowed where vibration levels would not exceed the 0.2 in/sec PPV structural damage or the 83 VdB annoyance threshold applicable to the surrounding land uses and would therefore be permitted to use. With implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2 as modified, impacts to biological resources due to pile driving would be less than significant.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 157
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? As with the PEIR, the project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport nor within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required.

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The adopted SEASP allows for 2,547 dwelling units and 307,071 square feet of commercial/employment.

Buildout of the SEASP was determined to generate 5,439 residential units, 8,648 residents, and 560 new jobs (see Table 1, Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Use Summary). The PEIR determined that buildout of the SEASP is within Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) anticipated growth for housing, population, and jobs. The SEASP is consistent with the City’s and SCAG goals to provide additional housing opportunities in Long Beach. The additional housing units (type and number of) permitted under the SEASP would also provide an opportunity to provide affordable housing units in Long Beach, consistent with the goals M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 158 ends

and policies of the City’s Housing Element. The buildout of the SEASP would result in a less than significant impact to housing, population, and employment growth.

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

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is currently developed with two office buildings totaling 61,493 square feet. No housing units exist on-site. As shown in Table 3, Southeast Area Specific Plan Remaining Capacity, the proposed project’s residential units and commercial square footage are within the buildout capacity for the SEASP.

DISCUSSION
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
As shown in Table 3, the proposed project is consistent with SEASP’s buildout projections for residential units and commercial square footage. The proposed project would result in a net decrease of commercial square footage and is anticipated to generate a net decrease of approximately 259 employees (USGBC 2008).8 Removal of the existing operational office buildings onsite would add to SEASP’s commercial buildout capacity.

Furthermore, the proposed project and the surrounding area are already developed and are well served by utility and transportation infrastructure. The proposed project is consistent with the SEASP designation of MU-CC.

Therefore, the proposed project would not induce direct nor indirect substantial unplanned population growth in the SEASP area. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is developed with two office buildings, and no housing units exist on-site. Development of the proposed project would not displace people nor housing units. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. 8 Based on the 228 square feet per employee rate (for “Office under 100,000 sf” category), employees for existing office building are estimated to be approximately 270 employees (USGBC 2008). Based on the Transportation Memo prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix I), the proposed project would generate 11 employees.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 159
Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues

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

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The SEASP area is served by the Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD). The certified PEIR determined that growth in accordance with the SEASP is expected to create the typical range of fire and emergency service calls and would increase the need for new fire facilities, apparatus, and personnel in order to maintain adequate M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 160 ends

response times. However, implementation of the SEASP is not expected to result in impacts on fire protection and emergency services. The increase in potential services needed would not require the significant expansion or construction of a new fire station. The SEASP would not expand LBFD’s service area. Payment of the fire facilities impact fee (pursuant to LBMC Chapter 18.23, Fire Facilities Impact Fees) ensures that individual project applicants pay their fair share of costs related to fire protection services and facilities. LBFD would also continue to be supported by other revenue sources, such as Proposition H. All development projects that would be accommodated under the SEASP would also be required to comply with the most currently adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, and the State of California. A less than significant impact would occur.

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

18.22 (Police Facilities Impact Fees), which would contribute to LBPD’s funds to acquire, construct, and furnish new law enforcement facilities and to purchase new equipment. LBPD would also continue to be supported by other revenue sources, such as Proposition H. A less than significant impact would occur.

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

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

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

The Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine Department (LBRPM) offers a number of parks and recreational programs and services to Long Beach residents. The City has a total of 94 parks with approximately 2,614 acres of parkland. There are 16 parks (totaling 406.6 acres) within the SEASP area or within 0.25 mile of the SEASP area. The SEASP’s impact on parks was evaluated in PEIR Chapter 5.15, Recreation. Refer to Section 3.16, below.

