4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Responses to Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Responses to Comment 72
Wiest, Nancy, dated May 17, 2024.
72-1 The commenter makes introductory remarks for concerns with the Project, which are responded below.
72-2 The commenter raises concerns regarding traffic on Lampson. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Transportation and Traffic Congestion, for impacts related to traffic. 72-3 The commenter asserts that emergency services will be unable to access CPE homes and the Project’s homes due to heavier traffic. Refer to Master Response 2.1.7, Emergency Vehicle Access, for impacts to emergency services; and 2.1.8, Public Safety, for safety concerns. 72-4 The commenter asserts that additional residences will cause health and safety issues. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, implementation of the Project would not: 1) exceed applicable South Coast AQMD localized criteria pollution emissions thresholds during construction and operation; 2) would not cause or measurably contribute to the formation of a CO “hot spot;” and 3) would not result in a health risk for nearby residents during construction. (Refer to Pages 4.2-30 through 4.2-31 of the Draft EIR) Refer to Master Responses 2.1.2, Roadway Safety on Lampson Avenue, and 2.1.8, Public Safety, for safety concerns.
72-5 The commenter demands disclosure of state-declared health and safety risks due to the Project.
The Draft EIR discloses health and safety risks throughout the environmental analysis sections, as appropriate, and concluded impacts would be less than significant. Refer to Response to Comment 72-4 above.
72-6 The commenter states that residents from the Project will cross Lampson to access Heather Park, impacting stop lights on Lampson. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required. 72-7 The commenter asserts that the Project lacks free space and that residents of the Project will utilize parks in College Park East. Refer to Master Response 2.1.10, Loss of Existing Open Space and Provision of On-Site Amenities, for impacts related to open space and park use. 72-8 The commenter claims that residents of CPE will be required to obtain parking permits for street parking because residents of the Project will park in CPE. Refer to Master Response
2.1.3, Parking, for impacts related to overflow parking. Parking permits for street parking in CPE is not an environmental issue analyzed under CEQA; however, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Responses to Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required.
72-9 The commenter states that noise will increase due to more residents and traffic, and that air quality will decrease.
As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR, the Project would not exceed significance thresholds for construction noise levels, operational noise levels, and off-site traffic noise levels. As such, the Project would not generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impacts would be less than significant (refer to Pages 4.11-23 through 4.11-29 of the Draft EIR).
As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the Project would not exceed the South Coast AQMD localized significance thresholds for assessing localized health impacts from criteria air pollutants during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction. Further, Project traffic would not create or result in a CO “hotspot.” Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations due to the Project, and impacts would be less than significant (refer to Pages 4.2-26 through 4.2-29 of the Draft EIR). 72-10 The commenter asserts that the Project’s proximity to the JFTB will put people in danger. Refer to Master Response 2.1.9, Proximity to the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB), regarding safety concerns related to proximity to JFTB Los Alamitos. 72-11 The commenter warns about the liability of the City should there be victims due to the military base or failure of emergency vehicle access and makes concluding remarks regarding opposition to the Project. This comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Comment Letter 73
"-8M"MKLLM
8"MM
-
MM
!#M$%&%&'&(M)*(+M,.
/
*M/
M012M/
12
3
4
M
52
M/
6
7M9
!:M2M
M!;M<2M4
9#M
2#M4
M<2M($$=M>?
#M@12M,
A2
MBC7D
+
M/<2MBC7DM,M7?
M#3M
#3M
!#2:M4
M1M#:M#
M3?2M
4M!2
M/<2M2##M
!M2
M<<3M2:M42!2M
4M52<2M,M9<
<M2M42E!2#3MM
?
3M4
M2:2#M
4MF
22M,
C
M/<M:212
?2#M9M4!<2M#M!G
#M9<
!M2E!12#M4
2M;2#M::2:M
M<2
#29M:212
?2#
M,22M2
#G2M<M?
M#:M2E!2M<2M:212
?2M
M2MM#M<2M?
A2
?#
&
M/<2M2?
M2MM
2M<M<2M2H#M?#M!
#MM@;
M?MM#!44
2#M
#
2M<2
?#M?
M1;2MM($$=M2M2
12:
M/<M9M4!2M<2M@I 0M
!#36MF
22M,MC
D2:2#6M#:M<2M2:2#M
4M<2M#29M?
A2
M,22M2E!2M<M
?
#M&MM4!#:2:M#:M
#!
2:
M?M
4M<2M:212
?2#M?#M#:%
M<M@I 0M?2M2M2:M
M212#M9<22M?#M
#M;2
:2:M
?223M9<#M9<MM1;2MM<2M?M#2:M
4M<2M:
!2#MJ
!#2
!M2
/<#MI
!6
M
F
22M,MCMD2:2#
73-1
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Responses to Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Responses to Comment 73
Williams, Ksatria, dated June 2, 2024.
73-1 The commenter states that the Park Impact analysis did not take type of usage into account, believes that recreational facilities will be strained without equivalent facilities such as tennis courts within the Project, and asks for the developer to be required to mitigate the impact. The commenter also states that parking at Arbor Park will be insufficient and asks that the funding and construction of Option 2 as part of the development plan be required and/or that AYSO permits are limited to events where on-site parking is sufficient.
Refer to Master Response 2.1.10, Loss of Existing Open Space and Provision of On-Site Amenities, for impacts related to park use and mitigation of impacts. Refer to Master Response
2.1.3, Parking, for impacts related to parking at Arbor Park. The commenters suggestion to require Option 2 and/or that AYSO permits are limited to events where on-site parking is sufficient is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Comment Letter 74
I]hs}$/$:EF$GH
JKLMNOPPOQRSTUKLMVVOOWXQLKKYZKR[
\L^_`_`abacdbedfgi
\Ke\KRjPOklmT\KPOklmWZOnXKoPKSQPQROnKSYKmp[
qrtuvwxyzv{|~
{|
|~
{
|
|||{|
~|
|
|{{|~
!
"
#|%|
|
~|
|
|~
~|&% %|%
|~
|x|
{
{
'{
{
(
|
%|
|~
{
|
|)
! *+, -
.
{%|
0112
{
{
~
|
v
3
{3|4
4
q
~
~|5116711
{
%
|
{||{||8| {~
9
|x|
|
|
u| |~
|||
|
||
y%||
~%
{{
! ; <="
>?@???-A?@???
q|%|
|~{~
|9
|
{~
t%
v%{
x|
|~
%|~
%
w|
B z{|%|
{|y|x|
!
#
|~{
|9
%
|%
~
% C|B |~%
|||x|% |~
|
~|{{||
% ~
!
*A .|~{
|
%
|%
|
9|~ |{
{{
|
| |~
x||%|{%||~%%|
y|x|
)
r
%|
#
)
!,D,
,
z
{{{
|
|
{
{
{|%|
|
8
9
74-1
74-2
74-3
74-4
74-5
74-6
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
"?7<?=>"="??
?
? ?
>
=?"?>??
7 ?>?
==>7
??
>
"?7>?
"??
=?
"?
"?>
"?
=?
?
=
? ?
>
?
""?>??
?
"?
>
??>>?7
"<?7? ?<
?>
>
=?>?">?>??>? ?"?>? ?"?
"?>""?=>77"?
>
??7
? ?7>"<?
"?
?"> ? "?>?=>"??
? ?
>
?>?
??7>"?>
?"
"=?
>=<?>?=>
?
"<?
7
>
7"?
?
?>?
"=
<?>"=???7"?
?=
"?
?"=
<?>?
<?>??
? !#?$%&'?()? %
(*+,%-#? !#?.&/?+#%+'#?'(-#?&01? !#(,?+#,2#+ (%0?% ?'(-(0$?(0?3%)?4'&*( %)? !#)# 2%02#,0)?0##1? %?5#?&22%60 #1? %,8?
9
:> "?
??:> "?;
7???
??
74-7
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Responses to Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Responses to Comment 74
Williams, John, dated June 6, 2024.
74-1 The commenter states that quality of life and way of life have not been considered, suggests that a minimum of three parking spots be provided per household for quality and way of life, and questions where vehicles will be moved to during street cleaning. Refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Parking, for impacts related to on-site parking. Quality of life is not an environmental issue analyzed under CEQA; however, this comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. Thus, no further response is required. 74-2 The commenter raises concerns that the two exits/entrances to the Project Site will cause accidents, expresses concerns with traffic, and recommends adding a third lane on the northern side of Lampson to avoid interference with the bike lane. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Roadway Safety on Lampson Avenue, for impacts related to vehicle accidents and bicycle facilities. Refer to Master Response 2.1.1, Transportation and Traffic Congestion, for impacts related to traffic.
74-3 The commenter states that an additional 10,000 to 20,000 square feet of open space is needed for residents of the Project and raises concerns that without the additional open space, residents of the Project would utilize parks in College Park East, which is not part of the City of Los Alamitos. Refer to Master Response 2.1.10, Loss of Existing Open Space and Provision of OnSite Amenities, for concerns regarding impacts to open space and local parks. 74-4 The commenter raises concerns about the possible shortage of parking at Arbor Park and overflow parking in College Park East and states that additional parking is needed to accommodate park users. Refer to Master Response 2.1.3, Parking, for concerns regarding parking at Arbor Park.
74-5 The commenter expresses concerns regarding the lack of a merge lane on Lampson and states that people exiting the Project would block the bicycle lane. The commenter also questions police services for Los Alamitos residents and how response times will be affected. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Roadway Safety on Lampson Avenue, for impacts to bicycle facilities and safety.
As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services, of the Draft EIR, implementation of the Project would increase the overall demand on fire and emergency services in the City. Per correspondence with the OCFA, response times would not decrease to necessitate the construction of a new fire station. To maintain acceptable service ratios, OCFA uses a fair share approach to mitigate fire service response impacts and facility/equipment needs.
Similarly, implementation of the Project would result in an increase in calls for police service; however, Los Alamitos Police Department has indicated that this increase would not adversely
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Responses to Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
impact Los Alamitos Police Department’s existing resources. Therefore, impacts to public services would be less than significant (refer to Page 4.13-9 to 4.13-10 of the Draft EIR). 74-6 The commenter states that the proposed locations of the Project entrances and exits are unsafe due to potential for traffic accidents or the need for emergency services access. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Roadway Safety on Lampson Avenue, for concerns regarding sight distance and 2.1.7, Emergency Vehicle Access, for concerns regarding emergency services. 74-7 The commenter makes concluding remarks regarding the concerns addressed above and suggests that the developer take out an insurance policy to cover additional improvements needed for quality of life. The commenter’s suggestion is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their required review and consideration prior to any action being taken on the Project. Thus, no further response is required
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Responses to Late Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
4.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD This section includes responses to late comments received by the City after the public review period closed. Although CEQA does not require responses to late comments on a draft EIR, a copy of each late comment letter and the City’s responses to each applicable comment are included in this section.
Brackets delineating the individual comments and a numeric identifier have been added to the right margin of the letter. Responses to each comment identified are included on the page(s) following each late comment letter. All responses to comments, including responses to these late comments, are being sent to the agencies and organizations that provided comments at least 10 days prior to the City Council’s consideration of the Project and EIR.
Revisions to the Draft EIR have been prepared to make minor corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR as a result of City review, and comments received during the public review period (refer to Section
5.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this document). Therefore, this section, and the Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions section, are included as part of this Final EIR along with the Draft EIR for consideration by the City.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
4.0 Responses to Late Comments
Comment Letter I
I-2
I-1
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
4.0 Responses to Late Comments
Comment Letter I
I-2
(CONT.)
I-3
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Responses to Late Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Responses to Comment I
Rutan & Tucker, LLP on behalf of Los Alamitos Luxury Apartments, dated September 19, 2024 I-1 The commenter provides introductory remarks, identifies that the comments on the Draft EIR are being provided by Rutan & Tucker, LLP on behalf of Los Alamitos Luxury Apartments (LALAL), and provides a summary of the Project. The commenter states that the Project site is located adjacent to several recognized environmental conditions and clearance from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has not been given, prior to the Project being considered for approval. Responsesto these comments are provided in Responses to Comments I-2 to I-3, below; thus, no further response is required.
I-2 The commenter summarizes the past efforts of when LALAL sought to develop an apartment community in the City of Los Alamitos and the past environmental requirements the City imposed. The commenter further states that the City has not imposed these similar requirements on the Project and that no groundwater sampling or soil vapor analyses has been conducted. Refer to Response to Comment II-2 to II-4 below related to soil vapor testing and comments from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.
