Attachment K - Compliance Checklist_PECC 03-23_Compiled part 1 — Long Beach City Council, September 19, 2023 (part 1 of 7)

July 2023 | Compliance Checklist

MARKETPLACE MIXED-USE PROJECT AT
6615 E. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
City of Long Beach
Prepared for:

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

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

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
Table of Contents
July 2023 Page i
Section Page

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

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

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

1.3 CEQA HISTORY............................................................................................................................... 13

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................. 13

1.5 SEASP BUILDOUT AND DENSITY.......................................................................................... 24

2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST....................................................................................27

2.1 PROJECT INFORMATION........................................................................................................... 27

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED.......................................... 30

2.3 DETERMINATION......................................................................................................................... 30

2.4 FORMAT AND EVALUATION OF IMPACTS......................................................................... 31

3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................34

3.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................... 34

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES.................................................................. 43

3.3 AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................... 45

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................................................... 59

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 73

3.6 ENERGY............................................................................................................................................. 85

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS................................................................................................................ 90

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................. 97

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................................... 111

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY................................................................................ 121

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING................................................................................................... 132

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................................. 145

3.13 NOISE................................................................................................................................................ 147

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING............................................................................................... 157

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES........................................................................................................................ 159

3.16 RECREATION ................................................................................................................................ 162

3.17 TRANSPORTATION..................................................................................................................... 164

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................... 179

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS..................................................................................... 181

3.20 WILDFIRE........................................................................................................................................ 189

4. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES...................................................................191

5. REFERENCES..............................................................................................................200

6. LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................205 CITY OF LONG BEACH (LEAD AGENCY)........................................................................................ 205 PLACEWORKS .............................................................................................................................................. 205 CP VI MARKETPLACE, LLC (APPLICANT)........................................................................................ 205 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
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks

APPENDICES
Appendix A MMRP
Appendix B Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix C Biological Technical Report
Appendix D Historic Evaluation
Appendix E Geotechnical Investigation Report
Appendix F LID Feasibility Screening Memorandum
Appendix G Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix H Sea Level Rise Analysis
Appendix I Construction Noise Modeling
Appendix J Transportation Memorandum
Appendix K Sewer Area Study
Appendix L Will Serve Letter, Long Beach Water Department Appendix M Will Serve Letter, Long Beach Energy Resources Appendix N Will Serve Letter, Southern California Edison 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
Table of Contents
July 2023 Page iii
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2 Local Vicinity......................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 Aerial Photograph................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 4 Project Location in the Southeast Area Specific Plan...................................................................11 Figure 5 Site Plan…….......................................................................................................................................15 Figure 6a Elevations – South and North..........................................................................................................17 Figure 6b Elevations – West and East...............................................................................................................19 Figure 7 Photometric Plan ................................................................................................................................41 Figure 8 Existing Vegetation Map ...................................................................................................................63 List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Use Summary.........................................................................13 Table 2 MU-CC Block FAR............................................................................................................................24 Table 3 Southeast Area Specific Plan Remaining Capacity ........................................................................25 Table 4 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions......................................................................52 Table 5 Maximum Daily On-Site Localized Construction Emissions......................................................55 Table 6 Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Project Site....................................................62 Table 7 City of Long Beach CAP GHG Reduction Actions Consistency Checklist...........................100 Table 8 Consistency Analysis with the City of Long Beach CAP Actions............................................105 Table 9 Project Operational GHG Emissions (Year 2027) .....................................................................110 Table 10 Water Levels Associated with each Analyzed Sea Level Rise and Storm Scenario................129 Table 11 SEASP Policy Consistency Analysis..............................................................................................134 Table 12 Worst-Case Annoyance Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment .............................153 Table 13 Vibration Damage Levels for Typical Construction Equipment..............................................154 Table 14 Trip Generation Estimate................................................................................................................169 Table 15 Trip Budget by Quadrant ................................................................................................................170 Table 16 Mitigation Measures from the Certified SEASP EIR that are Applicable to the Proposed Project ..........................................................................................................................191 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
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page ii PlaceWorks
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ACM asbestos-containing materials
afy acre-foot per year
amsl above mean sea level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP air quality management plan
ARP archaeological research plan
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BMP best management practices
CAC certified asbestos consultant
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CBSC California Building Standards Code
CCC California Coastal Commission
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDP Coastal Development Permit
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CHWR Coastal Habitat/Wetlands/Recreation
CGP construction general permit
CIP capital improvement plan
CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
Corps US Army Corps of Engineers
CRC California Residential Code
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
Abbreviations and Acronyms
July 2023 Page iii
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR environmental impact report
EO executive order
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA environmental site assessment
ESHA environmentally sensitive habitat area
EVCS electric vehicle charging station
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HRA health risk assessment
IRA identified resource areas
in/sec inches per second
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
JFTB joint forces training base
JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
kBTU kilo-British Thermal Units
kWhr kilowatt-hours
LACDPW Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation District
LAX Los Angeles International Airport
LBFD Long Beach Fire Department
LBMC Long Beach Municipal Code
LBPD Long Beach Police Department
LBPL Long Beach Public Library
LBPRM Long Beach Parks, Recreation and Marine Department LBT Long Beach Transit
LBUSD Long Beach Unified School District
LBWD Long Beach Water Department
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
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page iv PlaceWorks
LBWRP Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant
LB CAP Long Beach Climate Action Plan
LCP local coastal program
LCPA local coastal program amendment
LCWC Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex
LED light emitting diode
LEED United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LFG landfill gas
LID low impact development
Lmax maximum noise level
LOS level of service
LST localized significance threshold
LUD Land Use District
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendants
MMRP mitigation monitoring and reporting program
MRZ mineral resource zone
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions MU-CC Mixed-Use Community Core
MXD mixed-use development
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
OBL obligate
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OHP California Office of Historic Preservation
OPC State of California Ocean Protection Council
OPR State of California’s Governor’s Office of Planning and Research OTD offer to dedicate
PAR property analysis record
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
Abbreviations and Acronyms
July 2023 Page v
Pb lead
PCH Pacific Coast Highway
PDF project design feature
PEIR program environmental impact report
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
REC recognized environmental condition
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTP/SCS regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SEASP Southeast Area Specific Plan
SLR sea level rise
SMP soil management plan
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
SR state route
SRA source receptor area [or state responsibility area] SUSMP Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SZ scientific resource zone
TAZ transportation analysis zone
TCR tribal cultural resources
TDFM SCAG’s Travel Demand Model
TDM transportation demand management
TMA Transportation Management Association
UPL upland
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
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
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page vi PlaceWorks
UWMP urban water management plan
VdB velocity decibels
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
VSC Vibro Stone Columns
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
Abbreviations and Acronyms
July 2023 Page vii
This page intentionally left blank.

July 2023 Page 1

1. Introduction
The project applicant, (CP VI Marketplace, LLC), is seeking approval from the City of Long Beach (City) for construction and operation of a mixed-use project at 6615-6695 East Pacific Coast Highway (proposed project) within the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP). The SEASP area spans 1,481 acres in the southeast portion of the City. The SEASP consists of the area south of 7th Street, east of Bellflower Boulevard, east of the Long Beach Marine Stadium and Alamitos Bay docks, south of Colorado Street, and north and west of Long Beach’s southern boundary. The SEASP was established to provide a long-term and sustainable vision for the area that has undeveloped wetlands and several underutilized properties that are substantial in size, aging, and near the end of their useful economic life. The purpose of SEASP is to provide a regulatory framework for the area that “includes customized land uses and development standards, provides expanded multimodal transportation choices, and identifies locations for future development potential that maintain and preserve valuable natural resources” (Long Beach 2017a).

Section 10.1.3 of the SEASP outlines environmental clearance procedures for development projects within its boundaries. The section identifies the use of environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, for development projects that are consistent with certified Program Environmental Impact report (PEIR). As defined by CEQA Section 21083.3 and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. In compliance with CEQA, the City of Long Beach, as lead agency, prepared this compliance checklist to determine whether approval of the proposed project and requested discretionary actions would be within the scope of the SEASP and PEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2015101075. This compliance checklist demonstrates that the proposed project complies with the allowable density for the project site established by the SEASP, is within the scope of the PEIR, and would therefore qualify for environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located at 6615-6695 East Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County, which is surrounded by the cities of Los Angeles, Carson, Compton, Paramount, Bellflower, Lakewood, Hawaiian Gardens, Signal Hill, Seal Beach, Alamitos, and Cypress and unincorporated communities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties (see Figure 1, Regional Location). Pacific Coast Highway, which borders the project site to the west, provides primary regional and local access to the project site. Regional access to the project site is also provided by State Route (SR) 22, SR-19, Interstate (I) 405, and I-605. Local access is also provided by Studebaker Road to the south 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

1. Introduction

Page 2 ends

The project site is located in the southeast side of the City and of the SEASP area, near the border with Orange County (see Figure 2, Local Vicinity). The project site encompasses private property and public right-of-way (approximately 253,636 square feet or approximately 5.8 acres) and is comprised of two full parcels with assessor parcel numbers (APN) 7237-020-040 and -050, a portion of parcel with APN 7237-020-041, the sidewalk and bike lane along Pacific Coast Highway, and Studebaker Road right-of-way. The proposed development of the mixed-use project would occur on 3.7 acres of the 5.8-acre site. The remaining 2.1 acres would include right-of-way improvements. The project site is bordered by surface parking and commercial uses to the north; an existing two-story office building on parcel with APN 7237-020-041, a City of Long Beach Property Site (Marketplace Marsh), the Los Cerritos Wetlands to the northeast; a vacant lot (“Pumpkin Patch site”) that is currently used for occasional events and holidays to the south; and Pacific Coast Highway to the west. The City of Long Beach Property Site is 194 feet northeast of the project site. The San Gabriel River is approximately 520 feet south of the project site, and a commercial shopping mall is across Pacific Coast Highway (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph).

Long Beach Transit (LBT) and Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) operate bus lines along Pacific Coast Highway, near the project site. Four bus stops are within 0.25 miles of the project site along Pacific Coast Highway. These bus lines include LBT Route 171 and OCTA Route 1. The closest bus stop is on Pacific Coast Highway along the western boundary of the project site. Pacific Coast Highway and Marina Drive have existing Class II bicycle lanes in the vicinity of the project site (Long Beach 2023a). The SEASP shows that Class II bicycle lane is proposed along Shopkeeper Road and Studebaker east of Pacific Coast Highway. The SEASP identifies the portion of Studebaker Road between Marina Drive and Pacific Coast Highway as “to be determined” (Long Beach 2017a).

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

1.2.1 Existing Land Use Designations and Zoning
The 5.8-acre project site is currently developed with two two‐story office buildings with surface parking throughout, limited landscaping, and the Studebaker Road right-of-way. Office buildings located at 6615 and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway were constructed in 1979 and 1980, respectively (Los Angeles County 2023), and are approximately 45,955 and 15,538 square feet, respectively (see Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). The existing 45,955-square-foot two-story office building and surface parking lot at 6621 East Pacific Coast Highway was constructed in 1982.

The project site is generally flat. Studebaker Road provides ingress-egress access to the project site and terminates on the project site. Access to the project site is also provided from the commercial properties and parking lots from the north via a driveway on Pacific Coast Highway.

The applicable zoning for the project site is established in the SEASP. Within SEASP, the project site is in the Mixed‐Use Community Core (MU-CC) designation. See Figure 4, Project Location within the Southeast Area Specific Plan. The project site has a Land Use District (LUD) No. 7, Mixed Uses, based on the 1989 General Plan Land 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

1. Introduction
July 2023 Page 3
Use designation, which identifies this land use district as a valuable resource for a mix of uses.1 Additionally, the 2019 General Plan land use designation (PlaceType) is Regional Serving Facilities (RSF).

1.2.2 Surrounding Land Use Designations and Zoning
The project site is surrounded by commercial uses and open space. As shown in Figure 4, all surrounding properties of the project site are within the SEASP area. The commercial properties to the north and east (6621 East Pacific Coast Highway) of the project site are within the SEASP MU-CC designation and in LUD No. 7 of the 1989 General Plan Land Use Element. The Los Cerritos Wetlands to the northeast of the project site are designated as Coastal Habitat/Wetlands/Recreation (CHWR) in the SEASP and were previously in an area of deferred assignment/certification. The Pumpkin Patch site south of the project site, has a SEASP designation of Industrial (I) and in LUD No. 7 of the 1989 General Plan Land Use Element. 1 The General Plan Land Use Element was updated in 2019 and has not yet been certified as part of the City’s Local Coastal Program.

Therefore, the 1989 General Plan Land Use Element (1989) designation of Land Use District (LUD) No. 7 remains applicable in the coastal zone including the project site.

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

1. Introduction

Page 4 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

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

1. Introduction

PROJECT NAME HERE

CITY OF PROJECT HERE
PlaceWorks
Figure 1 - Regional Location
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 AT 6 6 1 5 E . PA C I F I C C O A S T H I G H WAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Source: Generated using Arcmap, 2023.

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

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

1. Introduction

Page 6 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

PlaceWorks
Figure 2 - Local Vicinity
Source: Generated using Arcmap, 2023.