The Long Beach Public Library (LBPL) system provides library resources and services to City residents, including the SEASP area. The LBPL libraries serving the SEASP area include the Main Library, Bay Shore Neighborhood Library, Brewitt Neighborhood Library, and Los Altos Neighborhood Library. The LBPL does not expect that SEASP buildout would create a need for a new library facility. LBPL would continue receiving M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 161
funding for library facilities and resources through the City’s General Fund and through library activities, such as fines, facility rentals, and passport photo/execution fees as well as grants and private donations, provided mainly by the Friends of the Long Beach Public Library and the Long Beach Public Library Foundation. SEASP buildout would generate additional General Fund revenue for the City, thus helping to reduce project impacts.

Impacts would be less than significant.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is currently developed with two operational office buildings and is served by LBFD, LBPD, LBUSD, LBPRM, and LBPL, as described above.

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

Development of the proposed project would also contribute to the City’s tax revenue, which would in part fund public services, including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and libraries. Since the proposed project is within the SEASP’s buildout capacity, the proposed project is consistent with and would be within the scope of the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 162 ends

3.16 RECREATION
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine (LBPRM) Department offers a number of parks and recreational programs and services to Long Beach residents. The City has a total of 94 parks with approximately 2,614 acres of parkland. There are 16 parks (totaling 406.6 acres) in the SEASP area or within 0.25 miles of the SEASP area. The additional residents associated with the SEASP buildout could lead to an increase in demand for existing City parks and recreational facilities. The PEIR determined that there is more than adequate parkland near the project area to accommodate the future residences such that implementation of the Specific Plan would not cause the deterioration of existing facilities. Developments within the SEASP would also be required to provide open space on-site consistent with the SEASP. Additionally, the SEASP’s unique location along the city’s coast allows for coastal recreation and access, and a number of facilities would be implemented throughout the SEASP area that provide additional recreation. Per Chapter 18.18 (Park and Recreation Facilities Fee) of the LBMC, new residential projects are required to pay in-lieu fees, dedicate land for parks, or some combination thereof. Parkland dedication and/or the payment of in-lieu fees would ensure that significant impacts to existing parks and recreational facilities would not occur. The development or expansion of parks in the SEASP area would not result in significant impacts to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. Park and recreation uses would be preserved under the SEASP. Impacts to existing parks and recreational facilities would not occur with implementation of the SEASP.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 163

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The LBPRM offers 169 parks, 26 community centers, 2 historic sites, 2 major tennis centers, a golf system with five courses, 3,100 boat slips, and 6 miles of beaches. The City’s park system includes more than 3,100 acres for recreation (LBPRM 2023). The City has a parkland ratio of 6.64 park acres per 1,000 (LBPRM 2022), which is 0.94 acres more than the parkland ratio during the preparation of the SEASP EIR.

DISCUSSION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project would provide a total of approximately 67,138 square feet of open space, which includes 21,997 square feet of private open space, 20,634 square feet of common open space, and 24,507 square feet of public open space. Outdoor open space would include two courtyards on the ground floor and the pool deck on the roof. The open space on-site would provide a variety of amenities, landscaping, and seating, as discussed in Section 1.4.1, Proposed Land Use. Consistent with the SEASP, the proposed project would provide open space on-site that would serve project residents. Additionally, the proposed project’s public open space on the ground floor would include a view corridor, two courtyards, and a plaza. Since the proposed project’s residents would be within the buildout capacity of the SEASP, as shown in Table 3 and discussed in Section

3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, and would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 164 ends

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Issues

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

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

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

SB 743 was signed into law in 2013 and became effective 2020; the bill changed the way transportation impacts were measured in California. SB 743 shifted the focus of the transportation thresholds from a level of service analysis (i.e., vehicle delay) to a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis (i.e., average distance traveled). The transportation thresholds in the matrix above were adopted by the California Natural Resource Agency in December 2018 and incorporated into the CEQA Appendix G in 2019 after the certification of the PEIR.