I-3 This comment consists of concluding remarks and states that the City should impose similar requirements that were imposed on LALAL on to the Project. As discussed in Response to Comment II below, no groundwater sampling or soil vapor is required for the Project; thus, no further response is required.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Comment Letter II
4.0 Responses to Late Comments
II-3
II-1
II-2
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Comment Letter II
4.0 Responses to Late Comments
II-3
(CONT.)
II-4
II-5
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Responses to Late Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Responses to Comment II
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), dated September 24, 2024 II-1 The commenter provides introductory remarks and a brief summary of the Project. Responses to comments are provided in Responses to Comments II-2 to II-5, below; thus, no further response is required.
II-2 The commenter states that VOCs may be present in the subsurface at the Project site since the Project’s Phase I ESA (Technical Appendix H1 of the Draft EIR) indicated a past release of gasoline and that the Project site is surrounded by recognized environmental conditions(RECs) containing VOC releases. As noted in the Phase I ESA, an isolated incident resulting in a potential release of a reported 45-gallons of gasoline occurred in 2019 at the Project site due to vandalism to government vehicles located in the parking lot. Regulatory authorities including the California Highway Patrol and Orange County Emergency Management Division responded to the release, which was stopped and contained. Based on the isolated and limited nature of the spill, which occurred on the asphalt-ground surface, containment, and results of the Phase II ESA (Technical Appendix H2 of the Draft EIR) that was conducted, which did not detect VOCs in soil, further action pertaining to this release is not warranted. Furthermore, although the Project site is in an area of numerous environmental database listings per the Phase I ESA, none of the listings indicate a release of VOCs has occurred that would impact the Project site or that such listings would be considered a REC.
II-3 The commenter states that there is a risk of vapor intrusion at the Project site given the potential presence of VOCs in the subsurface level and the human health risk cannot be determined without soil vapor sampling. There is no evidence of the potential presence of VOCs in the subsurface level and soil vapor sampling is not warranted. Based on the Project’s Phase I and II ESAs (Technical Appendices H1 and H2 of the Draft EIR), no source of significant VOCs at the Project site was identified. Furthermore, no VOCs have been detected in the soil samples collected as part of the Phase II ESA. Therefore, the likelihood of VOCs in the subsurface, specifically soil vapor at the Project site, and at concentrations that would pose an unacceptable health risk for the proposed future redevelopment is considered to be low. Furthermore, the release of gasoline that occurred as a result of vandalism was an isolated event and limited in nature that would not warrant soil vapor sampling.
II-4 The commenter recommends that a soil vapor assessment be conducted by a CA-licensed professional to evaluate if VOCs are present beneath the Project site, and whether a human health risk from vapor intrusion exists. As discussed in Response to Comments II-2 and II-3, a significant source of VOCs as a result of historical site operations was not identified, nor were VOCs detected in the soil samples collected during the Phase II ESA that would warrant soil vapor sampling and/or a health risk assessment.
II-5 The commenter provides concluding remarks, and the City acknowledges Claudia Tenorio as the contact person for Santa Ana RWQCB. No further response is required.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Comment Letter III
4.0 Responses to Late Comments
III-1
III-2
III-3
III-4
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Comment Letter III
4.0 Responses to Late Comments
III-5
III-6
III-7
III-8
III-9
III-10
III-11
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Responses to Late Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Responses to Comment III
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board, dated October 21, 2024 III-1 The commenter provides introductory remarks and states that the City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board conducted a meeting on October 16, 2024 to review the contents of the draft Final EIR. Responses to comments are provided in detail below; thus, no further response is required.
III-2 The commenter expresses concerns related to drainage and flooding, including the operation and maintenance of the proposed underground detention basin. Refer to Master Response 2.1.4, Hydrology and Wastewater Infrastructure Analysis, and 2.1.5, Flooding, related to stormwater and flooding concerns. As discussed under Master Response 2.1.4, the Hydrology Study was updated and included as Attachment E of this Final EIR. The Project proposed two drainage options: the Preferred Route and the Alternate Route. Under both scenarios, runoff would not exceed existing conditions and would not increase flooding risk on Lampson Avenue or downstream. Additionally, the proposed underground detention basin has been sized to meet Orange County Flood Protection requirements and would be designed by a licensed engineer.
Storm drainage plans are reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. These detention systems are commonly installed in newer developments to meet water quality and flood protection standards and have detailed budget and maintenance procedures which the future HOA will adhere to via recorded covenants recorded against the property. The commenter does not elaborate as to “problems that are common to such systems,” and thus, does not identify particular problems to address in response.
III-3 The commenter expresses concerns related to the sewer system and adequacy of the existing sewer system to provide capacity for all cumulative development projects. Refer to Master Response 2.1.6, Sewer, for sewer impacts.
The City of Seal Beach Sewer Master Plan 2018 prepared by AKM Consulting Engineers dated February 2018, evaluated the City’s sewer system performance to ensure that the wastewater collection system can operate effectively. Each pipe segment must be capable of carrying design peak wet weather flows without surcharging the system (AKM Consulting Engineers, 2018). Per Section 3-5.2 of the Sewer Master Plan, the peak weather depth of flow to pipe diameter ratio (d/D) should not exceed 0.80. As shown on Figure 6-4, Peak Dry Weather Flow d/D Ratios College Park East/Lampson, Olde Ranche Towne Center, and Centix Homes Sewersheds, of the Sewer Master Plan, the majority of pipe segments in the Project area have peak dry weather flow d/D of 0.00 to 0.50 with the exception of some segments in College Park East and Lampson Avenue, which have d/D ratios of 0.50 to 0.64. Section 6-3 of the Sewer Master Plan concludes that there were no pipe capacity deficiencies identified in the City’s collection system.
A revised Sanitary Sewer Analysis (Attachments M1 and M2 of the Final EIR) was prepared in response to comments from the City of Seal Beach. The revised Sanitary Sewer Analysis was reviewed and concurred with by a third-party peer review technical consultant hired by
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Responses to Late Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
the City of Seal Beach. Appendix A of Attachment M1 and Attachment M2 of the Final EIR, shows that the peak dry weather flows for downstream segments reach a maximum d/D of
0.55, consistent with Figure 6-4 of the City’s Sewer Master Plan, and peak wet weather flows are well below 0.80. The analysis demonstrates that the existing pipe size can handle the proposed flow levels, and sewer pipe upgrades are not required.
Additionally, a Sewer Demand Memorandum (Attachment L of the Final EIR) was also prepared to address the updates in the sanitary sewer analysis and respond to comments on the Draft EIR related to the Old Ranch Country Club. The Memorandum concluded that even with the Old Ranch Country Club project, flows from the Project and cumulative development were well within the capacity of the downstream sewer lines. Moreover, in order to connect to the City of Seal Beach sanitary sewer service, the Project Applicant would be required to pay connection fees, which may be used by the City of Seal Beach to maintain its existing infrastructure and implement needed improvements.
III-4 The commenter expresses concerns related to the Project’s significant and unavoidable VMT impacts and suggests feasible mitigation measures such as reducing the Project’s size, public transportation, ridesharing, and biking opportunities. As discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, the Project is located in a high VMT per capita area with an existing VMT per capita of 22.71, higher than the regional VMT per capita of 17.42 (refer to
VMT Report (Technical Appendix N2 of the Draft EIR), the Project evaluated all possible VMT mitigation measures that a project can apply at the project level using CAPCOA’s calculations based on substantial evidence. Any additional VMT measures to reduce VMT must be coordinated at the Plan or Community scale to have a tangible effect on reducing VMT. As such, project-specific mitigation measures alone cannot reduce the area’s high VMT.
CAPCOA recognizes reduced residential parking and increased density as factors that benefit VMT (see T-1 and T-15 of Attachment C of Technical Appendix N2 of the Draft EIR).
Consistent with the State’s Density Bonus Law, the Project is offering reduced parking from the City of Los Alamitos parking requirements (Los Alamitos Municipal Code Section
17.22.030). Additionally, the Draft EIR evaluated increased residential density as an alternative (see Section 6.4.2, Maximum Density Allowed Alternative, of the Draft EIR). However, this alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable VMT impacts and result in a new significant and unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions.
Section 6.3.3 of the Draft EIR analyzed a reduced housing density alternative (refer to Page 6- 6 of the Draft EIR), which was considered and rejected from further analysis because it would not substantially reduce the Project’s environmental impacts, including VMT. VMT impacts are evaluated based on VMT per capita (population). Although the Reduced Density Alternative would reduce vehicle trips and VMT, it would also result in a proportional reduction in population, resulting in substantially the same VMT per capita and VMT impact as compared to the Project. In other words, because both the number of trips and the population generated would be proportionally reduced, the ultimate VMT calculation would be the same as the Project. Moreover, several alternatives were considered that would eliminate or lessen
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Responses to Late Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
the Project’s significant and unavoidable VMT impacts (see Section 6.3.2 of the Draft EIR for projects that screen out). Of the various ways to screen out, the Project would need to be reduced to 10 dwelling units in total, which is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and Housing Element.
Refer to Response to Comment III-5 related to public transportation opportunities.
Additionally, bike lane improvements are currently ongoing on Lampson Avenue between Basswood Street and Seal Beach Boulevard, which will connect to the existing bike lane on Lampson Avenue along the Project’s frontage. Moreover, ridesharing would not reduce VMT impacts to less than significant; however, to further encourage ridesharing pursuant to the commenter’s request, Mitigation Measure MM 4.15-1 has been slightly modified as shown below and in Section 5.0 of this Final EIR to add the requirement for an online community forum.
MM 4.15-1 Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, the Project Applicant shall provide documentation that it has implemented the CAPCOA strategies identified below. Verification that the CAPCOA strategies were completed shall be verified by the City’s Public Works Director.
1. Provide pedestrian and bicycle network improvements within the development connecting to existing off-site facilities, as detailed in Section
3.3.2 of this EIR.
2. Confirm with the OCTA whether providing new or re-routing existing transit services to the site would be feasible, as determined by OCTA pursuant to OCTA’s standards.
3. Install broadband infrastructure or other communication technologies that encourages telecommuting and working from home, which would reduce mobile source emission.
4. Require the HOA to create an online community forum where future residents can coordinate ride sharing.
III-5 The commenter alleges that there is no evidence that OCTA was consulted about future transit services for the area. During the Project design phase, the Project Applicant reached out to OCTA regarding transit service. OCTA indicated that there was not enough ridership from the Project area and therefore service was removed. In order to reestablish a route in the Project area along Lampson Avenue, OCTA indicated they would need advocacy on behalf of or from the cities of Seal Beach and Los Alamitos who would need to demonstrate sufficient demand.
As part of the Making Better Connection Study7
, OCTA redesigned the existing network based
on feedback from the public, analysis of travel patterns and ridership trends. Since the Project has not been built, OCTA cannot predict future ridership trends to determine the need for 7 https://www.octa.net/programs-projects/programs/plans-and-studies/making-better-connections-study/
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Responses to Late Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
expanded services in the area at this time. Although there is insufficient ridership demand currently, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure MM 4.15-1 which includes consultation of OCTA to determine the feasibility of new or re-routing existing transit services to the site prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Moreover, even if public transit services were brought to the Project site today, it is not expected to result in a significant reduction in VMT per Service Population in the area, as evidenced by historical lack of ridership. As such, the Project alone cannot solve the area’s high VMT per capita.
III-6 The commenter states that the Project’s statement of proposing to "improve and encourage" bike transportation by leaving the current Class II bike lanes on Lampson Avenue is misleading. The commenter does not elaborate on why it considers this statement misleading.
As discussed throughout the Draft EIR, the Project would maintain the existing Class II bike lane on Lampson Avenue along the Project site’s frontage (refer to Pages 4.10-14, 4.10-25,
4.10-26, 4.15-10, and 4.15-12 of the Draft EIR). Additionally, as stated above, bike lane improvements are currently ongoing on Lampson Avenue between Basswood Street and Seal Beach Boulevard, which will connect to the existing bike lane on Lampson Avenue along the Project’s frontage. Moreover, it is unclear what applicable transportation guidelines the commenter is referring to. However, Table 4.10-3 of the Final EIR provides a consistency analysis with applicable goals and policies under the City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element. As shown in Table 4.10-3, the Project would not conflict with the Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element.