1. Introduction
0 Scale (Feet)
2,000 County Boundary
1 CALIFORNIA
1 CALIFORNIA
1 CALIFORNIA
22 CALIFORNIA
San Gabriel River
Project Boundary
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 AT 6 6 1 5 E . PA C I F I C C O A S T H I G H WAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
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

1. Introduction

Page 8 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

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

1. Introduction
0 Scale (Feet)
235
Project Boundary
County Boundary
San Gabriel River
1 CALIFORNIA
Pacific Coast Hwy
Long Beach
Vacant Lot
(Pumpkin Patch Site)
Seal
Beach
N Studebaker Rd
E Marina Dr
Commercial Shopping Center
Commercial Shopping Center
Shopkeeper Rd
Commercial
Los Cerritos
Wetlands
Los Cerritos
Wetlands
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 AT 6 6 1 5 E . PA C I F I C C O A S T H I G H WAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Office Building
to Remain
Alamitos Bay
Marina
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

1. Introduction

Page 10 ends

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

STUDEBAKER RD

ELIOT ST

E OCEAN BLVD

APPIAN WAY

COLORADO ST

WESTMINSTER BLVD

LOYNES DR
BIXBY

VILLAGE
D
R

SEAL BEACH BLVD

BOATHOUSE LN

SHOPKEEPER
RD
E

PACIFIC
COAST
HWY

GARDEN GROVE FWY
B
E
L
L
F
LOWER
B
LVD

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

LEISURE
WORLD
BOEING
NAPLES

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

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

PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
1,350
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 AT 6 6 1 5 E . PA C I F I C C O A S T H I G H WAY

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

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

1. Introduction

Page 12 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

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

1. Introduction
July 2023 Page 13

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

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

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

Table 1 Southeast Area Specific Plan Land Use Summary
Existing (2017)
Projection After
Buildout
Net Increase
(from PEIR)
Adopted SEASP Net
Increase
Dwelling Units 4,079 9,518 5,439 2,547
Population 6,486 15,134 8,648 --
Commercial/Employment (SF) 2,091,476 2,665,052 573,576 307,071 Employees 3,555 4,115 560 --
Hotel Rooms 375 425 50 0
Acres 1,3811 1,4722 0 0
Source: Long Beach 2017a & 2017b.

1. The Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (PD-1) boundary does not include portions of the San Gabriel River and the Los Cerritos Channel totaling 94 acres and 6 acres resulting from a Los Angeles County boundary adjustment approved by LAFCO.

2. The SEASP area consists of a total of 1,481 acres: 1) 1,472 acres within the proposed Specific Plan, which includes the 94 acres of waterways and 6 acres along the southeast boundary; and 2) 9 acres in the conventional zoning area that were in the PD-1 boundary but removed from the SEASP.

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

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project applicant proposes to demolish the two existing office buildings and associated parking and landscape areas located at 6615 and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway, and construct a seven-level mixed‐use 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

1. Introduction

Page 14 ends

development that would include one partially subterranean level, six stories above grade, and a roof deck. The proposed project would be approximately 645,045 gross square feet (or 429,835 square feet, not including parking). See Figure 5, Site Plan.

1.4.1 Proposed Land Use

1.4.1.1 RESIDENTIAL
The proposed project would consist of 390 dwelling units consisting of studios, one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms, and three-bedrooms. Seventeen dwelling units would be reserved as very low-income housing units. The residential units of the proposed project would span levels one through six. Total residential square footage would be approximately 331,365 square feet.

1.4.1.2 COMMERCIAL
Approximately 5,351 square feet of commercial space would be on level 1 (ground floor). The commercial component would be on the southwest corner of the proposed building near the intersection of Studebaker Road and Pacific Coast Highway.

1.4.1.3 OPEN SPACE AND AMENITY SPACE
The proposed project would include approximately 12,485 square feet of indoor amenity space. The amenity space would include a lobby/concierge (1,182 square feet), mail lounge (1,144 square feet), clubroom (3,496 square feet), leasing office (1,573 square feet), fitness space (3,090 square feet), and amenity space (2,000 square feet).

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. Private open space includes balconies. Common open space (for residential use) would be provided in two courtyards (on the ground floor along Pacific Coast Highway and one along Studebaker Road) and the 10,498-square-foot pool deck on the roof. Public open space would be provided on the ground floor in a view corridor along the north side of the project site, two courtyards (one along Pacific Coast Highway and one along Studebaker Road), and a plaza.

Ground level open space would include bench seating, covered outdoor dining space, fire pit, recreation turf, game lawn, media wall, patio, outdoor games, outdoor barbeque counter, fountain, planters, seating areas, string lights, art sculpture, and dog run. Common open space on the roof level would include a pool/spa, pool fencing, showers, a bar, cabanas/umbrellas, various seating areas, day beds, fire pits, a BBQ counter, a feature wall, trees, and raised planters. The proposed project would be landscaped throughout and provide passive open spaces around the proposed building.

E
D
T
D

WETLAND LIMITS
W

WETLAND LIMIT
OHE
OHE
OHE
OHE
WETL

WETLAND AREA
WL
WL
WL
WL
WL
WL
WL
WL
AD
30 48
SIDE

APPROACH
+54" MAX. A.F.S.
30 48
SIDE

APPROACH
+54" MAX. A.F.S.
###2
000
8'-6" x 18'-0"
###2
000
8'-6" x 18'-0"
###2
000
8'-6" x 18'-0"
###
ELEC. VEHICLE

CHARGING
9'-0" x 18'-0
2 000
###
ELEC. VEHICLE

CHARGING
9'-0" x 18'-0
2 000
ED
AD
AD
AD
30 48
SIDE

APPROACH
+54" MAX. A.F.S.
30 48
SIDE

APPROACH
+54" MAX. A.F.S.

ED ED
<6.25%

RAMP UP
<6.25%
ED
OTIS GEN3
3500 LB / 350 FPM
5'-6" PIT
15'-1" OVERRUN
9'-9" CAB HEIGHT
100' MAX. TRAVEL

NO PIT LADDER RECESS REQ'D
OTIS GEN3
4500 LB / 350 FPM
5'-6" PIT
13'-7" OVERRUN
7'-9" CAB HEIGHT
150' MAX. TRAVEL

NO PIT LADDER RECESS REQ'D
AD
STEP
STEP

STANDPIPE

STANDPIPE
UP 23R

STANDPIPE

STANDPIPE
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
6P
4C16D-6PCS
6P
4C16D-6PCS
6P
4C16D-6PCS
6P
4C16D-6PCS
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
6P
4C16D-6PCS
6P
4C16D-6PCS
6P
4C16D-6PCS
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20
20M+2P
4C16D-20

PULL SECTION MAIN

SECTION
DISTR.

SECTION
WIRE
WAY
DISTR.

SECTION
TI
MAIN
TI

METERING
CORNER

SECTION
GARAGE
MAIN

UTILITY
PULL

FIRE PUMP
HOUSE
LOADS
HOUSE

METER &
MAIN
CORNER

SECTION

10.416 FFE

SLOPE DOWN
(2% MAX)
REF

REF REF
JT
REF

REF REF REF

REF REF

REF REF
REF

ELECTRICAL
ROOM

10.00 FFE

10.25 FFE

SLOPE DOWN

1.0% (2% MAX)
RUN = 25.00'
RISE = 0.25'

14.50 FFE
OTIS GEN3
3500 LB / 350 FPM
5'-6" PIT
15'-1" OVERRUN
9'-9" CAB HEIGHT
100' MAX. TRAVEL

NO PIT LADDER RECESS REQ'D
20 15 10 5
SERVES 34 UNITS
LEVELS 1 & 2
MSA-N1
25 30 34
20 15 10 5
SERVES 32 UNITS
LEVELS 1 & 2
MSA-E1
32 29 25
PULL SECTION MAIN SECTION DISTR. SECTION WIRE WAY DISTR. SECTION 20 15 10 5
SERVES 30 UNITS
LEVELS 1 & 2
MSA-W1
30 25
16 - BIKE
RACK
16 - BIKE
RACK
16 - BIKE
RACK
16 - BIKE
RACK
T
T
T
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
VIEW

CORRIDOR
7,886 SQ. FT.

COURTYARD
1 5,149 SQ. FT.

COURTYARD
2 3,701 SQ. FT.

RETAIL
5,351 SQ. FT.

CLUBROOM
3,496 SQ. FT.

LEASING
1,573 SQ. FT.

MAIL
1,144 SQ. FT. LOBBY CONCIERGE
1,182 SQ. FT.

FITNESS
3,090 SQ. FT.

COURTYARD
4 6,435 SQ. FT.

COURTYARD
3 3,042 SQ. FT.

AMENITY 1
2,000 SQ. FT.
26'-0"
77'-4"
66'-7"
77'-4"
62'-6"
175'-1"
102'-4"
190'-7"
272'-10"
117'-11"
72'-2"
234'-11"
83'-7"
52'-3" 82'-2" 64'-10" 159'-9"
436'-4"
423'-7"
5'-8" 86'-10" 72'-0" 136'-11" 44'-10"
7'-8"
2'-5"
2'-1"
1'-3"
4'-11"
11'-5"
10'-11"
32'-8"
6'-6"
13'-2"
5'-9"
4'-8"
26'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
18'-0"
8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6"
18'-0"
9'-0"
9'-0"
18'-0" 24'-0" 18'-0"
24'-0" 15'-0" 8'-0"
24'-6"
10'-0"

SETBACK LINE
14'-6"
14'-6"

STEP BACK LINE
10'-0"
4'-6"

STUDEBAKER ROAD

PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY A3
A1
PASEO LANDSCAPE 6' BUFFER FROM FIRE LANE

LOADING
ELEC.

RM
ELEC.

RM
GARAGE
ENTRY

FIRE ACCESS

PASSAGE
ENTRY
DRIVE
A5
A3
A3
A3
A3
A5
A5
A5A5
A3 A6
A3
A3
A3
A3
U1
B3
B2 B2
B2
B2 B2
B4
B4
B2 B2 B4
A6
U1
A5.1
U1
B2
U1
U1
A6
U1 U1
A5A6
C1
U1 B4
A6
B4B4
5'
5'-5"
5'
5'-9"
8'
6'
6'-9"
5'-6"
9'-5"
6'-3"
7'-6"
8'
5'

LIMIT OF WORK
10'-0"
10'-0"
SITE PLAN A1.2
NORTH
1"=30'-0"
0 15' 30' 60' 90'
100' WETLAND BUFFER
LEGEND

CORNER VISIBILITY TRIANGLE
10' UPPER LEVEL STEP-BACK

SETBACK LINE & PUBLIC ACCESS

EASEMENT
Source: AO Architects, 2023.

PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
75 Figure 5 - Site Plan

1. Introduction
100’ Wetland Buff er10’ Upper Floor SetbackSetback Line & Public Access EasementCorner Visibility Triangle Project Boundary
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 AT 6 6 1 5 E . PA C I F I C C O A S T H I G H WAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
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

1. Introduction

Page 16 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

LEVEL 2
(25.41')
LEVEL 1
(12.33')
LEVEL 3
(35.60')
LEVEL 4
(45.68')
LEVEL 5
(55.77')
LEVEL 6
(65.85')
13'-1" 10'-2
1 4
" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 11'-1" 3'-0"

12.38' TOC

AVG ELEV
± 67'-7" (85' MAX)

AVERAGE ROOF SURFACE

8.90' LOWEST

FIRE DEPT ACCESS
LEVEL 2
(25.41')
LEVEL 1
(12.33')
LEVEL 3
(35.60')
LEVEL 4
(45.68')
LEVEL 5
(55.77')
LEVEL 6
(65.85')
13'-1" 10'-2
1 4
" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 11'-1" 3'-0" ± 73'-03 4" (75' MAX)

FF AMENITY DECK
23'-2"
RETAIL HEIGHT (FTF) 12.38' TOC AVG ELEV
± 67'-7" (85' MAX)

AVERAGE ROOF SURFACE

8.90' LOWEST

FIRE DEPT ACCESS
A2.6
SOUTH ELEVATION 2
NORTH ELEVATION 1 KEY MAP
NORTH
N.T.S.

STUDEBAKER RD

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
2 1 SEASP CHAPTER 8.2.14 BIRD-SAFE TREATMENT
- ULTRA-VIOLET GLASS (PROJECT PROPOSES SOLARBAN 90 (2) + CLEAR OR EQUAL WHICH REFLECTS 92% OF UV LIGHT)
- GLAZING WITH LESS THAN 30 PERCENT COEFFICIENT "REFLECTIVITY OUT" (SOLARBAN 90 (2) + CLEAR VISIBLE LIGHT REFLECTANCE OF 12%) - USE OF RECESSED BALCONIES TO CAST SHADOWS- USE OF PROJECTING BALCONIES TO CAST SHADOWS

TRANSMITTANCE REFERS TO LIGHT THAT
PASSES THROUGH. WHAT DOES NOT GET

TRANSMITTED (PASS THROUGH) GETS
REFLECTED BACK OUT. REFER TO IMAGE ON
LEFT. SOLARBAN 90 (2) + CLEAR TRANSMITS 8%
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
35 Figure 6a - Elevations - South and North

1. Introduction
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 AT 6 6 1 5 E . PA C I F I C C O A S T H I G H WAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Source: AO Architects, 2023.

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

1. Introduction

Page 18 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

LEVEL 2
(25.41')
LEVEL 1
(12.33')
LEVEL 3
(35.60')
LEVEL 4
(45.68')
LEVEL 5
(55.77')
LEVEL 6
(65.85')
13'-1" 10'-21
4" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 11'-1" 3'-0"

12.38' TOC

AVG ELEV

8.90' LOWEST

FIRE DEPT ACCESS
± 67'-7" (85' MAX)

AVERAGE ROOF SURFACE
LEVEL 2
(25.41')
LEVEL 1
(12.33')
LEVEL 3
(35.60')
LEVEL 4
(45.68')
LEVEL 5
(55.77')
LEVEL 6
(65.85')
13'-1" 10'-21
4" 10'-1" 10'-1" 10'-1" 11'-1" 3'-0"
23'-2"
RETAIL HEIGHT (FTF) 12.38' TOC AVG ELEV
± 67'-7" (85' MAX)

AVERAGE ROOF SURFACE

8.90' LOWEST

FIRE DEPT ACCESS WEST ELEVATION
4 EAST ELEVATION
3 A2 7

KEY MAP
NORTH
N.T.S.

STUDEBAKER RD

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
4 3
1 2

1. PERFORATED METAL
SCREEN

2. BIRD CONTROL PROTECTIVE
PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
35 Figure 6b - Elevations - West and East

1. Introduction
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 AT 6 6 1 5 E . PA C I F I C C O A S T H I G H WAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Source: AO Architects, 2023.