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 165
PEIR Chapter 5.16, Transportation, evaluated the SEASP’s impact at buildout on to the transportation network in and around the SEASP area based on a level of service (LOS) approach. However, VMT analysis was prepared for the SEASP in Impact 5.16-6 of the PEIR. The VMT analysis determined that the SEASP includes improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle network and a robust transportation demand management plan.

With the pedestrian and bicycle network improvements and TDM Plan, the SEASP would achieve a total VMT reduction of approximately 40 percent relative to existing 2017 conditions.

The City of Long Beach and LBFD have adopted roadway design standards that preclude the construction of any unsafe design features. Standards for provision of safe road and circulation improvements are also outlined in the SEASP. Roadway improvements would be required to comply with City’s Standard Engineering Plans and LBFD’s design standards as well as those outlined in the SEASP, which would be imposed on future developments under the SEASP by the City during the building plan check and development review process.

Compliance with these established and proposed design standards would ensure that hazards due to design features would not occur.

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

SEASP Project Design Features
The PEIR included the following PDFs that apply to development projects (including the proposed project).

Other PDFs (see Chapter 5.16 of the PEIR) apply to the SEASP area as whole. ▪ PDF-2: Reduction of Peak Hour Trips, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan: Projects within SEASP that generate 50 or more peak hour trips are required to:
• Join the TMA and ensure that tenants are TMA members for the first 25 years from the date of final inspection or certificate of occupancy.
• Submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to the City Traffic Engineer and Director of Development Services, or his/her designee.
▪ PDF-3: Reduced Parking Requirements: Projects in SEASP are eligible for a parking reduction by incorporating Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, pending Site Plan Review approval.

TDM strategies applicable to reduced parking requirements, subject to the discretion of the City’s Site Plan Review Committee, include but are not limited to:
• Car sharing
M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 166 ends

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

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

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

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

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis in Section 3.17, Transportation, is based in part on the following technical reports:
▪ Memorandum: 6615 Pacific Coast Highway Transportation Consistency Findings with the SEASP PEIR, Fehr & Peers, June 26, 2023. (A complete copy of this report is included in Appendix J.) Vehicle Miles Traveled
The methodologies and thresholds of significance used to assess the transportation impacts of the PEIR (namely, LOS) were consistent with the Long Beach’s adopted methodologies and thresholds of significance at the time the analysis was conducted. However, for informational purposes, a VMT analysis was included in the PEIR. After the certification of the Final PEIR for the SEASP, Long Beach adopted revised transportation impact study methodologies and thresholds of significance for assessing transportation impacts in accordance with SB 743. These changes required that lead agencies no longer use intersection LOS in the determination of impact significance under transportation. The State of California’s Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued a Technical Advisory recommending that VMT be used as the primary transportation M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis
July 2023 Page 167
metric for assessing transportation impacts under CEQA. The City of Long Beach adopted revised transportation impact study guidelines that are largely consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory (Long Beach 2020).

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

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

Table 14, Trip Generation Estimate, below, summarizes the trips generated by the existing office buildings on-site.

The transportation memorandum divides the mixed-use-community core area of the SEASP into four quadrants and one mixed-use marina area. As shown in Table 15, Trip Budget by Quadrant, below, the proposed project is in the southeast quadrant. The total PM Peak Hour Trip budget for the mixed-use areas is 5,432 and the existing PM trip generation is 2,719.

Pedestrian, Transit and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian access is provided by sidewalks adjacent to the project site on the Studebaker Road and Pacific Coast Highway frontages. Sidewalks are present on all surrounding streets except Marina Drive south of Studebaker Road. Studebaker Road is currently a paved, two-lane road that provides ingress-egress access to the project site and terminates on the project site. Studebaker Road does not provide street parking.

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

The following bicycle facilities are available in the vicinity of the project site:

M A R K E T P L A C E M I X E D - U S E P R O J E C T A T 6 6 1 5 E . P A C I F I C C O A S T H I G H W A Y

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 168 ends

Long Beach City CouncilSeptember 19, 2023

Long Beach City Council
September 19, 2023