III-7 The commenter expresses concerns related to traffic and congestion and states that the Project will result in an anticipated 12% rise in usage on Lampson Avenue. Refer to Master Response
2.1.1, Transportation and Traffic Congestion. The issue of congestion is no longer a CEQA issue and for this reason is not addressed in the Draft EIR (refer to Page 4.15-1 of the Draft EIR). As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the City of Seal Beach’s General Plan identifies two roadway segments that generally comprise the portion of Lampson Avenue fronting the Project site: Rose Street to Tulip (east of the Project) and Rose Street to Heather Street (adjacent and west of the Project). At General Plan Buildout with the Project, these two segments comprising this portion of Lampson Avenue would carry between 15,350 and 15,750 daily trips. Therefore, the Project’s anticipated generation of 1,658 daily trips is well within the capacity of Lampson Avenue even at General Plan Buildout and the anticipated rise in traffic is approximately 10.53% (refer to Page 3-17 of the Draft EIR). Seal Beach Boulevard & Lampson Avenue was identified as a deficient intersection under Opening Year Cumulative (2026) and under General Plan Buildout traffic conditions. Restriping the number two westbound left turn lane as a shared left-right turn lane would improve the intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D. The Project Applicant’s responsibility for the Project’s contributions towards the deficient intersection would be addressed by payment of fair share fees to the jurisdiction that would construct the recommended improvement (see Technical Appendix G of the Final EIR).
III-8 The commenter expresses concern with wear and tear caused by heavy-duty trucks and construction equipment traversing along Lampson Avenue during the 39-month construction
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Responses to Late Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
period. The estimated Project construction schedule, organized by construction stage, is summarized in Table 3-4, Estimated Construction Schedule, and Project construction equipment is summarized in Table 3-5, Project Construction Equipment, of the Draft EIR. As shown, heavy-duty trucks would only be used during demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction activities and these phases would last approximately 33 months. The potential for wear and tear could occur due to development of the Project; however, typical street maintenance and repair concerns regarding the “wear and tear” of streets is addressed by the agencies with jurisdiction over those roadways to the extent the Project construction results in any damage to streets or roadways. Road maintenance in Orange County is funded by a number of different sources including property tax (small portion goes to County’s General Fund for Infrastructure), sales tax (OC Go or Measure M2) and fuel taxes. Additionally, other funding sources may be available such as:
Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program (CTFP)
OC Complete Streets Program (OCCSP)
Regional Capacity Program (Project O)
Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP)
III-9 The commenter suggests preserving the existing Park-n-Ride on the Project site for additional parking and rideshare opportunities and school bus drop off/pick up. Refer to Response to Comment 10-5 above related to the Park-n-Ride. Currently, a substitute park-and-ride location is not needed and there are no requirements or proposal to provide a substitute park-and-ride location.
III-10 The commenter expresses safety concerns related to pedestrians and vehicles collisions. Refer to Master Response 2.1.2, Roadway Safety on Lampson Avenue, regarding roadway safety concerns. The threshold under the CEQA guidelines related to safety is whether the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Based on the Safety Evaluation and for the reasons summarized under Master Response 2.1.2, the Project would not result in a safety impact or substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature.
III-11 The commenter provides concluding remarks and expresses concerns with the density of the Project and premature nature of the Project. The City will forward these concerns to the decision makers for their consideration. As discussed in Section 4.10, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR, the City’s General Plan designates the Project site for “Multi-Family Residential-25” land use and the Project site is zoned as “Multi-Family Residential (R3).” The maximum permitted density is 25 dwelling units per net acre and Project’s proposed overall density is 20 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations (refer to Page 4.12-9 of the Draft EIR).
Moreover, the Draft EIR included a total of 26 technical reports and supporting documents; the Final EIR included 15 additional technical reports, updated technical reports and supporting documents in response to comments on the Draft EIR. The EIR analyzed all environmental
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Responses to Late Comments Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
impacts of the Project in accordance with CEQA. The commenter does not elaborate on its statement regarding “the premature nature of the Project" for a particularized response.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
5.0 CLARIFICATION AND REVISIONS
Corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) text generated either from responses to comments or independently by the City, are stated in this section of the Final EIR. The information included in this section does not constitute substantial new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR. Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines states in part:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.
None of the information contained in this section constitutes significant new information or changes to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR. There were no new significant environmental impacts identified following circulation of the Draft EIR. Likewise, there were no substantial increases in the severity of environmental impacts identified after circulation of the Draft EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required because no new information was added to the EIR.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
This section includes recommended clarifications and revisions to the Draft EIR. This section is organized by respective sections of the Draft EIR. Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined.
Section S.0 Executive Summary
1. Page S-3 is hereby modified due to typographical error.
The Project Applicant, Lampson Park Place, LLC, proposes to redevelop the Project site with a residential development consisting of a variety of housing product types, including single family detached homes, townhomes, and apartments. The unit mix proposes 55 single family detached homes, 114 townhomes, and 77 for rent affordable multi-family apartment homes.
The Project would include a total of 246 units and the overall density for the Project would be 20 dwelling units per acre. Vehicle access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways on Lampson Avenue, one for the apartment entry on the western side and one for the primary neighborhood entry central to the site. The Project would provide 577 parking spaces (475 spaces for the single family detached and townhomes and 102 for the apartments) in exceedance of the 440441 parking spaces that would be required pursuant to the State’s Density Bonus Law. Refer to EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, for a detailed description of the Project.
2. Page S-12 is hereby modified due to typographical error.
THRESHOLD
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE
BEFORE MITIGATION
MITIGATION MEASURES
(MMS)
LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE AFTER
MITIGATION
MM 4.6-3 If the discovery is determined
to be significant by the
paleontologist based on the
Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology guidelines, a
monitoring and recovery plan
shall be initiated, which will
include notification of
appropriate personnel
involved and monitoring of
earth disturbance activities.
Section 1.0 Introduction
1. Page 1-37 is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment D-2.
For the Project, the City of Seal Beach, Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), Southern California Edison
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
(SCE), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) are identified as Responsible Agencies. Regardless, this EIR can be used by any Trustee Agency or Responsible Agency, whether identified in this EIR or not, as part of their decision-making processes in relation to the proposed Project.
Section 2.0 Environmental Setting
1. Page 2-11 is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment F-1.
The Project site is currently served by Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) with currently provides bus service along Seal Beach Boulevard, Valley View Street, and Lampson Avenue (east of Valley View Street). The Project site is served by OCTA bus routes 42 and 123. The nearest OCTA bus stops to the Project site is Route 123, located at the intersection of Valley View Street and Lampson Avenue (approximately 1.2 miles from the Project site) and Route 42, located at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson Avenue (approximately
1.6 miles from the Project site).
Section 3.0 Project Description
1. Page 3-4 is hereby modified due to typographical error.
The Project would provide 577 parking spaces (475 spaces for the single family detached and townhomes and 102 for the apartments) in exceedance of the 440441 parking spaces that would be required pursuant to the State’s Density Bonus Law.
2. Page 3-4 is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment D-3.
Vehicle access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways on Lampson Avenue, one for the apartment entry on the western side and one for the primary neighborhood entry central to the site. Additionally, a restricted emergency vehicle access point with Lampson Avenue would be provided at the eastern end of the site. The Project would implement stop controls for the southbound approach at all driveways on Lampson Avenue. The driveway for the apartment entry would be restricted to right-in/right-out access only. Vehicular circulation would be unrestricted throughout the Project site. The primary neighborhood entry is not anticipated to meet a peak hour or planning level (daily volume) based traffic signal warrants.
However, per the request of the City of Seal Beach and in response to public comments during scoping, the Project will install a traffic signal at the primary neighborhood entry in coordination with both the City of Los Alamitos and City of Seal Beach.
3. Page 3-8 is hereby modified due to typographical error.
PDF N-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Project will construct a 7-foothigh noise control barrier along Lampson Avenue. The noise control barrier will be constructed so that the top of each wall and /or berm combination
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
extends to the planned height above the pad elevation of the lot it is shielding.
Since the pad elevations varies, the top of each wall and /or berm combination will be 7’ above each applicable pad elevation. When the roadway or terrain is elevated above the pad elevation, the barrier shall extend to the recommended height above the highest point between the residential home and the roadway.
The barrier shall be built with a material surface weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot, with no decorative cutouts, perforations, or line-of-sight openings between residences and Lampson Avenue. The noise barrier shall be constructed using the following materials:
Masonry block;
Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1-inch-thick tongue and groove wood of at least 4 pounds per square foot;
Material with sufficient weight per square foot capable of providing a minimum transmission loss of 2025 dBA;
Earthen berm; or,
Any combination of these construction materials
4. Page 3-9 is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment D-4.
Golden State Water Company would provide water service to the Project. Domestic water lines would be provided as shown in Figure 3-23, Utility Plan. In addition, the Project would include a 1,200 feet watermain extension between the eastern driveway and the existing GSWC watermain at the intersection of Lunar and Lampson. The Project would include, at a minimum, an 8” watermain size for the extension. The proposed water infrastructure would require an encroachment permit from the City of Seal Beach and Agreement of Franchise Facilities between GSWC and the City of Seal Beach.
5. Page 3-9 is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment D-5.
Although the Project site is in the City of Los Alamitos, sanitary sewer will be served by the City of Seal Beach via the Rossmoor-Los Alamitos Area Sewer District. The Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Sewer District would provide wastewater conveyance and treatment services to the Project. A lift station and force main is proposed at the southeast corner of the Project site (refer to Figure 3-23, Utility Plan). The Project would connect the force main to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line at the southeast corner of the site. All connections to existing sanitary sewer lines require approval by the City of Seal Beach and would be constructed in accordance with the City of Seal Beach standards. Additionally, an agreement between the Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District and the City of Seal Beach would be required for InterJurisdictional Wastewater Services.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
D. Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure
1. Preferred Stormwater Drainage
The proposed Project site’s stormwater runoff would be conveyed by roof downspouts or street surface flow to the proposed gutters and collected by thru-curb inlet bio-filtration devices or catch basin inlets for water quality treatment. The bio-filtration devices include internal overflow bypass that direct flows via on-site underground storm drain system to an underground detention system located under parking areas at the southwest portion of the Project site. From the detention system, a stormwater sump pump located in the southwest corner of the Project site would outlet flow into the existing 18” outlet storm drain pipe at the southwest corner of the site, which conveys stormwater runoff to match the historical flow pattern across the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) property directly west of the site. The detention system and pump will be sized so that the outlet flows from the developed site will be equal to, or less than, existing conditions for all storm events. In the event the stormwater pump fails or the outlet pipe becomes clogged, the emergency overflow for the site will be conveyed through a parkway drain discharging flow onto Lampson Avenue, matching historical drainage patterns.
2. Alternate Stormwater Drainage
An alternate plan for stormwater conveyance is proposed in the event the preferred route (historical flow) across the JFTB, as described above, is not available. The alternate would include stormwater outflow onto Lampson Avenue, which would subsequently flow west to an existing stormwater catch basin approximately 2,200 feet west of the Project site. Due to existing flooding concerns on Lampson Avenue, the onsite pump system would allow for low flows to enter Lampson Avenue up until the time that the flows begin to exceed the allowed 25-year storm event in Lampson Avenue. At that point, peak flows would be detained onsite.
Once the flows are no longer above the allowed 25-year storm event in Lampson Avenue, onsite flows to Lampson Avenue would resume. Under the Alternate Off-Site Storm Drain plan, stormwater will be detained and mitigated onsite such that Lampson Avenue meets OC Hydrology flooding standards. Approximately 33,106 32,300 cf of water would need to be detained onsite to ensure that offsite 25-year flows are not exceeded. Detained volumes would be discharged from the site via a pump system at flow rates that do not exceed the existing condition flow rates.
6. Page 3-10 is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment D-6.
An alternate plan for stormwater conveyance is proposed in the event the preferred route (historical flow) across the JFTB, as described above, is not available. The alternate would include stormwater outflow onto Lampson Avenue within Seal Beach right-of-way, which would subsequently flow west to an existing stormwater catch basin approximately 2,200 feet west of the Project site. Stormwater outflow onto Lampson Avenue would require installation
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
of a parkway drain on Lampson and related encroachment permit from the City of Seal Beach.
Due to existing flooding concerns on Lampson Avenue, the onsite pump system would allow for low flows to enter Lampson Avenue up until the time that the flows begin to exceed the allowed 25-year storm event in Lampson Avenue. At that point, peak flows would be detained onsite. Once the flows are no longer above the allowed 25-year storm event in Lampson Avenue, onsite flows to Lampson Avenue would resume. Under the Alternate Off-Site Storm Drain plan, stormwater will be detained and mitigated onsite such that Lampson Avenue meets OC Hydrology flooding standards. Approximately 32,300 cf of water would need to be detained onsite to ensure that offsite 25-year flows are not exceeded. Detained volumes would be discharged from the site via a pump system at flow rates that do not exceed the existing condition flow rates.
7. Page 3-12 is hereby modified due to an amendment to the Density Bonus Law Request to the City.
A. Concession Request
The Project Applicant is requesting three concessions pursuant to the State’s Density Bonus Law.