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

1. Introduction

Page 20 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

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

1. Introduction
July 2023 Page 21

1.4.1.4 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The proposed project would contain a modern design and contain one six-story building with a roof deck and one level of partial subterranean parking. The parking structure would be located on the east side of the building and would be hidden from view from Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road. The proposed building would include varying building heights, including two stories (23-feet-2-inches) of retail at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road. The proposed project’s max height shall be six stories (73-feet1-inches above grade at the amenity deck). SEASP would allow for a residential development adjacent to Pacific Coast highway a maximum of five stories; however, with the incorporation of affordable housing, the proposed project would seek a waiver to allow a maximum allowable building height of 91 feet and eight and a half inches measured to the highest vertical component of the amenity deck (see Section 1.4.6, Project Approvals, below).

The proposed project would include a pedestrian-scale design with the ground-floor having a distinct façade treatment from the stories above. Additionally, the façade of the retail development would be mirrored across the development for a consistent architectural design.

The proposed building would use a variety of architectural materials such as a light sand finish stucco, metal cladding, vinyl windows, metal awning, aluminum storefront window, soffit panels wood finish, metal railing, wood lap siding (fiber cement) and glass railings with metal framing. Building façade and openings would be designed to meet the requirements of SEASP 8.3.14, Bird-Safe Treatments. See Figure 6a, Elevations – South and North, and Figure 6b, Elevations – West and East. The proposed project would be designed to meet United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification. The proposed project would include lighting throughout the project site for safety, wayfinding, and accent lighting.

1.4.2 Vehicle Access and Parking
The proposed project would provide a total of 576 parking stalls comprised of 456 residential stalls, 98 residential guest stalls, and 22 commercial stalls. The proposed project would provide the required amount of parking. Of the 576 parking stalls, 144 stalls would be electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) capable stalls (5 percent of these stalls – eight stalls – would have the charging equipment installed). The proposed project would provide a total of 196 bicycle parking stalls. The vehicle parking would be including in the partial subterranean level through the sixth level. Vehicle access would be provided via one ingress-egress driveway off Studebaker Road entering the first level. The view corridor along the northern portion of the project site would also serve as a dedicated emergency access only fire lane.

1.4.3 Right-of-Way Improvements
The proposed project includes the improvements to Pacific Coast Highway along the west side of the project site and to the terminus of Studebaker Road (public roadway) along the southern side of the project site (including a portion of the existing Pumpkin Patch site within the Studebaker Road public right of way, see Figure 3). On Pacific Coast Highway, the proposed project would construct a curb between the existing bicycle lane and the vehicle travel lane and construct a new bus turn out near the current bus stop. The proposed project would construct roadway improvements within the Studebaker Road existing public right-of-way to include a center median, sidewalk, and bicycle lane. Vehicular access would be provided from the Studebaker 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

1. Introduction

Page 22 ends

Road right-of-way to the parcel with APN 7237-020-041. A round-about feature would be installed at the terminus of Studebaker Road. An ingress-egress driveway would extend north from the round-about to provide access to the existing parking lot to the northeast of the project site. The driveway would extend onto parcel APN 7237-020-041, east of the proposed building. Studebaker Roadway improvements would provide access to the existing office building on the parcel to the east of the project site and the existing parking lot to the northeast of the project site. A curb and gutter would be constructed along the sides of Studebaker Road and Shopkeeper Road that front the project site as well as a curb along the side of Pacific Coast Highway that fronts the project site.

The proposed project would be sited and designed to allow for the future completion of Shopkeeper Road connection at the rear of the property when this is undertaken in the future in conformance with the SEASP policies (not a part of the project).

Off

1.4.4 Stormwater Improvements and Utilities Connections The proposed project would connect to existing underground utilities that currently serve the project site. A Low Impact Development (LID) Feasibility Screening report was prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix F). The report determined that due to project site constraints, such as groundwater and geologic conditions, stormwater infiltration and capture and use would not be feasible for the proposed project. Further, biofiltration was also found to be infeasible because the size of the planter box that would be needed would occupy 8 percent of the site area and obstruct fire access paths and amenity areas. For these reasons, the proposed project would instead implement flow-based 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.

1.4.5 Construction
The proposed project would be constructed in one phase, which would last approximately 40 months.

Construction activities would include the demolition of existing buildings (6615 and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway), parking areas, and associated landscaping; site preparation; grading; utility trenching; building construction; asphalt/concrete paving; architectural coating; and finishings/landscaping.

1.4.6 Project Approvals

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

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

1. Introduction
July 2023 Page 23
Discretionary Approvals
▪ Site Plan Review (Planning Commission): Design review process established to meet certain community goals which are, among others, to ensure that the highest quality of land planning and design are incorporated into development projects.
▪ Lot Line Adjustment: Subdivision action to adjust the boundary between two (2) or more adjacent lots where the land taken from one (1) lot is added to an adjacent lot, and where a greater number of lots than originally existed is not thereby created.
▪ Lot Merger: Subdivision action to consolidate two (2) or more contiguous recorded lots. ▪ Sign Program: Design review to ensure that all signs on a subject property are of complementary style and design and are compatible with the architecture and theme of the property. ▪ Local Coastal Development Permit: Coastal permit to ensure that all public and private development in the Long Beach Coastal Zone is developed consistent with the City’s certified local coastal program.

Additional Approvals
▪ Density Bonus, incentive, and waivers granted pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915), including but not limited to:
o 20 percent density bonus.
o Incentive, Building Massing, would allow the proposed project to include one building in lieu of multiple buildings encouraged by the SEASP.
o Waiver 1, Maximum Building Height, would allow increased building height to a maximum height of 91 feet and eight and a half inches to allow for the sixth floor and rooftop amenities. o Waiver 2, Building Story Requirements, would allow the proposed building to exceed the building height requirements along Pacific Coast Highway (limited to 5 stories) and Shopkeeper Road (limited to 3 stories).
o Waiver 3, Building Story Requirements along Shopkeeper Road Fronting Wetlands, would allow the project to include six stories adjacent to Shopkeeper Road fronting the wetlands. o Waiver 4, Building Story Requirements: Variety of Heights, would allow the project to include additional height variations.
▪ California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit for roadway improvements within the Pacific Coast Highway public right-of-way.
▪ City of Long Beach Department of Public Works Right-of-Way Improvement Permit for roadway improvements within the City of Long Beach public right-of-way. ▪ Other ministerial actions as needed to allow for the construction and operation of the proposed project, including but not limited to grading 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

1. Introduction

Page 24 ends

1.4.6.2 OTHER AGENCY ACTIONS REQUESTED
State and Regional Agencies
▪ Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES permit; construction stormwater runoff permits, Storm Drain MS4 Permit)
▪ South Coast Air Quality Management District – Rule 201: Permit to construct

1.5 SEASP BUILDOUT AND DENSITY
Projects must be consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which EIR was certified to qualify for streamlining under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Development intensity for the Mixed-Use Community Core (MU-CC) designation is established by Section 6.2I of the SEASP. Mixed-Use Community Core blocks are allowed a maximum of 2.0 FAR (except for overnight visitor-serving accommodations) across each MU-CC block. FAR is measured by dividing the gross floor area of all the buildings located in the MU-CC block by the total gross area of the lots or parcels of land that comprise each MU-CC block. The proposed project’s block is defined by the “entirety of the mixed-use area bounded by 2nd Street, Pacific Coast Highway, Studebaker Road, and Shopkeeper” (Long Beach 2017a). As shown in Table 2, MU-CC Block FAR, the Block FAR with the proposed project is 0.45.

Table 2 MU-CC Block FAR
Block Parcel APN
Square Footage of
Block
Existing Building
Square Footage to
Remain
Proposed Project
Gross Square Feet FAR
Entirety of the mixed-use
area bounded by 2
nd
Street, Pacific Coast
Highway, Studebaker
Road, and Shopkeeper
7237-020-0221
1,237,406 square
feet
127,651 square
feet
429,835 square
feet3

0.45 7237-020-0241
7237-020-0511
7237-020-9041
7237-020-050
7237-020-040
7237-020-0412
Source: Los Angeles County 2023
1 Not a part of the project site.
2 Partially onsite
3 Based on Long Beach Municipal Code Section 21.15.1090 (Floor area ratio).

As discussed in Section 1.3, the proposed project is one of the first projects being proposed within the SEASP and would be within the buildout anticipated for the SEASP area. Table 3, Southeast Area Specific Plan Remaining Capacity, shows the remaining buildout capacity available after the implementation of the proposed project.

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

1. Introduction
July 2023 Page 25
Table 3 Southeast Area Specific Plan Remaining Capacity Adopted SEASP
Net Increase1
Remaining
Capacity with
other SEASP
Projects3
Demolish/
Remove Proposed Project
Remaining
Balance
Dwelling Units 2,547 1,666 -- 390 1,276
Commercial/Employment
(SF) 307,071 442,703 61,493 5,351 498,845
Hotel Rooms 0 0 -- 0 0
Acres2 0 0 -- 0 0
Source: Long Beach 2017a & 2017b.
1 Population and employees change over time and are closely tied with square footage and dwelling units. Therefore, for tracking purposes of buildout capacity, population and employees are not included.
2 The SEASP area will remain the same, no change to acreage. 3 Other projects include 6500 and 6700 Pacific Coast Highway 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

1. Introduction

Page 26 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

July 2023 Page 27

2. Environmental Checklist

2.1 PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Marketplace Mixed-Use Project at 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

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

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Maryanne Cronin, Planner
562-570-5683

4. Project Location:

The project site is located at 6615-6695 East Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County, which is surrounded by the cities of Los Angeles, Carson, Compton, Paramount, Bellflower, Lakewood, Hawaiian Gardens, Signal Hill, Seal Beach, Alamitos, and Cypress and unincorporated communities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties (see Figure 1, Regional Location). Pacific Coast Highway, which borders the project site to the west, provides primary regional and local access to the project site. Regional access to the project site is also provided by State Route (SR) 22, SR-19, Interstate (I) 405, and I-605. Local access is also provided by Studebaker Road to the south of the project site. The project site is located in the southeast side of the City and of the SEASP area, near the border with Orange County. The project site encompasses private property and public right-of-way (approximately 253,636 square feet or approximately 5.8 acres) and is comprised of two full parcels with assessor parcel numbers (APN) 7237-020-040 and -050, a portion of parcel with APN 7237-020-041, the sidewalk and bike lane along Pacific Coast Highway, and Studebaker Road rightof-way. The project site for the development of the mixed-use project is 3.7 acres in size.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

CP VI Marketplace, LLC
1000 Sansome Street, 1st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

6. General Plan Designation: Land Use District (LUD) No. 7 (Mixed‐Uses) (based on LCP)

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

8. Description of Project:

The project applicant proposes to demolish the two existing office buildings and associated parking and landscape areas located at 6615 and 6695 East Pacific Coast Highway and construct a seven-level mixed‐use development that would include one partially subterranean level, six stories above grade, and a roof deck. 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

2. Environmental Checklist

Page 28 ends

proposed project would be approximately 645,045 gross square feet (or 429,835 square feet, not including parking). The proposed project would include 390 dwelling units, 17 of which will be reserved as very lowincome housing units, and 5,351 square feet of ground-floor commercial. The proposed project would include a total of 12,485 of indoor amenity space and 67,138 square feet of open space. The proposed project also includes public right-of-way improvements to the terminus of Studebaker Road immediately south of the proposed mixed-use development, which would include a new center median, sidewalk, bicycle lane, and roundabout. Along Pacific Coast Highway, the proposed project would construct a curb between the existing bicycle lane and the vehicle travel lane and construct a new bus turn out near the current bus stop.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is surrounded by commercial uses and open space. All surrounding properties of the project site are within the SEASP area. The commercial properties to the north and east (6621 East Pacific Coast Highway) of the project site are within the SEASP MU-CC designation and in LUD No. 7 of the 1989 General Plan Land Use Element. The Los Cerritos Wetlands to the northeast of the project site are designated as Coastal Habitat/Wetlands/Recreation (CHWR) in the SEASP and were previously in an area of deferred assignment/certification. The Pumpkin Patch site south of the project site, has a SEASP designation of Industrial (I) and in LUD No. 7 of the 1989 General Plan Land Use Element.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participating agreement):
• Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES permit; construction stormwater runoff permits, Storm Drain MS4 Permit)
• South Coast Air Quality Management District – Rule 201: Permit to construct • California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit for roadway improvements within the Pacific Coast Highway public right-of-way.
• City of Long Beach Department of Public Works Right-of-Way Improvement Permit for roadway improvements within the City of Long Beach public right-of-way.

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

A compliance checklist consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, was prepared for the proposed project to show consistency with the SEASP and SEASP EIR. Tribal consultation consistent with AB52 and SB18 were performed during the SEASP and SEASP EIR. No further tribal consultation is required. The proposed project would implement identified 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

2. Environmental Checklist
July 2023 Page 29
mitigation measures related to archaeological resources, including Mitigation Measures CUL-3 through CUL-6. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 requires that the City notifies the three Native American tribal representatives that who requested Native American monitoring of ground-disturbing activities. For each project, the project applicant would retain one certified Native American monitor who would accompany the professional archaeological monitor during on-call monitoring.

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

2. Environmental Checklist

Page 30 ends

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

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

2.3 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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

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

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

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

Signature Date
7/10/23
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

2. Environmental Checklist
July 2023 Page 31

2.4 FORMAT AND EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

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

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

Components of certain mitigation measures identified in the PEIR are not applicable to this project, and therefore have been shown as stricken.

CEQA Section 21083.3 and Guidelines Section 15183, Project Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. As such, this Environmental Compliance Checklist answers the following questions consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183:
▪ Are there environmental effects peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located? ▪ Are there environmental effects that were not analyzed as significant effects in the SEASP PEIR? ▪ Are there potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the SEASP PEIR?
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

2. Environmental Checklist

Page 32 ends

▪ Are there previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the SEASP PEIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the SEASP PEIR?