• Concession #1:Reduction in Setback Distance Between Structures • Concession #12:Exception for Building Step Back Requirements • Concession #23:Reduction in Minimum Storage Space
As to Concession #1, LAMC, Section 17.08.030, Table 2-03 requires a 10-foot minimum distance between structures. Though most of the Project’s single-family residential setback distances between structures meet or exceed the minimum distances, the setback distance is reduced to 6 feet at certain locations within the Project site plan. Meeting the required 10-foot minimum setback distance would require a significant change to the site plan and likely result in a reduction of residential units. As such, the Applicant is requesting as Concession #1 that the setback requirement in certain locations identified on the site plan be reduced to 6 feet.
As to Concession #12, LAMC Section 17.08.045.A.1 requires that for buildings higher than two stories, the third story must have a minimum 5-foot step back from the story below to minimize building bulk and create façade articulation. This requirement appears to govern regardless of building location within a project site or surrounding land uses. While the City interprets this requirement as applying only to perimeter buildings (i.e., buildings that are located along the perimeter of a Project site), however, given the requirement’s ambiguity, the Applicant is requesting as Concession #2 an exception from the required minimum 5-foot step back requirement for those structures identified on the site plan.
As to Concession #23, LAMC Section 17.08.030, Table 2-03, requires a minimum storage space in a garage or carport of 200 cubic feet per unit. For certain units within the Project, this storage space requirement will be difficult to satisfy because of limitations in garage and carport space. As such, the Applicant is requesting as Concession #3 that the minimum storage
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
space requirement be reduced to 175 cubic feet per unit for market rate units and 50 cubic feet per unit for affordable units identified on the site plan.
8. Page 3-13 is hereby modified due to due to an amendment to the Density Bonus Law Request to the City and typographical error.
B. Waiver Request
The State’s Density Bonus Law specifies that an applicant may submit to a local government a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development providing the requisite amount of affordable housing at the densities or with the concessions permitted under the Density Bonus Law. A waiver request can be denied only if the waiver would (i) have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact; (ii) have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); or (iii) be contrary to state or federal law. (Government Code Section 65915(e)(1))
The Applicant requests one waiver pursuant to the State’s Density Bonus Law:
• Waiver #1: Reduced Common Area Requirement
• Waiver #2: Reduction in Setback Distance Between Structures As to Wavier #1, LAMC Section 17.08.030, Table 2-03 requires a minimum 200 square feet of common area and 60 square feet of private space per unit. The Project will be able to comply with the minimum private space requirement, but the Project will not be able to comply with the common area requirement. This is due to the proposed dedication or grant of easement related to the northerly 10 feet strip of land abutting Arbor Park and Arbor Dog Park, which comprises an area of approximately 10,000 square feet of property. When this area is dedicated to the City, then the Project will be unable to comply with the common area requirement because compliance with this requirement would physically preclude construction of the Project at the densities allowed and with the concessions described above. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting as a waiver a reduction in the common area requirement from 200 to 150 square foot per unit.
As to Wavier #2, Section 17.08.030, Table 2-03 of the City’s Municipal Code requires a 10- foot minimum distance between structures. Though most of the Project’s single-family residential setback distances between structures meet or exceed the minimum distances, at certain locations within the Project site plan, the setback distance is 6 feet. Meeting the required 10-foot minimum setback distance would require a significant change to the site plan and would result in a reduction of residential units. We estimate that the Project could lose up to seven units, and potentially more units, if the Project were required to comply with this
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
requirement. Moreover, to meet the required 10-foot minimum setback distance, the Project would require a reduction in private yard space, and likely an even further reduction in common area requirement. As such, compliance with this requirement would physically preclude construction of the Project at the densities allowed and with the concessions described above.
Therefore, the Applicant is requesting as a waiver a reduction in setback distance between structures.
B. Parking Reduction Request
The Project would provide 577 parking spaces, which is below the City’s required 679 parking spaces pursuant to LAMC Section 17.22.030, Required Parking Spaces. The State’s Density Bonus Law specifies that for housing developments that qualify for a density bonus the local government shall not require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds the following ratios: (A) zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space; (B) two to three bedrooms: one and one-half onsite parking spaces; and (C) four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces. (Gov’t Code Section 65915(p)(1).)
The Applicant requests that the City require no more than 2.35 spaces per unit for a total of 577 parking spaces for the Project, which is significantly more than the 440441 parking spaces that would be required pursuant to the State’s Density Bonus Law.
9. Page 3-17 is hereby modified due to changes to the approving body for the Project.
3.7 SUMMARY OF REQUEST ACTIONS
The City of Los Alamitos has primary approval responsibility for the Project. As such, the City serves as the Lead Agency for this EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. The City CouncilPlanning Commission serves as the approval body for the Project and will consider the Project along with the Planning staff’s recommendations within its staff report. The City CouncilPlanning Commission will make a decision to approve, approve with changes, or deny the Project. In the event of approval of the Project and certification of the EIR, the City would conduct future administrative reviews and grant ministerial permits and approvals to implement Project requirements and conditions of approval.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
10. Page 3-18 is hereby modified due to changes to the approving body for the Project and in Response to Comment D-3 and D-4.
Table 5-1 Table 3-6 Project-Related Approvals/Permits
Public Agency Approvals and Decisions
City of Los Alamitos
Proposed Project – City of Los Alamitos Discretionary Approvals Planning Commission City of Los Alamitos • Certify the Project’s EIR and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
• Approval of a Site Development Permit - Major
• Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-113
• Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
19263
• Approval of Affordable Housing Unit Application
for Density Bonus Request, Concessions, and a
Waiver
Subsequent City of Los Alamitos Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals City of Los Alamitos
Subsequent Implementing Approvals
• Approval of Landscaping/Irrigation Plan
• Issuance of Demolition Permits
• Issuance of Grading Permits
• Issuance of Building Permits
• Approval of Road Improvement Plans
• Issuance of Encroachment Permits
• Approval of Infrastructure Plans
• Approval of public right-of-way dedications
• Approval of Water Quality Management Plan
• Approval of connections to the municipal sewer
system
Responsible Agencies – Approvals and Permits
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) • Issuance of a Construction Activity General Construction Permit.
• Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
Rossmoor Los Alamitos Area Sewer District. • Issuance of a Sewer Connection Permit • Agreement between the Rossmoor/Los Alamitos
Area Sewer District and the City of Seal Beach for
Inter-Jurisdictional Wastewater Services.
City of Seal Beach • Issuance of Public Works Permit (encroachment permit) for infrastructure improvements within the
Lampson Ave. right-of-way.
• Agreement of Franchise Facilities between
GSWC and the City of Seal Beach for water
service.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Public Agency Approvals and Decisions
• Agreement between the Rossmoor/Los Alamitos
Area Sewer District and the City of Seal Beach for
Inter-Jurisdictional Wastewater Services.
• Approval of stormwater discharge/conveyance, if
required.
• Approval of a Water Quality Management Plan, if
required.
• Approval of infrastructure plans
directly/indirectly related to Seal Beach, if
required.
South Coast Air Quality Management District • Issuance of permits that allow for the construction and operation of the Project.
JFTB • Issuance of encroachment permit for stormwater
improvements.
GSWC • Agreement of Franchise Facilities between
GSWC and the City of Seal Beach for water
service.
11. Figure 3-18, Landscaping Plan, is hereby modified as follows in response to comments received during the September 25, 2024 Planning Commission hearing.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Section 4.0 Environmental Analysis
1. Page 4-7 is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment D-9.
Table 4.0-1 Cumulative Development Land Use Summary
ID Project Land Use Quantity Unit1
City of Los Alamitos
LA1 Los Alamitos Luxury Apartments Multifamily (Low-Rise) Housing 107 DU LA2 Chevron Gas Station Gas Station w/ Convenience Store 2.724 TSF LA3 4562 Katella Avenue Medical Office Building 5.200 TSF LA4 Los Alamitos Medical Center (Phase 2 & 3) Hospital Building I 92 Beds Hospital Building II 126 Beds
City of Seal Beach
SB1 13980 Seal Beach Boulevard Project/Hydrogen
Fueling Station
Hydrogen Fueling Facility 1.010 TSF
SB2 Accurate Storage Multifamily (Mid-Rise) Housing 59 DU SB3 Shops at Rossmoor Multifamily (Mid-Rise) Housing 400 DU SB4 Old Ranch Town Center Multifamily (Mid-Rise) Housing 200 DU SB5 Old Ranch Country Club
Multifamily (Mid-Rise) Housing 120116 DU
Senior Housing - Attached 51 DU
Medical Office 25.340 TSF
Hotel 150 Rooms
SB6 Leisure World Multifamily (Mid-Rise) Housing 150 DU SB7 Seal Beach Plaza Multifamily (Mid-Rise) Housing 75 DU City of Garden Grove
GG1 Valley View Lanes (CUP-211-2021) Bowling Alley 13.740 TSF GG2 12141 Valley View Street Restaurant 7.214 TSF
Drive-Thru Restaurant 2.000 TSF
GG3 Marley’s Preschool (CUP-212-2021) Preschool/Day Care 84 STU GG4 Pro Athletics (CUP-216-2022) Athletic & Health Club/Gym 7.100 TSF
2. Figure 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Location Map, is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment D-9.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Page 4.8-16 is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment E-4.
Title 17, CCR, Division 1, Chapter 8: Accreditation, Certification and Work Practices for LeadBased Paint and Lead Hazards, defines and regulates lead-based paint. Any detectable amount of lead is regulated. During the demolition of the existing structure, there is a potential for exposing construction workers to health hazards associated with lead. The Project would be required to comply with Title 17, CCR, Division 1, Chapter 8, which includes requirements such as employer-provided training, air monitoring, protective clothing, respirators, and handwashing facilities. Mandatory compliance with these requirements would ensure that construction workers and the public are not exposed to significant LBP health hazards or upset during demolition and/or during transport of demolition waste to an appropriate disposal facility and would ensure that impacts related to LBP remain less than significant.
Moreover, EFI prepared a Phase II ESA for the Project site dated September 22, 2022 based on a geological survey and soil sampling conducted on August 16, 2022. Select soil samples were collected and analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline (TPHg), TPH as diesel (TPHd), TPH as oil (TPHo), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PCBs, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), arsenic, and lead (Pb). Analytical results for PCBs indicated concentrations were not detected above the laboratory reporting limits in any of the soil samples analyzed (refer to Page 4.8-5 of the Draft EIR). However, caulk containing PCBs were used in buildings in the 1950s through the 1970s and may be present in the existing building.
Therefore, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local hazardous materials regulation, which includes mandatory provisions for the safe removal, transport, and disposal of PCBs including Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 761.
There is also a potential for mercury containing products at the existing buildings. When a mercury-containing product breaks and the mercury is released, the exposed mercury can evaporate and become an invisible, odorless toxic vapor. Mercury-containing products exhibit hazardous characteristics as described in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, chapter 11 and are classified as a type of hazardous waste called “universal waste.” Universal wastes are hazardous wastes that pose a lower immediate risk to people and the environment when handled properly. Due to this lower risk, universal wastes can be handled and transported under more relaxed rules compared to other hazardous wastes.8 The Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local hazardous materials regulations including California Health and Safety Code Section 25214.8.16, to prevent mercury releases.
Compliance with the above regulatory requirements would ensure that removal of ACMs, or LBPs, PCBs, or mercury would result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment 8 https://dtsc.ca.gov/toxics-in-products/mercury-waste/
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Pages 4.9-17 and 4.9-19 are hereby modified as follows to reflect the changes made in the updated Hydrology Study.
The combined, total 100-year peak flow rate for the Project site is 31.5140.28 cfs under existing conditions. The combined, total 100-year peak flow rate for the Project Site is approximately
42.1544.31 cfs under the proposed conditions without improvements. Figure 4.9-4, Proposed Conditions Hydrology Map illustrates the post development drainage conditions of the Project site. The proposed drainage design would follow the existing drainage pattern with surface flows to on-site drainage facilities that would ultimately outlet into the existing storm drain pipe at the southwest corner of the Project site. The results from the hydrology study demonstrate that the proposed conditions of the Project site of 42.1544.31 cfs would generate a higher peak runoff flowrate than the existing condition of the site of 31.5140.28 cfs.
Due to increased peak runoff flows created from the proposed change in land use and increased impervious coverage by 48%, stormwater would need to be detained and minimized mitigated on-site to match existing conditions. By matching the maximum flows conveyed by the outlet pipe and providing a 20 percent factor for safety for preliminary sizing, approximately 10,000 cubic feet (cf) would be required to be detained on-site based on a conservative 100-year storm event. To prevent overflow into Lampson Ave, the detention system will be sized to match the maximum flows conveyed by the outlet pipe, approximately 33,106 cubic feet. In addition, a proposed stormwater pump system with upstream detention storage has been incorporated into the onsite drainage design to provide onsite peak flow and volume detention for the development for all storm events. The pump system will control the outflow discharge rate matching the existing 2-year peak flow at approximately 8.9 cfs. As such, the proposed on-site detention facilities will be designed to detain a minimum volume of 10,000 cf and detained volumes that would be discharged from the site via a pump system at flow rates that do not exceed the existing condition flow rates. As such, downstream facilities would not be hydrologically impacted by the proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
2. Alternate Storm Drain Facilities
In the event the preferred route (historical flow across the JFTB) is not available, an alternate treatment of stormwater runoff for the Project would be conveyance to offsite storm drain facilities. Figure 4.9-5, Proposed Alternate Conditions Hydrology Map, illustrates the postdevelopment drainage conditions for this drainage and detention alternate. The proposed site’s stormwater runoff would be conveyed by roof downspouts or street surface flow to proposed gutters and collected by thru-curb inlet bio-filtration devices or catch basin inlets for water
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
quality treatment. The bio-filtration devices include internal overflow bypass that direct flows via on-site underground storm drain system to an underground detention system located under parking areas at the southwest portion of the site. From the detention system, a stormwater sump pump located in the southwest corner of the site will outlet flows onto Lampson Avenue via a parkway culvert. Due to existing flooding concerns on Lampson Avenue, the onsite pump system would allow for low flows to enter Lampson Avenue up until the time that the flows begin to exceed the pre-development allowed 25-year storm event in Lampson Avenue. At that point, peak flows would be detained onsite. Once the flows are no longer above the predevelopment allowed 25-year storm event in Lampson Avenue, onsite flows would continue pumping to Lampson Avenue normally.
Under the Alternate Storm Drain plan, stormwater will need to be detained and minimized mitigated onsite such that Lampson Avenue meets OC Hydrology flooding standards. Onsite and offsite small unit hydrographs were analyzed using AES Rational Method Analysis to identify the time that the flows exceed the allowed offsite 25-year storm event flows to prevent flooding of one travel lane of the half-street per the OC Local Drainage Manual. Approximately 33,106 32,300 cf of water would need to be detained onsite to ensure that offsite 25-year flows are not exceeded. By matching the maximum flows and providing an additional 20 percent factor of safety for preliminary sizing, approximately 38,800 cf of water would be detained onsite. Detained volumes would be discharged from the site via a pump system at flow rates that do not exceed the existing condition flow rates. Downstream facilities would not be hydrologically impacted by the proposed improvements. Additionally, the proposed finished floor elevations for the onsite buildings would be set 1-foot minimum above the 100-year storm event water surface elevation in accordance with Orange County Flood Protection Requirements.
2. Page 4.9-21 is hereby modified as follows to reflect the changes made in the updated Hydrology Study.
3. Outlet Runoff to Arbor Park to North: Arbor Park is within the JFTB and drains south to the same earthen channel outlet as the project site. If the proposed flows from the Project are not allowed to outlet to the JFTB at the southwest corner of the site, proposed flows from the Project would not be allowed to outlet to the JFTB to the north of the site either since they are essentially the same outlet location. In addition, the existing site does not flow in the northerly Arbor Park/ JFTB area as the site drains in the southwesterly direction, therefore directing stormwater runoff to the north would change the historic drainage pattern which can potentially cause downstream flooding.
4. Outlet Runoff to Golf Course to East: The golf course to the east is within the JFTB and drains east, ultimately outletting to the Bolsa Chica Channel. OutlettingDischarging to the east does not match the historical drainage pattern and the Bolsa Chica Channel was not designed to accommodate flows from the Project site; therefore, potentially cause downstream flooding.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
In addition, the golf course and Bolsa Chica Channel are upstream from the site, therefore not feasible due to elevation differences.
5. Construct storm drain pipe under Lampson Avenue to east: OutlettingDischaring to the east does not match the historical drainage pattern and the Bolsa Chica Channel was not designed to accommodate flows from the site. Additionally, installation of underground storm drain pipe within Lampson Avenue is infeasible due to conflicts with existing utilities, maintenance concerns, and head losses as described above (see #1). Similarly to item #4, changing the historical drainage pattern may potentially cause unforeseen drainage impacts.
3. Page 4.9-23 of the Draft EIR is hereby modified as follows to reflect the changes made in the updated Hydrology Study.
1. On-Site Storm Drain Facilities
The results from the hydrology report demonstrate that the proposed drainage conditions would generate a higher peak runoff flowrate than the existing conditions on the Project site due to an increase in impervious area and change in land use. The preferred detention facilities would be designed to detain the increased peak flow between the existing outlet pipe flows and proposed conditions. Detained volumes would be discharged from the site via a pump system at flow rates that do not exceed the existing condition flow rates. Downstream facilities would not be hydrologically impacted by the proposed Project site improvements (C&V, 2024a).
2. Alternate Storm Drain Facilities
A second hydrology report was prepared for the alternate stormwater conveyance plan. The results from the report demonstrated that the proposed condition of the alternate would generate a 10 percent (44.31 cfs proposed/40.28 cfs existing) higher 100-year storm event peak runoff flowrate than the existing condition of the site due to an increase in impervious area and change in land use. The proposed underground detention facilities would be designed to detain the increased flows under the proposed conditions, which would be discharged from the site via a pump station at flow rates that would not exceed the existing condition flow rates. Downstream facilities would not be hydrologically impacted by the proposed Project site improvements. (C&V, 2023) (C&V, 2024a).
Section 4.10 Land Use and Planning
1. Page 4.10-27 is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment F-2.
Policy 4.7 Transit stops. Improve and
maintain safe, clean, comfortable, well-lit,
and rider friendly transit stops that are well
marked and visible to motorists.
Not Applicable. The nearest OCTA Route
123 bus stop from the Project site is
approximately 1.21.6 miles walking distance
at the intersection of Valley View Street and
LampsonChampman Avenue. The nearest
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
OCTA Route 42 bus stop from the Project
site is approximately 1.63.5 miles walking
distance at the intersection of Seal Beach
Boulevard and Lampson Avenue.Katella
Avenue and Los Alamitos Boulevard
Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the
Project.
2. Page 4.10-33 is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment D-23.
4. City of Seal Beach General Plan
Table 4.10-3, Seal Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis, provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with all applicable General Plan goals and policies that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As shown in Table 4.10-3, the Project would not conflict with any of the applicable General Plan goals and policies.
Accordingly, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to a conflict with the City of Los Alamitos General Plan and mitigation is not required.
Table 4.10-3 Seal Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis General Plan Policy Consistency
Circulation Element
Objective: Provide a citywide system of safe, efficient, and attractive bicycle and pedestrian routes for commuter, school, and recreational use.
Policy: Maintain existing pedestrian facilities
and require new development to provide
pedestrian walkways between developments,
schools, and public facilities.
No Conflict. The Project would promote future
residents of the Project to walk, bike, or ride the
bus to and from developments, schools, and
public facilities. Project frontage improvements
such as sidewalk improvements, the existing
bike lanes on Lampson Avenue adjacent to the
Project site, and bike storage would promote
residents and students to utilize these facilities.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with
this policy.
Growth Management Element
Goal 3: Cooperate with Neighboring Jurisdictions and the County of Orange and County of Los Angeles to Achieve Reduction in Regional Traffic Congestion.
Policy 3.1 - The City shall participate in interjurisdictional planning forums within its established growth management areas as adopted
by the Regional Advisory Planning Council and
No Conflict. The City of Seal Beach is a
responsible agency for the Project. Table 3-6,
Project-Related Approval/Permits, lists all
approvals and decisions required by the City of
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
will continue to participate in forums with
neighboring or affected jurisdictions to address
transportation or other planning issues.
Seal Beach for the Project. Additionally, the City
of Los Alamitos and City of Seal Beach have
been in coordination throughout the planning
process for this Project including the preparation
of the Traffic Analysis. Therefore, the Project
would not conflict with this policy.
Section 4.11 Noise
1. Page 4.11-22 is hereby modified due to typographical error.
PDF N-1 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Project will construct a 7-foothigh noise control barrier along Lampson Avenue. The noise control barrier will be constructed so that the top of each wall and /or berm combination extends to the planned height above the pad elevation of the lot it is shielding.
Since the pad elevations varies, the top of each wall and /or berm combination will be 7’ above each applicable pad elevation. When the roadway or terrain is elevated above the pad elevation, the barrier shall extend to the recommended height above the highest point between the residential home and the roadway.
The barrier shall be built with a material surface weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot, with no decorative cutouts, perforations, or line-of-sight openings between residences and Lampson Avenue. The noise barrier shall be constructed using the following materials:
Masonry block;
Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1-inch-thick tongue and groove wood of at least 4 pounds per square foot;
Material with sufficient weight per square foot capable of providing a minimum transmission loss of 2025 dBA;
Earthen berm; or,
Any combination of these construction materials
2. Page 4.11-26 is hereby modified to reflect the changes made in the updated Noise Impact Analysis.
As shown on Table 4.11-7, Existing Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts, the Existing 2023 with Project will generate a noise level increase of up to 0.34 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise impacts, the Project-related noise level increases are considered less than significant under Existing plus Project conditions at the land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic.
Table 4.11-8, Opening Year Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts, shows that the Opening Year Project off-site traffic noise level increases of up to 0.24 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented for off-site traffic noise impacts,
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases due to unmitigated Opening Year Project-related traffic noise levels.
Table 4.11-9, General Plan Buildout Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts, shows that the General Plan Buildout Project off-site traffic noise level with the Project increases of up to 0.23 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented for off-site traffic noise impacts, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases due to unmitigated General Plan Buildout Project-related traffic noise levels with the Project.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
3. Page 4.11-27 is hereby modified to reflect the changes made in the updated Noise Impact Analysis.
Table 4.11-7 Existing Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
NoiseSensitive
Land
Use?
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Lampson Ave. e/o4 Los Alamitos
Blvd. Sensitive 71.6 71.8 0.2 Yes 1.5 No
2 Lampson Ave. e/o Old Ranch Plaza Sensitive 71.4 71.6 0.2 Yes 1.5 No 3 Lampson Ave. e/o Basswood St. Sensitive 70.4 70.6
70.7 0.20.3 Yes 1.5 No
4 Lampson Ave. e/o Candleberry St. Sensitive 69.8 70.1 0.3 Yes 1.5 No 5 Lampson Ave. e/o Heather St. Sensitive 69.8 70.170.2 0.30.4 Yes 1.5 No 6 Lampson Ave. e/o Driveway 1 Sensitive 69.8 70.1 0.3 Yes 1.5 No 7 Lampson Ave. e/o Driveway 2 Sensitive 69.8 70.0 0.2 Yes 1.5 No 8 Lampson Ave. e/o Rose St. Sensitive 70.0 70.2 0.2 Yes 1.5 No 9 Lampson Ave. e/o Tulip St. Sensitive 70.3 70.570.6 0.20.3 Yes 1.5 No 10 Lampson Ave. e/o Valley View St. Sensitive 69.3 69.369.4 0.00.1 Yes 1.5 No 11 Los Alamitos
Blvd. n/o Lampson Ave. Sensitive 69.1 69.269.5 0.10.4 Yes 1.5 No 12 Los Alamitos
Blvd. s/o Lampson Ave. Non-Sensitive 68.9 69.0 0.1 No n/a No 13 Valley View St. n/o Lampson Ave. Sensitive 70.7 70.770.8 0.1 Yes 1.5 No 14 Valley View St. s/o Lampson Ave. Sensitive 70.7 70.7 0.0 Yes 1.5 No 1Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? 4 Refers to the direction of the roadway segment (i.e. e/o = east of, n/o = north of, s/o = south of).
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
4. Page 4.11-28 is hereby modified to reflect the changes made in the updated Noise Impact Analysis.
Table 5-2 Table 4.11-8 Opening Year Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts ID Road Segment Receiving
Land Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2
NoiseSensitive
Land
Use?
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold3
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit Exceeded?