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

2.4.2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

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

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

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

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

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

2. Environmental Checklist
July 2023 Page 33
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

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

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

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

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

July 2023 Page 34

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

3.1 AESTHETICS
Issues

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The PEIR analyzed views through the SEASP area from 2nd Street, Studebaker Road, and Pacific Coast Highway. Studebaker Road offers distant views of the San Gabriel Mountains and closer views of the Los 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 35
Cerritos Wetlands. Wetland restoration activities promoted by the SEASP and landscape buffers (for industrial uses) would reduce visual obstructions.

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

Views of Alamitos Bay are visible from Marina Drive south of Pacific Coast Highway, but these views are substantially obstructed by boats in the marina. The most generous views of the Los Cerritos Wetlands visible from the Pacific Coast Highway corridor are found where Pacific Coast Highway crosses the Los Cerritos Channel. Elsewhere, views of the wetlands are generally blocked by retail and office buildings in the Marketplace shopping center. Upon buildout of the SEASP, the Pacific Coast Highway corridor would experience the most change in land uses and building intensity, including the introduction of pedestrianoriented mixed uses, a modified street scene along Pacific Coast Highway, and buildings up to seven stories tall.

Because no view corridors currently exist along this segment of Pacific Coast Highway (between 2nd Street and the San Gabriel River), impacts of the SEASP’s implementation would be beneficial.

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

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

The buildout of the SEASP would alter and intensify development in the SEASP area, but would not adversely impact the existing visual appearance of the SEASP area. The proposed MU-CC designation along the Pacific Coast Highway (where the project site is located) would affect the existing commercial corridor that includes the Marina Pacific Mall, Marketplace, Seaport Marina Hotel, and Marina Shores shopping center. This area is envisioned as the primary activity center in the SEASP area and provides for a mix of uses including residential, regional retail, hotel, and office uses. The focus of this designation is on creating a pedestrian scale environment, 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 36 ends

including increased connectivity, gathering spaces, and linkages to the marina and wetlands. Because the MU-CC and the Mixed-Use Marina designations would allow the greatest intensification of land uses—including buildings up to seven stories in some locations—and the greatest flexibility for future development, the parcels along Pacific Coast Highway would be expected to see the greatest change in physical appearance and community character over time as parcels are redeveloped. However, the proposed SEASP contains numerous development standards and design guidelines designed to maintain a consistent and aesthetically pleasing community character along the Pacific Coast Highway corridor. The guidelines have been designed to preserve the SEASP area’s unique identity. In particular, the design standards and guidelines focus on creating view corridors from Pacific Coast Highway to the area’s waterways, creating streetscapes that offer visual interest, and ensuring that buildings “step back” from scenic amenities and community edges. Compliance with these standards and guidelines would ensure that any change in visual appearance along the Pacific Coast Highway corridor would reflect the existing community character and maritime atmosphere of the SEASP area.

Therefore, the SEASP determined that aesthetic impacts along the Pacific Coast Highway corridor would be less than significant.

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

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is developed with a two two-story office building, the Studebaker Road right-of-way, and the eastern portion of the Pacific Coast Highway along the project site. It is also developed with surface parking and limited landscaping throughout in an urbanized environment and is surrounded by urban uses (see Section

1.2, Environmental Setting, above). Because of the urban context and current development on-site, sources of light and glare already exist on the project site (i.e., light posts in the parking lots on-site, security lighting around the building, accent lighting, light emanating for windows, and vehicle headlights from vehicles in the parking lots) and surrounding uses (e.g., street lights and headlights along Pacific Coast Highway, Studebaker Road, and Marina Drive; vehicle headlights along roadways and in parking lots; light posts in parking lots on surrounding properties; security and accent lighting on surrounding properties; and light emanating from windows). Existing 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 37
glare sources include sunlight and light reflecting off of light-colored building materials, windows, and vehicles on-site; surrounding properties; and along public rights-of-way.

Although the adjacent “Pumpkin Patch Site” is currently a vacant site and does not regularly emit light and glare, it is used occasionally for events and holidays where light posts, security lighting, and event lighting are used. The Pumpkin Patch site is also located in a highly urbanized area and surrounded by existing lighting and glare sources.

The SEASP identifies the Los Cerritos Wetlands, to the northeast of the project site, as a view opportunity area. According to the SEASP, projects are required to create public views to these areas through project design, building orientation, roadway configuration and other design techniques. The PEIR identifies the Los Cerritos Wetlands as a visual feature.

Pacific Coast Highway, adjacent to the project site, is listed as an eligible scenic route. The eligible portion extends from the Traffic Circle (Route 19) on its northwestern end to San Juan Capistrano where Pacific Coast Highway intersects with Interstate 5. The closest officially designated scenic highway is State Highway 91, approximately 17.5 miles northeast of the project site (Caltrans 2023).

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

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

DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The project site is to the southwest of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, an identified view opportunity/visual feature.

However, public views of the Los Cerritos wetlands through the project site are already obstructed by existing commercial buildings, landscaping, and the commercial building at 6621 Pacific Coast Highway. Since the project site is currently developed, limited scenic views of the Los Cerritos Wetlands are currently visible looking across the project site from Pacific Coast Highway. These limited views of the Los Cerritos Wetlands can be seen looking across the northern portion of the project site across existing surface parking lots. However, this view is hindered by existing landscaping and development. The proposed project would retain a view corridor, consistent with the SEASP, along the emergency-only access lane on the northern portion of the project site, where the existing view occurs. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct existing views of the Los Cerritos Wetlands.

The right-of-way improvements would include a portion of the Pumpkin Patch site that is within the public right-of-way. The proposed project would not affect views of or from the parcel in which the Pumpkin Patch site is located. Existing trees block views of the Los Cerritos Wetlands from Studebaker Road and the portion of the Pumpkin Patch site within the public right of way. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect views across the Pumpkin Patch 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 38 ends

The project site is on the eastside of Pacific Coast Highway, and therefore, development of the proposed project would not hinder views of the San Gabriel River along Pacific Coast Highway (which is located to the south of the project site) nor views of Alamitos Bay from Marina Drive (which are located to the west of the project site).

Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Pacific Coast Highway, adjacent to the project site, is listed as an eligible scenic route. No officially designated state scenic highways are near the project site. The project site is fully developed with office buildings, surface parking, public rights of way, and ornamental landscaping. As discussed under threshold (a) above, the proposed project would not hinder nor obstruct scenic views from the Pacific Coast Highway as buildout of the SEASP is expected to generally result in new or intensified urban uses in areas that already feature urban uses that obstruct—or partially obstruct—scenic views from the Pacific Coast Highway. Development of the proposed project would not damage nor remove significant trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings since none exist onsite (also see Section 3.5, Cultural Resources). The proposed project is on a site with a SEASP designation of MU-CC and is consistent with the MU-CC designation. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the development standards and design guidelines in the SEASP, including provisions aimed at protecting existing viewsheds. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR.

The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The SEASP area and the project site are in an urbanized area. The proposed project is on a site that is designated MU-CC with a zoning designation of Specific Plan 2, Mixed‐Use Community Core (which refers to the SEASP). As discussed under “SEASP PEIR Summary” above, the MU-CC designation is envisioned as the primary activity center in the SEASP area and provides for a mix of uses including residential, regional retail, hotel, and office uses. The focus of this designation is on creating a pedestrian scale environment, including increased connectivity, gathering spaces, and linkages to the marina and wetlands. The proposed project would be consistent with the MU-CC designation and its intent by providing a mixed-use development that includes 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 39
residential and commercial uses, outdoor public spaces, and encourages pedestrian activity along Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road.

The SEASP outlines development standards and design standards for future development within its boundaries, which provides standards for height, setbacks, uses, parking, outdoor space, and building design and form, among others. The proposed project would be required to comply with these standards. As discussed in Section

6.7, General Development Standards, of the SEASP, projects in the MU-CC areas can exceed the maximum building height up to seven stories in certain circumstances. The proposed project would provide a maximum of six stories, which would be allowed pursuant to the State Density Bonus (Government Code Section 65915) and is within the maximum height contemplated by the SEASP. See Section 1.4.6, Project Approvals.

The proposed project would reserve 5 percent of its dwelling units (17 dwelling units) as very low-income affordable units pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law. Under the State Density Bonus Law, the proposed project would be allowed a density bonus, incentives, and waivers as ministerial actions (which are not subject to CEQA). The proposed project is allowed a 20 percent increase in density and waivers discussed in Section

1.4.6, Project Approvals. These allowances supersede the development standards outlined in the SEASP. While the proposed project would exceed the SEASP’s standards for density, height, massing, and building story requirements, the proposed project is ministerially allowed pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law. Further, the proposed project would comply with other applicable standards in the SEASP.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The proposed project would develop a six-story mixed-use building. Compared to the existing office buildings onsite, the proposed development would be a larger and more intense use than the existing office buildings.

Additionally, because the proposed project would include a residential component, persons are expected to be on-site 24 hours a day, whereas an office building would mostly have persons on-site during working hours.

Therefore, compared to the existing use on-site and consistent with the PEIR, the proposed project would generate more light and glare (refer to “SEASP PEIR Summary” above).

As shown in Figure 7, Photometric Plan, light generally decreases outwards from the proposed building. Higher light levels are associated with being near a light source, generally along the proposed building and common open spaces interior to the project site. Light levels along the border of the proposed building range between

14.9 foot-candles near light sources to 0.0 foot-candle. The proposed round-about on Studebaker Road is the portion of the proposed project closest to the Los Cerritos Wetlands. As shown in Figure 7, light levels along Studebaker Road would be 0.0 foot-candles.

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 40 ends

The proposed project would be required to comply with the SEASP design guidelines aimed at reducing the impacts of light and glare. For example, Section 8.3.9 (Site Lighting), Section 8.3.10 (Building Lighting), and Section 8.3.14 (Bird-Safe Treatments), implement lighting and façade treatment requirements for development projects within the SEASP and adjacent to wildlife areas. Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with standards outlined in the LBMC, such as Sections 21.41.259 (Parking Areas, Lighting), 21.44.855 (Light and Glare Intrusion Prevention), and 21.44.600 (Prohibited Signs). Consistent with the SEASP, the proposed project would not substantially increase nighttime light and glare in the SEASP area or its surroundings. Light and glare impacts would be less than significant. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

Calculation Summary
Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/MinRoof Deck Illuminance Fc 2.86 31.2 0.0 N.A. N.A.Site Illuminance Fc 0.60 14.9 0.0 N.A. N.A.

STUDEBAKER ROAD
P

ACIFIC COA S

T HIGH W
AY
RETAIL

FIRE ACCESS

IN / LOADING
MOVEFITNESS
MAIL

BREEZEWAY

CO-WORK

CLUBROOM
ROOM ELECT.

ROOM
ELECT.

ETLAND BOUNDARY 00' W 5
24 P

ACIFIC COA S

T HIGH W
AY
P

ACIFIC COA S

T HIGH W
AY

STUDEBAKER ROAD

LEASING
LOBBY
EVC S

FUTURE VAN
RES
IDENT
FUTURE
RES
IDENT
FUTURE
RES
IDENT
FUTURE
RES
IDENT
2424

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 2.0 2.0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.8 2.9 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.5 3.6 1.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.9 4.0 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 4.0 4.1 1.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 6.5 13.6 4.1 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.9 4.0 1.7 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 7.7 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 3.6 0.5 0.30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.6 3.6 3.7 1.6 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 5.6 10.0 1.2 3.6 10.6 1.4 3.7 11.8 3.1 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 3.2 3.3 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.2 1.2 13.4 0.80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 2.5 2.6 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.7 1.9 0.5 0.2 14.3 1.7 0.6 0.7 3.2 0.3 1.2 0.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 1.7 1.7 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 4.0 12.8 3.2 4.8 11.0 1.4 0.4 0.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 4.5 0.50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 1.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.4 1.5 2.9 9.6 12.1 7.8 3.2 1.8 2.0 2.2 0.2 0.1 1.2 0.1 1.5 2.1 1.7 0.9 2.4 2.3 1.5 0.8 1.6 14.9 1.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 0.8 0.0 1.5 2.6 1.8 2.4 1.2 1.5 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.7 1.9 0.9 1.0 1.6 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.9 0.8 2.2 0.50.0 0.1 0.8 9.5 7.0 14.6 5.6 10.5 7.4 9.5 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.20.0 0.1 0.3 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.2 3.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.3 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.8 2.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.1 1.0 8.2 3.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.7 0.7 1.8 1.5 1.9 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.10.0 0.1 0.8 3.3 3.0 2.0 3.8 11.3 5.3 1.2 0.9 0.10.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 4.5 1.6 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 2.0 0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 1.8 0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.9 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 4.1 4.0 2.5 1.3 0.7 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.4 1.9 5.2 10.8 8.5 8.6 10.8 7.5 2.9 0.7 0.4 1.4 4.3 9.7 10.1 6.2 5.9 10.7 9.3 4.1 1.0 0.5 1.6 4.6 10.4 9.7 4.3 1.0 0.20.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.7 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.019.0 15.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.70.1 14.4 0.1 0.8 8.4 0.0 0.0 7.9 2.4 2.2 3.50.1 15.0 0.1 0.9 8.4 0.0 0.0 8.2 11.7 10.0 10.90.0 14.5 0.1 0.8 8.1 0.0 0.0 8.0 15.2 12.2 14.00.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 31.20.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source: Lighting Design Alliance, 2023.

PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
100
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 AT 6 6 1 5 E . PA C I F I C C O A S T H I G H WAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Figure 7 - Photometric Plan

3.1. Aesthetics

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 4.2 0.6

0.0 1.2 0.50.0 10.8 0.8

4.1 0.5

0.5 0.33.1 0.513.4 0.81.2 0.40.4 0.3 0
Scale (Feet)
30 STUDEBAKER ROAD
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 42 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

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 43

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Issues

SEASP PEIR
Determination
Are there
environmental
effects peculiar to
the project or the
parcel on which
the project would
be located?
Are there
environmental
effects that were
not analyzed as
significant effects
in the SEASP
PEIR?
Are there
potentially
significant offsite impacts and
cumulative
impacts which
were not
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
Are there
previously
identified
significant effects
which, as a result
of substantial
new
information which
was not known at
the time the
SEASP PEIR was
certified, are
determined to
have a more
severe adverse
impact than
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact no no no no
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact no no no no
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact no no no no
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact no no no no
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact no no no no

SEASP PEIR SUMMARY
The certified PEIR determined that the SEASP area is not designated Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance, and no land in Long Beach is subject to a Williamson Act contract. The City of Long Beach does not have any land zoned as forest land, timberland, nor Timberland Production. The certified EIR determined that the implementation of the SEASP would not convert mapped 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 44 ends

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

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is entirely developed with two office buildings and surface parking lot. The project site does not contain Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance; Williamson Act contract; nor forest land (DOC 2023a, 2023b; Long Beach 2017b).

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

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 45

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Issues

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

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

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 46 ends

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing two-story office buildings with surface parking lot generates criteria air pollutants from transportation sources, energy generation and delivery (natural gas and purchased energy), and area sources such as landscaping equipment and architectural coatings. As mentioned in Table 12, current land uses generate approximately 615 average daily trips (Fehr & Peers 2023), and therefore generate mobile emissions associated with those existing trips. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi-family residential apartments and single-family homes to the south and the single-family homes to the west in the Naples neighborhood.

The PEIR was prepared prior to the adoption of the South Coast AQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The assessment of proposed project impacts is updated to address the 2022 AQMP and evaluates the proposed project against previously disclosed impacts in the PEIR.

SEASP Project Design Features
The PEIR includes the following PDFs that apply to the proposed project, in addition to the SEASP as a whole.

Other PDFs (see Chapter 5.4 of the PEIR) apply to the SEASP area as whole. ▪ PDF-3: Reduced Parking Requirements. Projects in SEASP are eligible for a parking reduction by incorporating Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, pending Site Plan Review approval.

TDM strategies applicable to reduced parking requirements, subject to the discretion of the City’s Development Services Department Director include, but are not limited to:
⚫ Car sharing
⚫ Carpool/vanpool
⚫ Unbundled parking (parking spaces are rented or sold separately, rather than automatically included with the rent or purchase price of a residential or commercial unit) ⚫ Joint use (shared parking)
⚫ Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian system improvements
• Trip reduction incentives to employees, such as free transit passes A “park once” policy shall be promoted for SEASP. Rather than driving from one use to another, visitors are highly encouraged to park once and walk to one or more destinations within the Project area. Similarly, residents and employees are encouraged to walk from residences or workplaces to SEASP destinations.

All parking reduction requirements shall be approved at the discretion of the Development Services Department Director, which will determine the appropriate level of parking demand reduction generated by these strategies on a project-specific basis.
▪ PDF-5: Bicycle Network. Figure 6-2 in the Specific Plan identifies proposed bicycle connections. Bicycle circulation is provided on streets with designated bike lanes, separated bikeways (cycle tracks), and offstreet pathways. These facilities are classified in four bicycle facility classifications:

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 47
• Class I Bikeway (Multiuse Path). Provides a separated corridor that is not served by streets and highways and is away from the influence of parallel streets. Class I bikeways are for nonvehicle use only with opportunities for direct access and recreational benefits, right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and minimized cross-flow conflicts. SEASP includes a new Class I facility on the north side of the Los Cerritos Channel that would connect Pacific Coast Highway to Loynes Drive if it does not impact sensitive wetlands in the area. A connection is also proposed that would link this route to the existing San Gabriel Bike Trail. • Class II Bikeway (Bike Lanes). Provides a delineated right-of-way assigned to bicyclists to enable more predictable movements, accommodating bicyclists through on-street corridors. New Class II bikeways are proposed along the Shopkeeper Road extension to Pacific Coast Highway, Studebaker Road, and Marina Drive.
• Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). A shared facility (by bikes and vehicles) that provides either continuity with other bicycle facilities or designates preferred routes through high-demand on-street corridors. The existing Class III facility along 2nd Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road is envisioned to be improved as a Class II facility through implementation of this Specific Plan. • Class IV Separated Bikeways (Cycle Track). Provides delineated right-of-way assigned to bicyclists with physical separation from vehicles. This separation can include parked vehicles, bollards, curbs, or any other physical device that provides separation. The most significant change to the bike and roadway network proposed for the SEASP area is the inclusion of two cycle tracks—one along Pacific Coast Highway and the other along Studebaker Road.
▪ PDF-7: Building Placement and Orientation/Heat Gain. SEASP encourages buildings that are oriented for energy efficiency to capture day lighting, minimize heat gain, and take advantage of prevailing breezes for natural ventilation. The SEASP encourages open spaces that are appropriately landscaped and provide adequate shade devices or shade trees to reduce heat island effects. Shade devices include, but are not limited to, umbrellas, awnings, trellises, and canopies that are integrated into the building or over open spaces. Greenroofs, or eco-roofs, are permitted in the Specific Plan area to reduce stormwater runoff, lower energy consumption, and provide spaces for community gardens. SEASP also encourages parking lots that provide sufficient tree coverage to mitigate the heat island effect. Parking structures should also be shaded and/or include photovoltaic arrays on the top deck to reduce heat island effect. ▪ PDF-8: Energy Efficient Lighting. SEASP requires use of low-contrast lighting, low-voltage fixtures, and energy-efficient bulbs, such as compact fluorescent and light emitting diode (LED) bulbs for all outdoor lighting. Additionally, SEASP encourages the use of solar-powered light fixtures. For architectural lighting, use of automatic timers is encouraged to conserve energy at night. Furthermore, the SEASP includes birdsafe measures that would result in energy co-benefits, including requirements for automated on/off systems and motion detectors for interior lighting. The SEASP also encourages building owners to participate in “Lights Out for Birds” programs or similar initiatives by turning off lighting at night.

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 48 ends

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

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

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

The second consistency criterion requires that the project not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP and not interfere with control strategies to attain the ambient air quality standards (AAQS). A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG. These demographic trends are incorporated into SCAG’s 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS or Connect SoCal) to determine priority transportation projects and vehicle miles traveled in the SCAG region (SCAG 2020). Because the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans, projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air-quality-related regional plan.

The proposed project would replace the two-story office buildings with a new mixed-use building (residential and commercial) in the SEASP area. As discussed below in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project is consistent with SEASP’s buildout projections for residential units and commercial square footage. The proposed project would also be consistent with the existing land use designation of Mixed-Use Community Core (MU-CC), and the commercial component would be local serving uses that would not generate substantial regional traffic. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce direct nor indirect substantial unplanned population growth in the City beyond what was analyzed by the PEIR.

Operation of the proposed project would not introduce new employment that would disproportionately contribute to growth accounted for in the 2022 AQMP emissions inventory.

Operation of the proposed project would not interfere with or obstruct implementation of the 2022 AQMP and would not contribute to delaying timely attainment of the air quality standards. Consistent with PEIR, the proposed project would implement applicable PDFs in the PEIR and Mitigation Measures AQ1 through AQ-6. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more 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 49
severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

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

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

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

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

AQ-2 Applicants for new development projects within the Southeast Area Specific Plan shall require the construction contractor to prepare a dust control plan and implement the following measures during ground-disturbing activities—in addition to the existing requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403—to further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The City of Long Beach shall verify that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections. ▪ Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering.
▪ During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with SCAQMD Rule 1186–compliant, PM10-efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.

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 50 ends

▪ During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials and shall tarp materials with a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amount of protection. ▪ During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the construction site and a minimum of three times per day.
▪ During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour. ▪ Heavy construction vehicles trips shall be limited to off-peak hours.

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

AQ-3 Applicants for new development projects within the Southeast Area Specific Plan shall require the construction contractor to use coatings and solvents with a volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower than required under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints). The construction contractor shall also use precoated/natural-colored building materials, where feasible. Use of low-VOC paints and spray method shall be included as a note on architectural building plans and verified by the City of Long Beach during construction.

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

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

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

Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-4 is applicable to the proposed project. This mitigation measure is also incorporated into the PEIR Chapter 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and has been updated to incorporate the City’s recently adopted Climate Action Plan (LB CAP) and be consistent with the City’s LB CAP GHG 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 51
Reduction Action Consistency Checklist (see Table 8, in Section 3.8 below). Refer to Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, below for further discussion.

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

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

AQ-6 Prior to issuance of building permits for nonresidential development projects within the Southeast Area Specific Plan, the property owner/developer shall indicate on the building plans that the following features have been incorporated into the design of the building(s).

Proper installation of these features shall be verified by the City of Long Beach prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
▪ For buildings with more than ten tenant-occupants, changing/shower facilities shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
▪ Preferential parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in Section A5.106.5.1 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.
▪ Facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging and electric vehicle infrastructure to comply with Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code and the Long Beach Municipal Code.

Applicability: Mitigation Measure AQ-6 has been updated to reflect the 2022 CALGreen Code. Mitigation Measure AQ-6 is applicable to the proposed project.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? The Los Angeles County portion of the SoCAB is presently designated nonattainment for both the federal or state ambient air quality standards for lead (Pb), ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The South Coast AQMD published guidance addressing the evaluation of potential cumulative impacts for CEQA projects. The South Coast AQMD asserts that if construction or operation of a project would produce 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 52 ends

maximum daily emissions exceeding the applicable project-specific thresholds, those emissions would also be considered cumulatively significant and may require mitigation. For this reason, the South Coast AQMD applies the same project-level thresholds to cumulative assessments as a screening approach. Conversely, if construction and operation of a project would not generate emissions of sufficient quantity to exceed any of the applicable mass daily thresholds at either the regional or localized level, then that project and its associated emissions would be considered less than significant in the cumulative context.

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

Construction associated with the mixed-use development is anticipated to start in mid-2024 and finish in by end of 2027. Roadway widening along Studebaker Road would occur concurrently with construction of the mixed-use development and would involve grubbing and land clearing; grading and excavation; drainage, utilities, and subgrade, and paving. Improvements on Studebaker Road assumed construction activities over

1.71 acres and a construction period from Summer 2026 to Winter 2027, concurrent with the paving phase associated with the mixed-use development.

Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on-site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Table 4, Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions, shows an estimate of maximum daily construction emissions for the proposed project and compares those emissions to the construction emissions identified in the PEIR. The table shows the highest daily emissions during construction of the proposed project would not exceed any applicable regional mass daily thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD.

Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Table 4 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Phase
Pollutants
(lb/day)1, 2
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 2023
Utility Relocation Trenching <1 3 4 <1 <1 <1
Building Demolition 1 16 21 <1 2 1
Building Demolition and Asphalt Demolition 2 27 41 <1 3 1 Building Demolition, Building Debris Onsite Processing/Recycling, and Asphalt Debris Onsite Processing/Recycling
69 17 118 <1 6 2
Year 2024
Building Demolition, Building Debris Onsite Processing/Recycling, and Asphalt Debris Onsite Processing/Recycling
1 47 42 <1 13 5
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 53
Table 4 Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Phase
Pollutants
(lb/day)1, 2
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 2 96 50 <1 21 7
Rough Grading 1 18 22 <1 5 2
Fine Grading 2 13 39 <1 5 1
Building Construction 1 47 42 <1 13 5
Year 2025
Building Construction 2 12 37 <1 5 1
Building Construction, Utility Trenching, and Architectural Coating 5 16 46 <1 5 1 Year 2026
Building Construction, Utility Trenching, and Architectural Coating 5 21 53 <1 6 2 Building Construction and Architectural Coating 4 13 40 <1 5 1 Building Construction, Architectural Coating, Asphalt/Concrete Paving, and Finishing/Landscaping, Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing3 5 24 59 <1 6 2
Building Construction, Architectural Coating, Asphalt/Concrete Paving, and Finishing/Landscaping, and Linear, Grading & Excavation3 6 48 102 <1 9 2
Building Construction, Asphalt/Concrete Paving, and
Finishing/Landscaping, Linear, Grading & Excavation3
4 20 44 <1 5 1
Building Construction, Asphalt/Concrete Paving, and
Finishing/Landscaping, Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade3 3 28 58 <1 6 2
Building Construction, Asphalt/Concrete Paving, and
Finishing/Landscaping, Linear & Paving3
3 27 62 <1 5 1
Year 2027
Building Construction, Asphalt/Concrete Paving, and
Finishing/Landscaping, Linear & Paving3
3 28 57 <1 5 1
Building Construction, Asphalt/Concrete Paving, and
Finishing/Landscaping
2 20 44 <1 5 1
Building Construction 2 12 31 <1 4 1
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions 69 96 118 <1 21 7
SEASP PEIR Construction Emissions 84 261 221 <1 34 19
Proposed Project vs SEASP PEIR (15) (165) (103) (0) (13) (12) South Coast AQMD Regional Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.12 Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. See Appendix B. 1 Based on the preliminary construction information provided by the Applicant. Where specific information regarding proposed project-related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by South Coast AQMD of construction equipment.
2 Includes implementation Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 which include fugitive dust control measures required by South Coast AQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 25 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers. Includes implementation of use of coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under South Coast AQMD Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints). In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requires use of Tier 4 construction equipment for equipment for equipment 50 horsepower and higher.
3 Linear phases associated with the roadway construction 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 54 ends

Operations
Upon buildout, the proposed project would generate operational emissions from on-road mobile sources, area sources (e.g., landscaping equipment, architectural coating), and energy use (i.e., natural gas used for heating and cooking). However, the proposed project’s nature and size would not result in a larger increase in longterm, operational criteria air pollutants compared to the scale of development associated with the SEASP buildout.

Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the local land use designation of MU-CC and provide neighborhood-serving retail uses that would reduce trip lengths relative to other parts of the region.