1 Lampson Ave. e/o4 Los Alamitos
Blvd. Sensitive 73.072.3 73.272.4 0.20.1 Yes 1.5 No
2 Lampson Ave. e/o Old Ranch Plaza Sensitive 72.272.0 72.472.2 0.2 Yes 1.5 No 3 Lampson Ave. e/o Basswood St. Sensitive 71.371.0 71.571.3 0.20.3 Yes 1.5 No 4 Lampson Ave. e/o Candleberry St. Sensitive 70.870.5 71.070.8 0.20.3 Yes 1.5 No 5 Lampson Ave. e/o Heather St. Sensitive 70.970.6 71.170.8 0.2 Yes 1.5 No 6 Lampson Ave. e/o Driveway 1 Sensitive 70.870.5 71.070.8 0.20.3 Yes 1.5 No 7 Lampson Ave. e/o Driveway 2 Sensitive 70.870.5 71.070.8 0.20.3 Yes 1.5 No 8 Lampson Ave. e/o Rose St. Sensitive 71.070.7 71.270.9 0.2 Yes 1.5 No 9 Lampson Ave. e/o Tulip St. Sensitive 71.371.1 71.571.3 0.2 Yes 1.5 No 10 Lampson Ave. e/o Valley View St. Sensitive 70.269.7 70.369.8 0.1 Yes 1.5 No 11 Los Alamitos
Blvd. n/o Lampson Ave. Sensitive 70.269.4 70.269.8 0.00.4 Yes 1.5 No 12 Los Alamitos
Blvd. s/o Lampson Ave. Non-Sensitive 70.169.5 70.169.6 0.00.1 No n/a No 13 Valley View St. n/o Lampson Ave. Sensitive 71.671.2 71.671.2 0.0 Yes 1.5 No 14 Valley View St. s/o Lampson Ave. Sensitive 71.571.1 71.571.1 0.0 Yes 1.5 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? 4 Refers to the direction of the roadway segment (i.e. e/o = east of, n/o = north of, s/o = south of).
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarifications and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
5. Page 4.11-29 is hereby modified to reflect the changes made in the updated Noise Impact Analysis.
Table 4.11-9 General Plan Buildout Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts ID Road Segment
Receiving
Land
Use1
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)2 NoiseSensitive
Land
Use?
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold3
Existing No
Project
With
Project
Cumulative
Increase
Cumulative
ContributionP
roject Addition
Limit Exceeded?
1 Lampson Ave. e/o4 Los Alamitos
Blvd. Sensitive 71.6 73.072.7 73.272.8 1.6 0.20.1 Yes 1.5 No 2 Lampson Ave. e/o Old Ranch Plaza Sensitive 71.4 72.2 72.4 1.0 0.2 Yes 1.5 No 3 Lampson Ave. e/o Basswood St. Sensitive 70.4 71.371.2 71.5 1.1 0.20.3 Yes 1.5 No 4 Lampson Ave. e/o Candleberry St. Sensitive 69.8 70.870.7 71.0 1.2 0.20.3 Yes 1.5 No 5 Lampson Ave. e/o Heather St. Sensitive 69.8 70.970.8 71.171.0 1.3 0.2 Yes 1.5 No 6 Lampson Ave. e/o Driveway 1 Sensitive 69.8 70.870.7 71.0 1.2 0.20.3 Yes 1.5 No 7 Lampson Ave. e/o Driveway 2 Sensitive 69.8 70.870.7 71.070.9 1.2 0.2 Yes 1.5 No 8 Lampson Ave. e/o Rose St. Sensitive 70.0 71.070.9 71.271.1 1.2 0.2 Yes 1.5 No 9 Lampson Ave. e/o Tulip St. Sensitive 70.3 71.3 71.5 1.2 0.2 Yes 1.5 No 10 Lampson Ave. e/o Valley View St. Sensitive 69.3 70.2 70.3 1.0 0.1 Yes 1.5 No 11 Los Alamitos
Blvd. n/o Lampson Ave. Sensitive 69.1 70.270.1 70.2 1.1 0.1 Yes 1.5 No 12 Los Alamitos
Blvd. s/o Lampson Ave. NonSensitive 68.9 70.170.0 70.170.0 1.2 0.0 No n/a No 13 Valley View
St. n/o Lampson Ave. Sensitive 70.7 71.6 71.6 0.9 0.0 Yes 1.5 No 14 Valley View
St. s/o Lampson Ave. Sensitive 70.7 71.5 71.5 0.8 0.0 Yes 1.5 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? 4 Refers to the direction of the roadway segment (i.e. e/o = east of, n/o = north of, s/o = south of).
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarification and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Section 4.12 Population and Housing
1. Page 4.12-10 is hereby modified due to typographical error.
The jobs-housing ratio is a general measure of the number of jobs versus housing in a defined geographical area and the recommended target is 1.0. As shown in Table 4.12-5, above, the City is “jobs-rich” and at a ratio of 3.4 jobs/housing, it is currently well above the target ratio.
At Project buildout, the Project’s addition of 647247 units would be expected to beneficially affect the City’s jobs- housing balance, by increasing more housing to the City and reducing the jobs-housing ratio from 3.33 to 3.17 at Project buildout (see Table 4.12-5).
Section 4.13 Public Services
1. Page 4.13-15 is hereby modified for clarification purposes.
As discussed in Section 4.14, Recreation, cumulative development will increase the demand in parks and recreational facilities. Recreational needs of future residents of the Project would add to citywide and regional demand for park and recreational facilities. As discussed in Section 4.14, Recreation, Project impacts to recreation would be less than significant. As shown in Table 4.14-1, there is a total of 317.49 acres of park and recreation facilities in Los Alamitos and 35.05 acres of park and recreational facilities in Rossmoor, for a total of 389.02 acres of park and recreational facilities in the City and its SOI. Pursuant to the City’s General Plan Update EIR, Table 5.10-2, buildout of the General Plan (14,204 residents in the City and 10,540 residents in Rossmoor) would be accommodated by the existing parkland in the City and its SOI and no significant impacts would occur related to the physical deterioration of recreational facilities. Therefore, with the increase of projected population in 2027 at Project buildout, there is sufficient parkland and recreational facilities to serve City residents. The Project would not cumulatively contribute to deterioration of recreational facilities or the construction of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Section 4.14 Recreation
1. Page 4.14-10 is hereby modified for clarification purposes.
The recreational needs of future residents of the proposed Project would add to citywide and regional demand for park and recreational facilities, which could contribute to a deterioration of recreational facilities. As shown in Table 4.14-1, there is a total of 316.83 acres of park and recreation facilities in Los Alamitos and 35.05 acres of park and recreational facilities in Rossmoor, for a total of 351.88 acres of park and recreational facilities in the City and its SOI available to meet the needs of City residents. To determine the cumulative public park and recreational impacts, citywide growth forecasts were considered. As shown in Table 4.12-6, Cumulative Projects Population, Housing, and Employment Growth Trends in Los Alamitos, the projected population at Project buildout, combined with related projects in the City, would be 13,806 by 2027. Pursuant to the City’s General Plan Update EIR, Table 5.10-2, the buildout of the General Plan (14,204 residents in the City and 10,540 residents in Rossmoor) would be
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarification and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
accommodated by the existing parkland in the City and its SOI and no significant impacts would occur related to the physical deterioration of recreational facilities. Therefore, with the increase of projected population in at Project buildout, there is sufficient parkland and recreational facilities to service city residents. The Project would not cumulatively contribute to deterioration of recreational facilities or the construction of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Section 4.15 Transportation
1. Page 4.15-1 is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment F-3.
As shown in Figure 4.15-1, Existing Transit Routes, the Project site is currently served by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) with currently provides bus service along Seal Beach Boulevard, Valley View Street, and Lampson Avenue (east of Valley View Street).
OCTA route 42 runs along Seal Beach Boulevard and serves Seal Beach to Orange with an existing stop provided at the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Lampson Avenue Katella Avenue and Los Alamitos Boulevard. The existing stop is approximately 1.63.5 miles walking distance from the Project site. Bus service frequency is approximately 20-minute intervals during the peak commute hours and 40 minutes during other times of the day during a typical weekday. OCTA Route 123 serves the city of Anaheim to city of Huntington Beach via Malvern Avenue, Valley View Street, and Bolsa Chica. There are existing stops along Valley View Street with an existing stop at Chapman Avenue. The nearest OCTA Route 123 existing stop is located approximately 1.21.6 miles walking distance from the Project site to the intersection of LampsonChampman Avenue and Valley View Street. Bus service frequency is approximately 60-minute intervals on a typical weekday for OCTA Route 123.
2. Page 4.15-13 is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment F-4.
Policy 4.7 Transit stops. Improve and
maintain safe, clean, comfortable, well-lit,
and rider friendly transit stops that are well
marked and visible to motorists.
Not Applicable. The nearest OCTA Route
123 bus stop from the Project site is
approximately 1.21.6 miles walking distance
at the intersection of Valley View Street and
LampsonChampman Avenue. The nearest
OCTA Route 42 bus stop from the Project
site is approximately 1.63.5 miles walking
distance at the intersection of Seal Beach
Boulevard and Lampson Avenue.Katella
Avenue and Los Alamitos Boulevard
Therefore, this policy is not applicable to the
Project.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarification and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
3. Page 4.15-15 is hereby modified due to typographical error.
The Project includes 77 affordable housing units, which generate vehicle trips at a lower rate per unit as compared to market rate housing. As the reduction in trips and associated VMT could not be accurately accounted for by the calculations conducted using the OCTAM model, these adjustments are made through calculations as described in the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA, 2021) Specifically, “Land Use – T-4. Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing”; requires multifamily residential units to be permanently dedicated as affordable for lower income families. Additionally, the Project’s parking supply will be limited to 577 parking spaces, which is 12 parking spaces below the 589 parking spaces required by the lead agency. This would reduce project-generated VMT by 0.28% or 39 VMT.
This results in a Project generated VMT of 12,55912,598 in the baseline condition and 12,17412,213 in the cumulative condition as shown in Table 4.15-2.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarification and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
4. Page 4.15-19 is hereby modified as follows in Response to Comment III-4.
MM 4.15-1 Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, the Project Applicant shall provide documentation that it has implemented the CAPCOA strategies identified below. Verification that the CAPCOA strategies were completed shall be verified by the City’s Public Works Director.
1. Provide pedestrian and bicycle network improvements within the development connecting to existing off-site facilities, as detailed in Section
3.3.2 of this EIR.
2. Confirm with the OCTA whether providing new or re-routing existing transit services to the site would be feasible, as determined by OCTA pursuant to OCTA’s standards.
3. Install broadband infrastructure or other communication technologies that encourages telecommuting and working from home, which would reduce mobile source emission.
4. Require the HOA to create an online community forum where future residents can coordinate ridesharing.
Section 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
1. Page 4.17-12 is hereby modified as follows to reflect the changes made in the updated Sewer Sanitary Analysis.
For the sewer monitoring analysis, flow monitoring was conducted under the existing conditions of the three manholes from August 23, 2022 to September 5, 2022: 1) Basswood and Aster Street (Manhole B03-A-16); 2) Candleberry Avenue and Aster Street (Manhole B06- A-21); and 3) Elder Avenue (Manhole B08-A-25). However, the monitored manholes by CVC showed a lower flow average than the monitoring flows conducted AKM Consulting Engineers (AKM) who prepared the City of Seal Beach Sewer Master Plan. Therefore, using the results from AKM, ratios were used from the flow monitored averages to calculate the flows for all reaches upstream of the monitored manholes. For reaches downstream of the monitored manholes, the delta flow value was added to the last monitored manholes to calculate the flow for the remaining reaches. The existing Project site peak flow was subtracted from the projected Project site flow. The delta flow was then added to the existing monitored peak flows to obtain the proposed development conditions. (C&V, 20242022)
2. Pages 4.17-17 is hereby modified as follows to reflect the changes made in the updated Sewer Sanitary Analysis.
Although the Project site is in the City of Los Alamitos, sanitary sewer services are currently provided by and will be provided by the City of Seal Beach. Per the City of Seal Beach Sewer Master Plan 2018, the City provides sewer service throughout the City in a service area that collects and conveys wastewater from the service area for treatment by the OCSD.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarification and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
A Sanitary Sewer Analysis was prepared for the Project and investigates the sewer discharge route for the proposed development to the existing sewer mains of three manholes: 1) Basswood and Aster Street (Manhole B03-A-16); 2) Candleberry Avenue and Aster Street (Manhole B06-A-21); and 3) Elder Avenue (Manhole B08-A-25). (C&V, 20242022)
3. Page 4.17-19 is hereby modified as follows to reflect the changes made in the updated Sewer Sanitary Analysis.
4. Sanitary Sewer Update
A revised Sanitary Sewer Analysis (Attachments M1 and M2 of the FEIR) was prepared in response to comment from the City of Seal Beach. A Sewer Demand Memorandum (Attachment L of the FEIR) was prepared to address the updates in the sanitary sewer analysis and respond to comments on the DEIR related to the Old Ranch Country Club.