Thus, long-term operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to cumulatively considerable emissions of nonattainment pollutants. In addition, applicable PDFs would further reduce emissions generated during project operation by requiring various transportation demand measures, active transportation infrastructure, intersection signalization, and energy efficiency design in building design and orientation. Moreover, PEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4 through AQ-6 would further reduce the generation of operational emissions generated by the proposed project by requiring electric landscaping equipment, energy-efficient appliances, electricity sourced from renewable generation sources, and installation of CALGreen Tier 2 EV charging standards. Therefore, the operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

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

Screening-level localized significance thresholds (LST) (pounds per day) are the amount of project-related mass emissions at which localized concentrations (ppm or µg/m3) could exceed the AAQS for criteria air pollutants for which the SoCAB is designated nonattainment. They are based on the acreage disturbed and distance to the 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 55
nearest sensitive receptor. Screening-level LSTs are based on the proposed project site size and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Thresholds are based on the California AAQS, which are the most stringent, established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of public health and welfare. They are designed to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors are the multifamily residential apartments (Eaves Seal Beach apartments) and single-family homes to the south in Seal Beach and the single-family homes to the west in the Naples neighborhood.

As shown in Table 5, Maximum Daily On-Site Localized Construction Emissions, maximum daily localized emissions of criteria pollutants and ozone precursors from sources on the project site would not exceed any applicable LST values for the SRA 4. It should be noted that the emissions expressed in Table 5 incorporate PEIR Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3.

Table 5 Maximum Daily On-Site Localized Construction Emissions Pollutants (lbs./day)1,2
NOX CO PM103 PM2.53
South Coast AQMD 0.50-Acre LST 57 585 108.68 58.94
Utility Relocation Trenching 3 4 0.06 0.06
Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 1.00-Acre LST 57 585 108.68 58.94
Building Demolition 11 18 0.79 0.27
Building Demolition, Building Debris Onsite
Processing/Recycling, and Asphalt Debris Onsite
Processing/Recycling
13 115 5.06 1.60
Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 1.31-Acre LST 65 665 111.50 60.80
Building Construction 9 15 0.12 0.11
Building Construction and Architectural Coating 10 16 0.13 0.12 Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 1.81-Acre LST 77 794 116.00 63.78
Building Construction, Utility Trenching, and
Architectural Coating
13 20 0.19 0.18
Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 2.00-Acre LST 82 842 117.68 64.90
Building Demolition and Asphalt Demolition 22 37 1.27 0.48 Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 2.31-Acre LST 86 914 120.08 66.35
Building Construction, Asphalt/Concrete Paving, and
Finishing/Landscaping
15 26 0.20 0.18
Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 2.50-Acre LST 89 957 121.51 67.22
Rough Grading 10 18 2.67 1.04
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 56 ends

Table 5 Maximum Daily On-Site Localized Construction Emissions Pollutants (lbs./day)1,2
NOX CO PM103 PM2.53
Fine Grading 10 18 2.65 1.04
Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 2.81-Acre LST 93 1,028 123.91 68.67
Building Construction, Architectural Coating,
Asphalt/Concrete Paving, and Finishing/Landscaping,
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing
21 32 0.55 0.29
Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 3.50-Acre LST 103 1,186 129.17 71.86
Site Preparation 15 28 10.00 4.75
Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 3.81-Acre LST 107 1,258 131.57 73.31
Building Construction, Asphalt/Concrete Paving, and
Finishing/Landscaping, Linear & Paving
23 38 0.30 0.27
Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 4.31-Acre LST 114 1,372 135.40 75.63
Building Construction, Asphalt/Concrete Paving, and
Finishing/Landscaping, Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
31 51 1.24 0.44
Exceeds LST? No No No No
South Coast AQMD 5.00-Acre LST 123 1,530 140.67 78.82
Building Construction, Architectural Coating,
Asphalt/Concrete Paving, and Finishing/Landscaping,
and Linear, Grading & Excavation
44 73 2.51 0.69
Building Construction, Asphalt/Concrete Paving, and
Finishing/Landscaping, and Linear, Grading &
Excavation
43 72 2.49 0.67
Exceeds LST? No No No No
Sources: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.12, and South Coast AQMD 2008 and 2011. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. Linear phases associated with the roadway construction project.
1 Assumes 1 acre of disturbance per day and 25 meters to closest sensitive receptor for a conservative assessment of localized impacts. 2 Based on information provided or verified by the District. Where specific information regarding project-related construction activities or processes was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by the South Coast AQMD. 3 Includes implementation Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 which include fugitive dust control measures required by South Coast AQMD under Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 25 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, replacing ground cover quickly, and street sweeping with Rule 1186–compliant sweepers. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requires use of Tier 4 construction equipment for equipment for equipment 50 horsepower and higher.

As shown in Table 5, daily construction emissions would not exceed any applicable localized daily thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, Tier-4 equipment would be required for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower. Therefore, maximum daily localized emissions of criteria pollutants and ozone precursors from sources located on the project site would not exceed any applicable LST values and a construction HRA would not be required. Emissions from construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial 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 57
criteria pollutant concentrations. Further, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 from the PEIR.

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

There would be no substantial source of criteria pollutant or air toxic emissions associated with operation of the proposed project that could potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to long-term pollutant concentrations. Therefore, long-term operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of carbon monoxide (CO) called hotspots.

These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to the AAQS is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hot spots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. The SoCAB has been designated in attainment of both the National and California AAQS for CO. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—to generate a significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2023). The proposed project compared to existing conditions would generate net incremental 53 PM peak-hour trips (Fehr & Peers 2023). Peak-hour trips would therefore be substantially below the peak-hour vehicle trips needed to generate a significant CO impact. In addition, the proposed project is within the buildout of the PEIR. Implementation of the proposed project would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the project site.

As discussed under this threshold, construction and operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
A significant impact would occur if construction or operation of the proposed project would result in the creation of nuisance odors that would be noxious to a substantial number of people, or visible dust plumes.

The proposed project would comprise similar uses to those analyzed in the PEIR. Potential sources that may 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 58 ends

produce objectionable odors during construction activities include equipment exhaust, application of asphalt and architectural coatings, and other interior and exterior finishes. However, these odors would be temporary and confined to the immediate area of the construction activities. All construction activities would be conducted in accordance with the best management practices in South Coast AQMD Rule 402, which would minimize and provide a control for odors. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project would not result in odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people and would not result in new or exacerbated effects compared to the PEIR.

The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatment plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed project does not include any of these uses, but on-site trash receptacles would have the potential to create adverse odors. The mixed-use building would properly maintain odors associated with trash in compliance with the Long Beach Municipal Code, and there would be no operational activities that would be expected to produce dust plumes that could pose violations of South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Therefore, the operation of the proposed project would not result in odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

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

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 59

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues

SEASP PEIR
Determination
Are there
environmental
effects peculiar to
the project or the
parcel on which
the project would
be located?
Are there
environmental
effects that were
not analyzed as
significant effects
in the SEASP
PEIR?
Are there
potentially
significant offsite impacts and
cumulative
impacts which
were not
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
Are there
previously
identified
significant effects
which, as a result
of substantial
new
information which
was not known at
the time the
SEASP PEIR was
certified, are
determined to
have a more
severe adverse
impact than
discussed in the
SEASP PEIR?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
no no no no
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
no no no no
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
no no no no
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
no no no no
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact no no no no
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact no no no no

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

Approximately 62 percent (920 acres) of the SEASP area has a vegetation and land cover designation of “developed.” Approximately 11.9 percent (175 acres) and 11.4 percent (168 acres) of the SEASP have 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 60 ends

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

Implementation of the SEASP could directly impact sensitive species and natural communities from the removal of native vegetation that supports sensitive species. Implementation of the SEASP could indirectly impact sensitive species and natural communities with noise, lighting, human activities, urban/wetland interface, stormwater runoff, and bird strikes. Buildout of the SEASP could impact jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands directly—from private development, trails, or other recreational uses in the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex (LCWC) and jurisdictional waters within the proposed Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation—and indirectly from noise, runoff, and human intrusion. The policies, development standards, and design standards and guidelines of the SEASP, regulatory compliance, and mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

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

Recognized wildlife corridors have not been designated in the SEASP area. The San Gabriel River will not be directly impacted by implementation of the SEASP. The LCWC is likely part of a migration path for urban wildlife, providing food and resting sources; some species seek breeding grounds within the SEASP area. The preservation of wetlands and limited uses allowed in the proposed Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation land use designation would result in avoidance of impacts to wildlife using this area as a corridor. There is a potential for existing ornamental trees to be removed during development or redevelopment in the urbanized areas.

Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) would ensure that trees and nests would not be removed during the breeding season. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could affect wildlife movement but adopted mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

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

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

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 61
PEIR Project Design Features
The PEIR include the following PDFs that apply to the proposed project, in addition to the SEASP as a whole.

Other PDFs (see Chapter 5.4 of the PEIR) apply to the SEASP area as whole and are not applicable to the proposed project.
▪ PDF-BIO-1: Wetland Delineations2
▪ PDF-BIO-3: Wetland Buffers3
▪ PDF-BIO-4: New landscape plantings shall utilize non-invasive species (prohibited species published by the California Invasive Plant Council) and reflect native plants typically associated with wetlands into development around wetlands.
▪ PDR-BIO-5: Wetlands Edge at Shopkeeper Road. Landscaping within 500 feet of natural areas along this edge shall consist of California Native species or varieties that will not invade habitat or hybridize with existing native vegetation to create a more seamless transition between the natural wetlands and development (per CALGreen and Cal-IPC standards).

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The analysis in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, is based in part on the following technical report:
▪ Biological Technical Report, Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA), June 28, 2023. (A complete copy of this report is included in Appendix C).

The project site contains two office buildings, surface parking, public rights-of-way, and some landscaping throughout the project site. The project site is located in the coastal zone. The LCWC and the SEASP Wetland Complex Boundary are to the east of the project site. The vegetation and land cover at the project site are shown as “developed.” No wetlands exist on the project site (USFWS 2023; GLA 2023).

During vegetation mapping of the project site, five vegetation/land use types were identified on the project site: Avena spp. – Bromus spp. seminatural alliance/Mesembryanthemum spp. – Carpobrotus spp. semi-natural alliance, developed, disturbed, eucalyptus, and ornamental. Table 6, Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Project Site, provides a summary of vegetation types/land uses and the corresponding acreage.

The vegetation at the project site is primarily developed and disturbed with ornamental landscaping (e.g. nonnative trees, shrubs, and turf) and non-native weedy species (97.2 percent). Common ornamental species identified on the project site include London plane trees (Platanus x hispanica), Indian hawthorne (Rhaphiolepis indica), English ivy (Hedera helix), pittosporum (Pittosporum sp.), rusty fig (Ficus rubiginosa), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), and Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis). No native vegetation communities occur within the project site (GLA 2023).
2 Wetland delineations are discussed in policies 5.2 and 5.3. 3 Wetland buffers are discussed in policy 5.20 and referenced throughout Chapter 5 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

Page 62 ends

Table 6 Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Project Site On-Site Vegetation/Land Use Types Area (Acres)
Avena spp. – Bromus spp. seminatural alliance/Mesembryanthemum spp. – Carpobrotus spp. semi-natural alliance

0.14 Developed 4.57
Disturbed 0.59
Eucalyptus 0.02
Ornamental 0.43
Total 5.75
Source: GLA 2023.

GLA reviewed the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which identified southern coastal salt marsh as occurring within the United States Geological Service (USGS) Los Alamitos quadrangle. The project site does not contain southern coastal salt marsh nor any special-status habitats. Additionally, the project site does not contain any vegetation communities that would be considered an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). 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 (GLA 2023).

The nearest potential wetlands are associated with a property owned by the City of Long Beach, at least 194 feet north of the project site, and the northeast edge of the Pumpkin Patch site approximately 221 feet east of the project site.

No special-status animals were detected at the project site, and none are expected to occur due to lack of suitable habitat. The project site contains trees, shrubs, and ground cover that provide suitable habitat for common species of nesting migratory birds. Additionally, the eucalyptus trees at the eastern end of the 100- foot buffer may provide roosting sites for more common urban-adapted species such as the red-tailed hawk, but there are no suitable breeding or foraging habitats for special-status raptors in the project site (GLA 2023).

See Figure 8, Vegetation Map.

SEASP Policies
The SEASP includes a number of policies related to biological resources that are applicable to the proposed project (see Table 11, in Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning).

Pacific Coast Highway
North Studebaker Road
Source: Glenn Lukos Associates, 2023.

PlaceWorks
0 Scale (Feet)
100
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 AT 6 6 1 5 E . PA C I F I C C O A S T H I G H WAY

CITY OF LONG BEACH
Figure 8 - Existing Vegetation Map

3.4. Biological Resources
Project Site100' Buffer into Undeveloped AreasAvena spp. – Bromus spp. seminatural alliance/Mesembryanthemum spp. – Carpobrotus spp. semi-natural allianceEucalyptusOrnamentalDisturbedDeveloped 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 64 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

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 65

DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? As part of the Biological Technical Report, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants were reviewed, vegetation communities and land cover types within the project site were mapped according to the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (or California Natural Community List), and a site survey was conducted. The literature search generated a list of 39 special-status plant species and 65 special-status animal species that have the potential to occur within or adjacent to the project site and determined that none of the species have the potential to occur on-site due to lack of suitable habitat. The project site does not contain any special-status vegetation types nor vegetation communities that would be considered an ESHA. The project site and a 100-feet buffer around the project site do not contain USFWS-designated critical habitat. The proposed project would not directly modify habitat. No special-status animals were detected at the project site, and none are expected to occur due to lack of suitable habitat (GLA, 2023).