The City of Seal Beach’s updated Sewer Master Plan (September 2022) identified the sewer loads for potential development areas within the City of Seal Beach. Those sewer loads are summarized in Table 1 of that Sewer Master Plan. The Old Ranch Country Club is listed as Site B-5, and it is identified as comprising 150 acres, five of which are indicated as “redevelopment area,” with a potential for 120 dwelling units and a sewer load of 19,200 gallons per day (gpd).
Since 2022, the proposed development of the Old Ranch Country Club Project has been further refined, and as of January 2023 now includes more than the residential component identified in Table 1 of the Sewer Master Plan. Per the Initial Study dated February 7, 2023, prepared to support the Old Ranch Country Club Specific Plan, the anticipated redevelopment area has increased from 5 acres to approximately 35 acres over the existing site, and includes a 116-unit multi-family housing development, a 51-unit senior housing complex including an approximately 25,340 square foot medical office facility on the ground floor, a 150-key overnight accommodation, an approximately 2,650 square foot relocated maintenance facility, a parking structure, and a new clubhouse pool and associated structures (21,000 square feet) abutting the existing clubhouse.
This more refined development proposal for the Old Ranch Country Club project would result in an increase in the sewer demand by approximately 32,246 gpd, totaling 51,626 gpd (see Attachment L of the FEIR).
The revised Sanitary Sewer Analysis, prepared in March 2024 (Attachments M1 and M2 of the FEIR), used sewer system model data provided by the City of Seal Beach (AKM’s City wide sewer study). The data was based on an area calculation method which indicated there are 16 sewer segments shown to have a d/D level above 0.5. Because the area calculation is used to calculate flows for large areas and is not necessarily representative of actual flows, actual monitored flows were determined and evaluated. Using the actual monitored flows indicated that there are only 7 segments estimated to exceed the City's peak dry weather flows (PDWF)
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarification and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
d/D criteria after the proposed project is implemented. The remaining capacity above a PDWF d/D of 0.50 is reserved for wet weather flows. Flows over the d/D criteria range from 0.51 to
0.55 and represent approximately 56% of the pipe’s flow capacity, which is well within the capacity of the downstream sewer lines.
No additional pipe segments in the AKM study were found to be undersized. The nine (9) segments that were found to be undersized in AKM’s study were determined to be acceptable after analysis using the actual monitored flows. The d/D levels are shown to be higher because the existing segments have flat slopes, ranging from 0.16% - 0.22%. However, the pipe size can handle proposed flow levels, and sewer pipe upgrades are not required.
To evaluate a potential increase in the flow depth to pipe diameter ratio (d/D) based on the increase in total demand associated with the further refined Old Ranch Country Club project and after taking into consideration the amount of sewer discharge associated with the Project, C&V Consulting, Inc. applied the increase in total demand from the further refined Old Ranch Country Club Project to manhole (MH) IDs B03-A14 and B01-A13 through B01-A02A, as shown in Attachment L of the FEIR. These manholes and their associated pipeline segments are located downstream of the three manholes that were monitored for the Project and as such include the upstream sewer flows anticipated by the Project and currently existing development. As shown in Attachment L of the FEIR, the overall d/D is anticipated to be less than 0.5 for the identified segments with the increased demand added to the system. This means that when the sewer flows from the further refined Old Ranch Country Club Project are added to the sewer flows from the Project based on the downstream monitored manhole flows, the depth of flow to pipe diameter ratio is less than 50%. This in turn means that even with the Old Ranch Country Club Project, the sewer pipe system capacity remains capable of maintaining an adequate flow well below 50% of its flow depth capacity. As such, adequate capacity exists to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the sewer pipe systems existing commitments, even after taking into account the further refined Old Ranch Country Club project. The anticipated d/D increase determined from the 4665 Lampson Avenue Project plus the Old Ranch Country Club Project is approximately 2.6-3.4%, which is considered negligible.
As a result, the proposed flows from the Project, in addition to the observed flows, create a proposed depth of flow that would not impact the existing surrounding sanitary sewer systems, and that the existing sewer system has adequate capacity for the proposed development.
Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Clarification and Revisions Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Section 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations
1. Page 5-3 is hereby modified due to typographical error.
Because no significant non-renewable natural resources occur within the Project site, the Project would also not reduce the availability of any non-renewable natural resources associated with long-term operational activities. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a significant, irreversible change to the environment related to energy use.
Attachments
The following technical appendices have been updated and do not contain new significant information or change the findings of the Draft EIR. The updated technical appendices further support the conclusions in the Draft EIR and do not present any new or substantially more severe impacts, which were not previously disclosed. These technical appendices are incorporated herein as Attachments B, C, E – G, and M of this Final EIR:
• B, VMT Analysis
• C, Updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
• E, Updated Hydrology and PWQMP
• F, Updated Noise Impact Analysis
• G, Traffic Analysis
• M1 and M2, Updated Sewer Analysis
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment A
Comment Letters 16 & 17 Attachments
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment B
VMT Analysis
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment C
C1, Updated Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment Slip Sheet & C2, EFI Technical
Memorandum
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment D
Nick Johnson Resume
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment E
E1, Updated Hydrology Study & E2, PWQMP
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment F
Updated Noise Impact Analysis
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment G
Traffic Analysis
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment H
Safety Evaluation
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment I
Shade and Shadow Study
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment J
Fire Master Plan & Fire Flow
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment K
Will-Serve Letters
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment L
Old Ranch Country Club Sewer Demand
Calculations
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment M
M1, Updated Sewer Analysis
M2, Appendix A Updated Table
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment N
Historic Research for Moon Trees
4665 Lampson Avenue
Final Environmental Impact Report Attachments
Lead Agency: City of Los Alamitos SCH No. 2022090476
Attachment O
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
“ATTACHMENT X”
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for:
4665 Lampson Avenue
State Clearinghouse No. 2022090476
Lead Agency
City of Los Alamitos
3191 Katella Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Lead Agency Discretionary Permits
Site Development Permit – Major
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-113
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 19263
Affordable Housing Unit Application–
for Density Bonus Law Request, Concessions and Waivers
November 5, 2024
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 2
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 Introduction and Purpose ...............................................................................................................4
1.1 Findings Required Under CEQA ..........................................................................................4
1.2 Project Summary ...................................................................................................................5
1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation...................................................................9
2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings........................................................................................... 12
3.0 Environmental Impacts not Requiring Mitigation ....................................................................... 13
3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................13
3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources...................................................................................18
3.3 Air Quality...........................................................................................................................20
3.4 Biological Resources...........................................................................................................27
3.5 Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................................33
3.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................36
3.7 Geology and Soils ...............................................................................................................41
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................................45
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................................47
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................56
3.11 Land Use and Planning........................................................................................................69
3.12 Mineral Resources...............................................................................................................74
3.13 Noise....................................................................................................................................75
3.14 Population and Housing ......................................................................................................83
3.15 Public Services....................................................................................................................86
3.16 Recreation............................................................................................................................93
3.17 Transportation .....................................................................................................................97
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................103
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................104
3.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................116
4.0 Environmental Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less-than-Significant ..................................... 117
4.1 Biological Resources.........................................................................................................117
4.2 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................122
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3
4.3 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................126
4.4 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................133
5.0 Environmental Impacts That Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation............... 139
5.4 Transportation ...................................................................................................................139
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations......................................................................................................145
6.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ..............................................................145
6.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts..................................................................................................146
7.0 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 150
8.0 General CEQA Findings ............................................................................................................ 159
9.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations.................................................................................... 161
10.0 Additional Facts on Record........................................................................................................ 167
10.1 Custodian of Record..........................................................................................................167
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The 12.3-acre Project site, as described under Section 1.2.1 below, is in the City of Los Alamitos, Orange County. The City of Los Alamitos (the “City”) in approving the 4665 Lampson Avenue Project (the “Project”) makes the Findings described below. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the City, as described in Subsection 1.3, below, including but not limited to the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Project with the City acting as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
Hereafter, the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”), Notice of Availability (“NOA”), Draft EIR (“DEIR”), Technical Studies, and Final EIR (“FEIR”) (containing responses to public comments on the DEIR and textual revisions to the DEIR), will be referred to collectively herein as the “EIR” unless otherwise specified.
1.1 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The statute also provides that the procedures required by CEQA are “intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Finally, Section 21002 indicates that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate described in Public Resources Code Section 21002 is implemented, in part, through the requirement that for projects with one or more significant environmental effects, agencies must adopt written findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The second finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. The third finding is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a), “[i]f the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered `acceptable.’”
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 5
1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.2.1 SITE LOCATION
The 12.3-acre Project site is in the City of Los Alamitos, Orange County, California. The City of Los Alamitos (City) is in the northwestern corner of Orange County, bordering the county lines of Orange and Los Angeles. The City is located east of the city of Long Beach, southwest of the city of Cypress, west of the city of Garden Grove, and north of the city of Seal Beach. The Project site is located approximately 0.47-mile north of I-405/State Route 22 (SR-22), approximately 0.83-mile northwest of SR-22, and approximately 2.36 miles east of I-605. Regional access to the Project site is provided from Seal Beach Boulevard via I-405, I-605, and SR-22 Freeways and Valley View Steet via I-405 and SR22. At the local scale, the Project site is located north of and adjacent to Lampson Avenue and northwest of the intersection of Lampson Avenue and Rose Street. The legal address for the Project site is 4665 Lampson Avenue, Los Alamitos, CA 90720, and the Project site’s Assessor Parcel Number (APN) is 130-012-35.
1.2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project Applicant, Lampson Park Place, LLC, proposes to redevelop the Project site with a residential development consisting of a variety of housing product types, including single family detached homes, townhomes, and apartments. The unit mix proposes 55 single family detached homes, 114 townhomes, and 76 for rent affordable multi-family apartment units, as well as one for rent market rate manager’s apartment unit. The Project would include a total of 246 units and the overall density for the Project would be 20 dwelling units per acre. Vehicle access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways on Lampson Avenue, one for the apartment entry on the western side and one for the primary neighborhood entry central to the site. The Project would provide 577 parking spaces (475 spaces for the single family detached and townhomes and 102 for the apartments) in exceedance of the 441 parking spaces that would be required pursuant to the State’s Density Bonus Law.
1.2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The underlying purpose of the Project is to redevelop the site with a residential community that will serve the City of Los Alamitos. The following is a list of specific objectives that the proposed Project is intended to achieve.
A. Provide residential development consistent with the City’s General Plan, including the 2021- 2029 Housing Element, to help meet the City’s RHNA requirement.
B. Provide a variety of housing types and affordability (for lower income and above moderate income households) that satisfies the residential market and accommodates increased demand for housing.
C. Provide a variety of affordable housing types to support middle-income workers, providing an opportunity for residents to live closer to where they work.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 6
D. Improve the City’s jobs housing balance to support reduced commute distances consistent with the Southern California Association of Governments’ Connect SoCal.
E. Create a residential character that provides for a high quality architectural design.
1.2.4 CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS ACTIONS COVERED BY THE EIR
The following discretionary and administrative actions are required of the City, as Lead Agency, to implement the Project. The EIR prepared for the Project covers all discretionary and administrative approvals which may be needed to construct or implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed. They include:
• Site Development Permit – Major;
• Tentative Parcel Map (for finance and conveyance purposes); • Vesting Tentative Tract Map (for Condominium Purposes); and • Affordable Housing Unit Application for Density Bonus and/or Incentives or Concessions pursuant to the State’s Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) and the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.28.050.
1.2.5 APPROVALS FROM OTHER AGENCIES
The California Public Resource Code (Section 21104) requires that all EIRs be reviewed by responsible and trustee agencies (see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 and Section 15086(a)). As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, “the term ‘Responsible Agency’ includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project.” A “Trustee Agency” is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 as “a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California.” The anticipated agencies expected to use the EIR are described below. However, the EIR can be used by any Responsible or Trustee Agency, whether identified in the EIR or not, as part of their decisionmaking processes in relation to the Project.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 7
Public Agency Approvals and Decisions
City of Los Alamitos
Proposed Project – City of Los Alamitos Discretionary Approvals City of Los Alamitos • Certify the Project’s EIR and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, , Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
• Approval of a Site Development Permit - Major
• Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 2022-113
• Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
19263
• Approval of Affordable Housing Unit Application
for Density Bonus Request, Concessions, and
Waivers
Subsequent City of Los Alamitos Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals City of Los Alamitos
Subsequent Implementing Approvals
• Approval of Landscaping/Irrigation Plan
• Issuance of Demolition Permits
• Issuance of Grading Permits
• Issuance of Building Permits
• Approval of Road Improvement Plans
• Issuance of Encroachment Permits
• Approval of Infrastructure Plans
• Approval of public right-of-way dedications
• Approval of Water Quality Management Plan
• Approval of connections to the municipal sewer
system
Responsible Agencies – Approvals and Permits
City of Seal Beach • Issuance of Public Works Permit (encroachment permit) for infrastructure improvements within the
Lampson Ave. right-of-way.