The City of Long Beach Property Site (Marketplace Marsh) is 194 feet northeast of the project site, and the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex is located to the northeast beyond the Marketplace Marsh; both wetland areas are separated from the project site by existing development (6621 East Pacific Coast Highway). Accordingly, there is no potential for temporary or permanent indirect impacts to adjacent native open space. Nevertheless, the project would incorporate design features to prevent indirect impacts, including ensuring that stormwater flows and other runoff will not discharge into the Marketplace Marsh and Los Cerritos Wetlands (see Section 1.4.4, Stormwater Improvements and Utilities), and installing exterior lighting that is directed downward and away from the Marketplace Marsh and Los Cerritos Wetlands (see Figure 7, Photometric Plan). Additionally, the landscaping plant palette will not include any invasive species. Finally, the Marketplace Marsh and Los Cerritos Wetlands would remain fenced as in their current condition to prevent public access. Construction activities would comply with all applicable regulations and requirements for dust control, air quality, pollutants, and noise to further reduce potential indirect impacts to special status species.

The proposed project would be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the certified PEIR (see below). Consistent with BIO-3, the proposed project would prepare a construction management plan; a monitoring biologist would be required on-site during any grading activities; and a project-specific contractor training program would be developed and implemented to train construction contractors of sensitive biological resources. The proposed project would be required to implement the noise measures in Mitigation Measure BIO-4 (in addition to the mitigation measures in Section 3.13, Noise) to reduce noise during construction.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would not apply to the proposed project since the proposed project does not include any trails or an access plan adjacent to jurisdictional waters. Consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-7, prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant and/or subsequent builder shall prepare an urbanopen space interface brochure to educate residents on the responsibilities associated with living near sensitive biological 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 66 ends

Consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-5, a photometric plan was prepared for the proposed project (see Figure 7). As shown in Figure 7, the proposed project would generate between 0.0 and 0.1 foot candles of light at the proposed roundabout on Studebaker Road (i.e., the portion of the nearest to the Los Cerritos Wetlands without being obstructed by a building). Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-5.

Consistent with the PEIR, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, the proposed project would not create a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent environmental review is required.

BIO-1 Concurrent with submittal of site development plans for development on or adjacent to undeveloped land and all land within the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation land use, the project applicant shall submit a biological resources report conducted by a qualified biologist.

The biological resources report shall include: analysis of available literature and databases (CNDDB); historical sensitive biological resources; review of current land use and land ownership within the project vicinity; on-site survey and mapping that delineates vegetation communities present within the development area; identification of jurisdictional waters and special status habitat, wildlife, and plant species. Focused surveys for sensitive, threatened, endangered species, will also be prepared, as required. The project applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed development and project design avoids impacts to special status species and habitats, in consultation with CDFW and USFWS. If complete avoidance is not possible, the project applicant shall obtain necessary permits from CDFW and USFWS. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall submit plans, required permits, and mitigation plans (if needed) to the Long Beach Development Services Department for review and approval.

Applicability: The proposed project site is not undeveloped and is not within or adjacent to land designated as Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation. However, an undeveloped parcel (the Pumpkin Patch site) is adjacent to the southern project site boundary. This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. The Biological Technical Report prepared for the proposed project to comply with the requirements of BIO-1 is included in Appendix C.

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 67
BIO-2 Concurrent with submittal of site development plans for development on or adjacent to undeveloped land and all land within the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation land use, the project applicant shall submit a jurisdictional delineation prepared by a qualified biologist or letters stating that no such jurisdictional features exist. The jurisdictional delineation shall be prepared pursuant to the requirements of (1) US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, (2) CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, (3) RWQCB jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 13260 of the Porter-Cologne Act, and (4) wetlands as defined under the California Coastal Act. The project shall be designed to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. If wetland avoidance is not possible, the applicant shall ensure no net loss of wetlands either by creation of applicantsponsored wetlands or purchase of mitigation bank credits in consultation with applicable Federal- and State- agencies (Corps, CDFW, RWQB, and/or Coastal Commission). Any mitigation, replacement, and/or restoration of habitat shall occur in the LCWC or in an approved coastal mitigation bank that covers this area. If the applicant can demonstrate that there are no logistically viable opportunities for mitigation within the LCWC, the applicant may propose mitigation elsewhere, which must be approved by the City and the resource agencies. The mitigation plan prepared in consultation with the applicable agencies shall include: responsibilities and of persons to supervise and implement the plan, site selection, restoration and creation of habitat; site preparation and planting implementation, schedule, maintenance guidelines, monitoring plan (5 year minimum), and long-term preservation. Prior to the issuance of grading permits covering jurisdictional areas, the project applicant shall provide evidence to the Long Beach Development Services Department that (1) all necessary permits or authorizations have been obtained from the Corps (pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), CDFW (pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, and RWQCB (pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act), the Coastal Commission, or that no such permits are required; and (2) the detailed mitigation and restoration plan shall be approved by the Development Services Department.

Applicability: The proposed project is not undeveloped, and the project site is not within or adjacent to land designated as Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation. However, an undeveloped parcel (the Pumpkin Patch site) is adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. Jurisdictional Delineations are discussed in the Biological Technical Report prepared for the proposed project to comply with the requirements of BIO-2, and is included in Appendix C. A minor typographical edit was made to this mitigation measure to clarify an Agency acronym.

BIO-3 If sensitive biological resources are identified within or adjacent to the proposed development area, the project applicant shall submit evidence to the Long Beach Development Services Department that a qualified biologist has been retained to prepare a construction management plan. The construction limits shall be clearly flagged and/or fenced. No construction access, parking, storage of equipment, or waste dirt or rubble will be permitted within such marked 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 68 ends

areas. A monitoring biologist shall be onsite during any grading activities. The qualified biologist shall also develop and implement a project specific contractor training program to educate project contractors on the sensitive biological resources within and adjacent to the proposed development project area and oversee measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts to these species.

Applicability: The proposed project site is approximately 194 feet from the Los Cerritos Wetlands at its closest point. This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project.

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

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project.

BIO-5 Prior to approval of any development adjacent to jurisdictional waters or habitat for special status species and all land within the Coastal Habitat, Wetlands & Recreation land use, the project applicant shall submit a photometric plan demonstrating that the project will be designed and shielded so that the nighttime lighting shall be no greater than 0.10 foot-candle at the edge of the habitat. This would ensure that spill light does not result in exposure of artificial light at levels exceeding the intensity of moonlight (approximately 0.5 foot-candle).

Applicability: The project site does not contain habitat for special status species. The nearest potential wetlands are approximately 194 feet northeast of the project site but are not adjacent to the project site. A photometric plan was prepared for the proposed project to comply with the requirements of BIO-5. See Figure 7.

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 69
BIO-7 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant and/or subsequent builder shall prepare an urban-open space interface brochure to be approved by the Long Beach Development Services Department to educate residents on the responsibilities associated with living near sensitive biological habitat. The brochure shall address relevant issues, including the role of natural predators in the wildlands and how to minimize impacts of human and domestic pets on native communities and their inhabitants. The approved brochure, along with attachments, shall be included as part of the rental/lease agreements and as part of the sales literature for future developments.

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The project site lacks suitable habitat to support special-status species. The project site does not contain any special-status vegetation types nor vegetation communities that would be considered an ESHA. The project site and a 100-feet buffer around the project site do not contain USFWS-designated critical habitat (GLA 2023).

The project site and the 100-foot buffer do not contain any blue-line streams, jurisdictional waters, or wetlands as defined by the Clean Water Act or the California Coastal Act. A few areas of the project site and 100-foot buffer exhibited ponding during the biological reconnaissance site visit on March 16, 2023, but these areas do not constitute jurisdictional wetlands. The vegetation consists of a mix of native and non-native species with wetland indicator statuses ranging from obligate (OBL) to upland (UPL), but this area does not constitute a wetland as it occurs in an unmaintained section of a landscape planter and is not a naturally occurring feature.

A few localized areas of very shallow ponding were observed within the 100-foot buffer in the Pumpkin Patch, but these areas do not constitute wetlands, as the soils are compacted due to ongoing disturbance and tend to exhibit shallow ponding after any significant rainfall. The nearest potential wetlands are associated with the City of Long Beach Property Site (Marketplace Marsh) at least 194 feet north of the project site, and the northeast edge of the Pumpkin Patch site approximately is 221 feet east of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands.

Further, as discussed in Table 6, above, the proposed project does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. With implementation of applicable mitigation measures, and as discussed under threshold (a), the proposed project would not have indirect impacts to riparian habitat, wetlands, nor sensitive natural communities. As such, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, other sensitive natural community, or wetland.

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

3. Environmental Analysis

Page 70 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 environmental review is required.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, and BIO-7. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The project site consists of an existing commercial development, portions of public rights of way, and the disturbed edge of the adjacent Pumpkin Patch site. Although there may be local wildlife movement through the Pumpkin Patch, impacts of the proposed project would be limited to the edge of the Pumpkin Patch within Studebaker Road and therefore would not interfere substantially with wildlife movement. The project site does not contain a native wildlife nursery site.

The project site contains eucalyptus trees that may provide roosting sites for common urban-adapted species such as the red-tailed hawk but are not expected to nest within the project site because onsite observations found no nesting raptors in the project site due to a general lack of suitable habitat (GLA 2023). However, the project site currently contains mostly nonnative trees, shrubs, and ground cover that have the potential to support nesting birds that are protected while nesting pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Sections 3505, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-8 from the certified PEIR. With implementation of BIO-8, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Further, the proposed project would be landscaped with variety of plants species, including multiple tree varieties on the ground floor and on the pool deck; the new trees could serve as new nesting opportunities for birds.

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 71
BIO-8 If construction is proposed between January 15 to September 1st, January through September, a qualified biologist must conduct a nesting bird survey(s) at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction with a follow-up survey no more than three days prior to initiation of construction activities to document the presence or absence of nesting birds in or adjacent to the project site. The preconstruction survey(s) will focus on identifying any raptors and owls, any species listed pursuant to the federal or California Endangered Species Act, California bird species of special concern, or a wading bird (herons or egrets), and/or passerines nests that may be directly or indirectly affected by construction activities. Any nest permanently vacated for the season would not warrant protection pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If active nests are documented, the following measures are required:
▪ Species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of a nest shall be postponed until the young birds have fledged. A minimum exclusion buffer of 100 feet shall be maintained during construction, depending on the species and location.

The perimeter of the nest setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities are restricted from the area.
▪ Vegetation clearing shall be conducted outside of the nesting season. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including vegetation clearing, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. ▪ For active nest of any species listed pursuant to the federal or California Endangered Species Act, California bird species of special concern, wading bird (herons or egrets), or owls or raptors, construction activities within 300 feet (500 feet from any owl or raptor nests) shall not exceed noise levels of 65 dB peak until the nest(s) is naturally vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The 65 dB peak noise levels may only be increased if a noise study demonstrates the ambient noise level is above 65 dB at the subject site, and shall not be allowed to exceed the ambient level.
▪ A survey report by a qualified biologist verifying that no active nests are present, or that the young have fledged, shall be submitted to the Long Beach Development Services Department prior to initiation of grading in the nest-setback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a biological monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. ▪ A final report of the findings, prepared by a qualified biologist, shall be submitted to the Long Beach Development Services Department prior to construction-related activities that have the potential to disturb any active nests during the nesting season.

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 72 ends

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project and minor clarifications/additions based on the biological technical report prepared for the proposed project, have been provided, consistent with SEASP Policy 5.30. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? As with the PEIR, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including the policies set forth in SEASP (see Table 11. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including the policies set forth in SEASP, as no jurisdictional waters, wetlands, ESHA, or sensitive coastal habitat areas are located within 100 feet of the project site. The proposed project would also not conflict with the City’s Tree Maintenance Policy (LBMC Section 14.28). The project would not result in a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan since the project site is not within an area covered by a HTP nor NCCP (GLA 2023).

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 73

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues

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

New development and redevelopment have the potential to occur throughout the SEASP area with proposed land use changes, and intensification is identified predominantly in the proposed Mixed-Use Community Core and Mixed-Use Marina areas. These areas are developed, and there are no known historical resources in these areas. If future development would impact buildings 45 years or older, a formal historical resources evaluation would be required at that time. The intensification in the Mixed-Use Community Core is not expected to impact Marine Stadium because these areas are separated by existing development, Marina Drive, and parking areas.

Although the scale and character of the area may change, new development is required to be consistent with the development standards and design guidelines in the SEASP. Special attention is required for edge effects 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 74 ends

and views. The PEIR incorporated Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 to reduce potential impacts to historic resources; however, impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

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

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

Therefore, ground disturbance by projects developed pursuant to the SEASP could encounter human remains.

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

EXISTING CONDITIONS
This analysis in this section is based on the following technical study:
▪ Historic Built Environment Evaluation for the Long Beach Market Place Mixed-Used Project, City of Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California (“Historic Evaluation”), Cogstone Resource Management (Cogstone), June 2023. (Appendix D)
A Historic Evaluation was completed in compliance with the Southeast Area Specific Plan (SEASP) Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (Cogstone 2023) which states that “Future development or redevelopment projects on or near buildings or structures 45 years of age or older shall require an intensive-level historical evaluation.” In total, three buildings were evaluated as part of the Historic Evaluation. This includes two office buildings within the Long Beach Marketplace Office Park; 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1979) located within the project site and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1980) located adjacent to the project site. The third building evaluated for Historic Evaluation was a vacant El Torito restaurant (built 1977/1978) located adjacent to the project site at 6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway. The buildings adjacent to the project site (the El Torito restaurant at 6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway and the office building at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway) were documented and evaluated for potential historic significant in compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1. While 6605 E.

Pacific Coast Highway meets the minimum threshold of being 45 years old, the building at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (43 years old) does not meet this threshold. To be conservative and to maintain compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the building at 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway was included in the Historic Evaluation in the event that this building meets the 45-year age threshold before the proposed project is complete. Since the office building at 6695 E. Pacific Coast Highway (within the project site) was built in 1983 and is 40 years old, it was not included in the Historic Evaluation since the proposed project is anticipated to be complete before the building reaches the 45-year age threshold.

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

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 75

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

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

During all digging, ground disturbance, and subsurface activity on the site, any Native American representatives from Tribes on the NAHC list are welcome to be present on the site and monitor, even if they are not the assigned set of monitors within the rotation for that day. iii. If any tribal cultural deposits are discovered, including but not limited to skeletal remains and grave-related artifacts, traditional cultural sites, religious or spiritual sites, or other artifacts, all development and ground disturbance shall cease until a treatment method is determined. On shared ancestral lands, each affected tribe must have input on the treatment method. iv. In-situ preservation and avoidance of cultural deposits shall be considered the preferred mitigation option. For in-situ preservation and or re-burial, the boundaries of the resource shall be determined and a setback shall be established between the boundary of cultural deposits and any proposed development; the setback shall be no less than 20 feet and may be larger if necessary to protect the cultural deposits.
v. If human remains are encountered, compliance with applicable State and Federal laws shall be required. Where appropriate and consistent with State and Federal laws, the treatment of remains shall be decided upon consultation with the MLDs and/or Native American monitors.

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 76 ends

vi. Representatives of Native American groups with documented ancestral ties to the area, as determined by the NAHC, shall also be invited to review and comment on the Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan.
b. Prior to issuance of any coastal development permits, new development projects located within areas designated Coastal Habitat/ Wetlands/Recreation or on other vacant lots shall prepare an Archaeological Research Plan (ARP) that:
i. Includes a detailed plan for archeological research and testing to characterize the potential for archeological resources on the site and to identify and accurately delineate (to the maximum extent practicable and in accordance with current professional archeological practices) any resources that may be discovered during the investigations.
ii. Addresses the larger cultural and tribal setting of the project area and describe how the project sites fit into this setting. The ARP shall address potential connections between the project site(s) and the broader network of prehistoric villages and resources of tribal people in the Long Beach area. The ARP shall address the value of living resources and the cultural significance for the surrounding sites to tribal communities.
iii. Addresses the likelihood of archeological resources (including burials) being present and what impacts the project may have on unknown archeological resources under the artificial fill.

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

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 77
vii. The ARP shall be reviewed by an archaeological peer review committee convened in accordance with current professional practice. Representatives of Native American groups with documented ancestral ties to the area, as determined by the NAHC, shall also be invited to review and comment on the ARP.
c. If more specific requirements for a project exist pursuant to an approved coastal development permit, then the conditions of that permit shall supersede the provisions of this section.

DISCUSSION
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Two office buildings within the Long Beach Marketplace Office Park, 6615 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1979) located within the project site and 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway (built 1980) located adjacent to the project site, are recommended not eligible for listing at the local, state, or national level due to a lack of historical significance; the fact that the buildings are not associated with events or individuals significant to history, and do not embody an exemplary representation of a distinctive type, period, or method of construction (Cogstone 2023). The vacant El Torito restaurant (6605 E. Pacific Coast Highway) located adjacent to the project site is also recommended not eligible for listing at the local, state, or national level for the same reasons (Cogstone 2023).

The project site is approximately 1.6 miles southeast from the Long Beach Marine Stadium and 0.4 mile south of the Bixby Ranch Field Office at 6433 2nd Street, both of which are historical resources. Consistent with the PEIR, development on sites designated “Mixed-Use Community Core,” such as the project site, are not expected to impact Marine Stadium because these areas are separated by existing development, Marina Drive, and parking areas. Given the distance to the Bixby Ranch Field Office, no direct or indirect impacts would occur. The proposed project would be required to comply with the policies, development standards, and design guidelines in the SEASP. Compliance with the SEASP would ensure that the proposed project would not significantly impact views of historic resources. Given the project site’s distance from Long Beach Marine Stadium and Bixby Ranch Field Office and given that no buildings on-site or adjacent to the project site are eligible for listing, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to historic resources.

Therefore, development of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project is within the scope of the PEIR and would remain consistent with the PEIR. Effects peculiar to the proposed project or the project site do not exist. No new information would result in more severe impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. No subsequent review is required.

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 78 ends

CUL-1 Future development or redevelopment projects on or near buildings or structures 45 years of age or older shall require an intensive-level historical evaluation. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant/developer shall prepare the evaluation in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local guidelines for evaluating historical resources. If, based on the evaluation of the property, it is determined that the proposed development or redevelopment project will have a substantial adverse effect on a historical resource (i.e., it would reduce its integrity to the point that it would no longer be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or in the list of Long Beach Landmarks), then the provisions of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 shall be implemented by the property owner or project applicant/developer to eliminate or reduce the project’s impact on historical resources.

Applicability: This mitigation measure applies to the proposed project. A Historic Evaluation was prepared for the proposed project consistent with the requirements of mitigation measure CUL-1 and is included in Appendix D.

CUL-2 If, based on the intensive-level historical evaluation required under Mitigation Measure CUL1, it is determined that the proposed development or redevelopment project will have a substantial adverse effect on a historical resource, the City of Long Beach shall require the property owner or project applicant/developer to implement the following measures:

A. Rehabilitation According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

1. If the proposed project includes renovation, alteration, or an addition to a historical resource (not including total demolition), then the property owner or project applicant/developer shall first seek to design all proposed renovation, alterations, or additions to the historical resource in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards), found at:
http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/stand.htm. a. Plans for rehabilitation shall be created under the supervision of a professional meeting the Department of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History or Historic Architecture and be designed by a licensed architect with demonstrated historic preservation experience. b. Plans shall be reviewed in the schematic design phase prior to any construction work, as well as in the 60 and 90 percent construction documents phases, for compliance with the Standards by a historic preservation professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards with demonstrated experience with the Standards compliance reviews. c. The qualified historic preservation professional reviewing the plans shall create a technical memo at each phase and submit the memo to the City of Long Beach Development Services Department for concurrence.

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 79
d. At the discretion of the City, a detailed character-defining features analysis and/or historical resource treatment plan may need to be prepared for select historical resources by a historic preservation professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards if the nature of the project or the significance of the property warrants such detailed analysis.
e. A qualified historic preservation professional shall monitor construction activities at key milestones to ensure that the work to be conducted complies with the Standards. The milestones shall be agreed upon in advance by the City and property owner or project applicant/developer.
f. City staff and the qualified historic preservation professional shall review the finished rehabilitation/renovation in person upon completion. g. In the event that any historical resource(s) are leased to third-party tenants and tenant improvements will be made, all of the terms of this stipulation shall be disclosed in the lease agreements, agreed upon in writing, and mutually enforced by the property owner or project applicant/developer and the City.

The tenants shall not be permitted to conduct work that does not comply with the Standards.

B. Rehabilitation According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

1. If the proposed project includes total demolition of a historical resource, the property owner or project applicant/developer shall first consider an alternative that retains the historical resource and incorporates it into the overall project development as an adaptive re-use of the building.

2. If the project site permits, the historical resource should be relocated to another location on the site, and the resource should be reincorporated into the overall project.

3. If the City determines that retention/onsite relocation of the historical resource is not feasible through a credible feasibility study, the City shall elect to allow the property owner or project applicant/developer to move forward with the development/redevelopment project; however, all other requirements outlined in this mitigation measure shall apply.

C. Third Party Sale

1. If the City determines that retention or onsite relocation of the historical resource is not feasible, then the property owner or project applicant/developer shall offer any historical resources scheduled for demolition to the public for sale and offsite relocation by a third party:

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 80 ends

a. The historic resource(s) shall be advertised by the property owner or project applicant/developer at a minimum in the following locations: project applicant’s/developer’s website (if applicable); City of Long Beach website; Los Angeles Times website and print editions; Long Beach Press Telegram. b. The bidding period shall remain open for 60 days after the date of advertisement to allow adequate response time from interested parties. c. Qualified parties shall meet the following minimum qualifications to be considered a realistic buyer: possess adequate financial resources to relocate and rehabilitate the historical resource(s); possess an available location for the historical resource(s); and provide for a new use for the historical resource(s). d. The City shall approve the qualified buyer. If no such buyer comes forward within the allotted time frame, the City shall elect to issue a demolition permit for the historical resource. However, all other requirements outlined in this mitigation measure shall apply.

D. Recordation

1. The property owner or project applicant/developer shall create HABS-like Level II documentation prepared in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. Information on the Standards and Guidelines is available at the following links:
http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_6.htm.
http://www.nps.gov/history/hdp/standards/index.htm.
a. Photographs with large-format black-and-white negatives (4 inches by 5 inches or larger) of the property as a whole shall be provided; photocopies with large format negatives of select existing drawings, site plans, or historic views where available. A minimum of 12 views showing context and relationship of historical resources to each other shall be provided; aerial views showing the whole property shall also be provided.
b. Written historical descriptive data, index to photographs, and photo key plan shall be provided.
c. The above items shall be created by a historic preservation professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards with demonstrated experience in creating HABS Level II documentation. d. The above items shall be created prior to any demolition or relocation work. e. The above items shall be distributed to the following repositories for use by future researchers and educators. Before submitting any documents, each of the following repositories shall be contacted to ensure that they are willing and 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 81
able to accept the items: City of Long Beach Public Library; Long Beach Historical Society; Los Angeles Public Library; South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton; and City of Long Beach Development Services Department (building files).

E. Salvage and Reuse

1. If offsite relocation of the historical resource by a third party is not accomplished, the property owner or project applicant/developer shall create a salvage and reuse plan identifying elements and materials of the resource that can be saved prior to any demolition work.
a. The salvage and reuse plan shall be included in bid documents prepared for the site and shall be created by a historic preservation professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards with demonstrated experience in creating salvage and reuse plans. b. Elements and materials that may be salvageable include windows; doors; roof tiles; decorative elements; bricks, foundation materials, and/or paving materials; framing members; furniture; lighting; and flooring materials, such as tiles and hardwood.

2. The property owner or project applicant/developer shall identify individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in receiving the salvaged items; these may include Habitat for Humanity Restore; other affordable housing organizations; or salvage yards. The following steps shall be taken by the property owner or project applicant/developer:
a. Identification of the individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in receiving the salvaged items shall be completed in consultation with the City. b. Identification of the individuals, organizations, or businesses interested in receiving the salvaged items shall be accomplished by contacting potentially interested parties directly first.
c. Items to be salvaged shall be advertised in the following locations for a period of 60 days if none of the contacted parties are able to receive the items: Los Angeles Times and Long Beach Press Telegram.

3. The property owner or project applicant/developer shall remove salvageable items in the gentlest, least destructive manner possible. Historic materials and features shall be protected by storing salvaged items in indoor, climate- and weather-controlled conditions until recipients can retrieve them. The removal of salvageable items shall be performed by a licensed contractor with demonstrated experience with implementing salvage and reuse plans.

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 82 ends

F. Other Optional Interpretive, Commemorative, or Educational Measures The City may also elect to require additional (optional) mitigation measures crafted in response to a specific historical resource’s property type or significance, association with a specific historic person, or overall value to the community, as practical, so long as the measure is commensurate with the significance of the property and the level of impact to that resource.

Such measures may include educational or interpretive programming; signage; incorporation of historical features into new developments or public art; contribution to a mitigation fund for future historic preservation efforts; written histories or contexts important to the public’s understanding of the lost resource (presuming no other extant resource can interpret such significance); etc. The need for these additional measures shall be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis and incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. Some measures may be made available to the public through museum displays, written reports at research repositories, on- or offsite signage, or existing online multimedia sites.

Applicability: This mitigation measure could apply to the proposed project. The Historic Evaluation (Appendix D) was prepared for the proposed project consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (above). The Historic Evaluation found that there are no historic resources existing onsite or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 is not needed. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
The project site is currently developed with existing office buildings, surface parking, public rights of way, and landscaping. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed project would discover unknown archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Nevertheless, and consistent with the certified PEIR, development of the proposed project could unearth unknown archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. The proposed project would be required to incorporate the conditions of approval (see “Existing Conditions” for this topic) that would require the preparation and implementation of an Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan during grading and construction activities. The Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan would outline procedures for monitoring during grading and construction activities and steps to take in the event that archaeological or tribal cultural resources are encountered during grading and construction activities.

Additionally, the proposed project would be required to implement applicable mitigation measures from the PEIR (below). Mitigation Measure CUL-5 is not applicable to the proposed project since the project site is developed and the portion of the project site that encompasses the Pumpkin Patch site is within the public right-of-way and has also been developed. Development of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Impacts under this threshold were adequately addressed in the PEIR. The proposed project 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 83
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.

CUL-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the project applicant for each development or redevelopment project considered for approval pursuant to the Southeast Area Specific Plan shall provide letters to the City of Long Beach from a qualified archaeologist and paleontologist (for excavations five feet below ground surface and deeper) who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. The letters shall state that the project applicant has retained these individuals, and that the archaeological consultant will be present during all grading in previously undisturbed areas and other significant ground-disturbing activities and that the paleontological consultant will be present during all grading that occurs below 5 feet from the ground surface. In the event archeological or paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the professional archeological or paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant cultural resources until they can be formally evaluated. Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until the archaeological and/or paleontological monitor, in coordination with the construction contractor, has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they are significant cultural resources, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates as applicable, and other special studies. The resources shall be offered for curation or preservation to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and research interest in the materials, such as the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History or California State University, Fullerton, or other local museum or repository. If no museum or repository is willing to accept the resource, the resource shall be considered the property of the City and may be stored, disposed of, transferred, exchanged, or otherwise handled by the City at its discretion.

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

CUL-4 At least 30 days prior to ground disturbance by each project development or redevelopment in conformance with the Specific Plan, the City of Long Beach would notify the three Native American tribal representatives who requested Native American monitoring of ground disturbing activities (Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation, Gabrieleño/Tongva Band of Mission Indians, and Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation). For each project, the project applicant would retain one certified Native American monitor who would accompany the professional archaeological monitor during on-call monitoring. The Native American monitor would have the same authority to halt activities that could adversely impact archaeological or tribal cultural resources that the professional archaeological monitor would. The Native American monitor would recommend measures to avoid, preserve, and/or 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 84 ends

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

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

Long Beach City CouncilSeptember 19, 2023

Long Beach City Council
September 19, 2023