• Agreement of Franchise Facilities between
Golden State Water Company (GSWC) and the
City of Seal Beach for water service.
• Agreement between the Rossmoor/Los Alamitos
Area Sewer District and the City of Seal Beach for
Inter-Jurisdictional Wastewater Services.
• Approval of stormwater discharge/conveyance, if
required.
• Approval of a Water Quality Management Plan, if
required.
• Approval of infrastructure plans
directly/indirectly related to Seal Beach, if
required.
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) • Issuance of a Construction Activity General Construction Permit.
• Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
Rossmoor Los Alamitos Area Sewer District. • Issuance of a Sewer Connection Permit
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 8
Public Agency Approvals and Decisions
• Agreement between the Rossmoor/Los Alamitos
Area Sewer District and the City of Seal Beach for
Inter-Jurisdictional Wastewater Services.
South Coast Air Quality Management District • Issuance of permits that allow for the construction and operation of the Project.
JFTB • Issuance of encroachment permit for stormwater
improvements.
GSWC • Agreement of Franchise Facilities between
GSWC and the City of Seal Beach for water
service.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 9
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project to ensure that the City’s decision makers and the public are fully informed about the potential significant environmental effects of the Project; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; and to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the Project using mitigation measures which have been found to be feasible. To do this, the City, acting as Lead Agency under CEQA, undertook the following:
• Circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the California Office of Planning and Research (the “State Clearinghouse”), Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on September 26, 2022, for a 30-day review period between October 3, 2022 and November 2, 2022;
• The NOP was posted on the City’s website and City of Los Alamitos Planning Division on September 26, 2022;
• The NOP was posted at the Orange County Clerk’s office on September 26, 2022; • Published the NOP in the Event News Enterprise, which is the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, on September 21, 2022; • Held a publicly noticed EIR Scoping Meeting in the City Council Chamber of the City of Los Alamitos, and open to public attendance on October 20, 2022, to solicit comments from the public on the environmental issue areas that should be analyzed in the EIR; • Sent a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) and electronic copies of the DEIR to the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, on April 24, 2024;
• Mailed via certified mail a copy of the NOA to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties and organizations to inform recipients that the DEIR was available for a 45-day review period beginning on April 24, 2024, and ending on June 10, 2024; • The NOA was posted on the City’s website and at the Orange County Clerk’s office on April 24, 2024;
• Published the NOA in the Event News Enterprise, which is the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, on May 1, 2024; • The DEIR was posted on the City’s website at https://cityoflosalamitos.org/203/PlanningCommission-Projects during the public review period for the DEIR; • Prepared responses to comments on the DEIR received during the 45-day comment period on the DEIR, which have been included in the FEIR;
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 10
• Provided the Draft FEIR, including individual responses to agencies that commented on the DEIR in the Staff Report for Planning Commission on September 18, 2024; • Held a Planning Commission hearings on September 25, 2024 and October 23, 2024; and • Held a City Council hearing on November 18, 2024.
The Record of Proceedings for the Project consist of those items listed in CEQA Section 21167.6(e), along with other items contained within the City’s files that are relevant to the consideration of the Project. The Record of Proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project consists of the following documents, at a minimum and without limitation, which are herein incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these Findings:
• The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project; • The DEIR for the Project and all technical appendices and documents cited, relied upon or incorporated by reference;
• All written comments submitted by agencies, organizations, or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR and the City’s responses to those comments; • The DEIR for the Project and all technical appendices and documents cited, relied upon or incorporated by reference;
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; • All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City or consultants to the City with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the Project; • All documents submitted to the City by public agencies, organizations or members of the public in connection with the DEIR;
• Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project; • Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings;
• All findings and resolutions adopted by the City regarding the project, all documents, cited or referred to therein and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 11
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above; and any other materials required for the record of proceedings by CEQA Section 21167.6(e).
All the documents identified above and all the documents which constitute the Record of Proceedings for the City’s actions related to the Project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) are located at the City of Los Alamitos, Development Services Department – Planning Division, 3191 Katella Avenue, Los Alamitos, California 90720. Questions should be directed to Tom Oliver, Associate Planner.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 12
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
The EIR was prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., a professional consulting firm. The professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR Consultant by City staff and its peer review consultants, the thorough and independent peer review of the EIR, including comments and responses by City staff and its consultants, and the review and careful consideration of the EIR by the City, including comments and responses; all demonstrate that the EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as the Lead Agency.
Based on the NOP, Technical Appendix A to the DEIR, and the responses of the NOP, the EIR analyzed 17 potential areas where significant environmental impacts could result from implementation of the Project. These environmental topics were analyzed in the EIR and include aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the DEIR, as well as any and all other information in the record, the City hereby makes findings pursuant to and in accordance with CEQA Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 13
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project are less-than-significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.
3.1 AESTHETICS
Project impacts for Aesthetics do not result in significant impacts, and related findings are discussed below.
3.1.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in Section 4.1.5 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City immediately north of Lampson Avenue. The Project site is not adjacent to or bounded by Katella Avenue and Los Alamitos Boulevard, which are identified as scenic corridors for the City and provide distant scenic views to the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains. The City’s General Plan does not designate any other scenic resources within the City and does not identify the Project site as a scenic resource nor Lampson Avenue as a scenic corridor. (DEIR, p. 4.1-8)
The Project site is currently occupied by a vacant two-story, 88,000 sf commercial office building, surface parking lot, ornamental landscaping and open space. Overall, the Project site is relatively flat and provides distant, partially obstructed views of the San Gabriel Mountains from Lampson Avenue.
Views of the San Gabriel Mountains from Lampson are not panoramic and do not provide a focal view (visual access to a particular object, scene, or feature of interest) of the landform. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-8 to
4.1-9)
The Project would demolish the existing building and surface parking lot and remove all ornamental trees on-site. The Project would result in the redevelopment of the Project site with two- and threestory residential buildings and extensive landscaping. The maximum building height for the Project is approximately 41 feet with the typical single family dwelling ranging from 25.9 feet to 36 feet in height, typical townhomes are approximately 35.5 to 37 feet in height, and typical multi-family ranging approximately 37 to 39 feet in height. As shown on DEIR Figure 3-18, a variety of trees, shrubs, accent plants, and ground cover are proposed along the perimeter of the Project site, in common areas, recreational amenities, open space areas, and parking areas. A total of 441 trees, including 51 36” box
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 14
focal trees, 190 15-gallon trees, 5 10 x10’specimen canopy trees, and 195 24/36” box trees, would be planted throughout the Project site. (DEIR, p. 4.1-9)
DEIR Figure 4.1-2, Visual Renderings on Lampson Looking Northeast, and DEIR Figure 4.1-3, Visual Renderings on Lampson Looking Northwest, provide visual simulations of the proposed Project from Lampson Avenue based on the existing conditions of the Project site. As shown in DEIR Figure 4.1- 2, the multi-family units would be located along the western edge of the Project site and a wall would be constructed along the Project’s perimeter. DEIR Figure 4.1-3 depicts the proposed single-family homes from the southeastern corner of the Project site. Upon implementation of the Project, views of the townhomes and cluster homes from Lampson Avenue would consist of the three-story buildings, street trees, shrubs and groundcover. The Project would be attractive and of quality design, and provide visual interest through varied architectural detailing, including but not limited to building massing, heights, building materials, and decorative features. Architectural materials include vertical siding, composite shingle roof, stucco light sand finish, faux wood trim, decorative faux vent, barge board, decorative gable end outlooker, vinyl windows, wood railing, stone veneer, decorative fiberglass entry door, and metal utility door. Refer to DEIR Figures 3-12, 3-13, and 3-14 for a complete list of the materials. (DEIR pp. 4.1-9 to 4.1-10)
In the existing condition, views of the San Gabriel Mountains from Lampson Avenue are partial and distant, and obscured by existing mature ornamental trees and the vacant commercial office building, Arbor Park, Navy Golf Course. The Project site is not part of a designated scenic vista. The Project development would block the partial and distant views of the San Gabriel Mountains from Lampson Avenue along the Project frontage. However, redevelopment of the Project site would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, because background views of the San Gabriel Mountains are distant and limited due to existing development and landscaping and the Project site is not considered to be part of a designated scenic vista. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-10)
3.1.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 4.1.5 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts with respect to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
The Project site does not contain any special or unique scenic attributes, such as rock outcroppings, native vegetation, or historic buildings. The Project site does contain a number of ornamental trees onsite that will be removed and replaced. As shown in DEIR Figure 3-18, Landscape Plan, a total of 441 replacement trees would be planted throughout the Project site. (DEIR, p. 4.1-10)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 15
The Project site is not located near any designated State scenic highways. The closest State-eligible highway is State Route 1 (SR-1) located approximately 3.8 miles southwest of the Project site. Due to distance and intervening topography and development, the Project site is not visible from SR-1.
Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not adversely impact the scenic resources within a State scenic highway corridor. No impact would occur. (DEIR p. 4.1-10)
3.1.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not, in a non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. The Project would not, in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 4.5-1 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Project site is located in an area that meets the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of an “urbanized area” and is planned for urban uses by the City General Plan; therefore, for purposes of evaluation herein, the Project is considered to be located in an urbanized area. The following discussion analyzes the Project’s potential to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (DEIR, p. 4.1-10)
The Project would result in construction activities that would temporarily change the visual character of the Project site and its surroundings. Construction activities would involve demolition, grading and site clearing activities and building and site improvements. Construction staging areas on the Project site, including earth stockpiling, storage of equipment and supplies, and related activities would contribute to a generally “disturbed site,” which may be perceived by some as a visual impact.
Construction activities would occur over an approximate three-year timeframe with first occupancy occurring approximately one year following Project approval. Construction activities may be unsightly during the site preparation and construction phases; however, they are not considered significant because they are temporary in nature and would not conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Additionally, as a condition of approval, prior to the start of any construction activities, temporary construction chain link fencing with a privacy screen approximately eight feet in height would be erected to secure the site and shield the construction areas and public views. (DEIR, p. 4.1- 13)
The Project-applicable goals and policies and a discussion of the Project’s potential to conflict with applicable General Plan policies with the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect related to aesthetics are discussed in DEIR Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, Table 4.10-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis. As shown, the Project would not conflict with General Plan policies governing scenic quality. (DEIR, p. 4.1-13)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 16
The Project’s design, including the site layout, architecture, and landscaping is discussed and illustrated in detail in DEIR Section 3.0, Project Description. The Project site’s underlying zoning classification is Multi-Family Residential Zone (R-3). DEIR Table 4.1-1, Zoning Development Standards Consistency Analysis, discusses the Project’s consistency with the development standards provided within Los Alamitos Municipal Code (LAMC) Chapter 17.08.030 (Development Standards in Residential Zones).
Buildout of the Project would change the existing visual character of the site from a two-story, 88,000 sf commercial office building to a two- to three-story residential development consisting of 246 units.
As shown in DEIR Figures 4.1-2 and 4.1-3, the Project would be attractive and of quality design and visually compatible with the existing residential and park uses in the Project site’s vicinity.
Additionally, as shown in DEIR Table 4.1-1, the Project would be compliant with the zoning development standards and City requirements pertaining to scenic quality. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-18)
3.1.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in Section 4.5.1 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Currently, the Project site is developed with a use that previously produced artificial light. The Project would redevelop the Project site with residential uses which would produce artificial light. The Project would be required to adhere to the light and glare requirements as set forth in the LAMC (Chapter 8.48 - Lighting Performance Standards and Section 17.24.040 Light and Glare). Chapter 8.48 addresses the visual impacts of exterior lighting on adjacent property owners and neighborhoods. The chapter outlines guidelines for the design, scale, location, and illumination level of lighting fixtures. The guidelines aim to reduce light trespass and prevent glare. Section 17.24.040 would require shielding of light sources to reduce impacts on surrounding land uses. The City would confirm compliance with applicable lighting requirements during future review of building permit applications/plans. Mandatory compliance with LAMC Chapter 8.48 and Section 17.24.040 would ensure that the Project would not introduce any permanent design features that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Thus, light and glare impacts from the Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-19).
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 17
3.1.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to aesthetics.
Findings
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to aesthetics are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to aesthetics; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
The CEQA Guidelines define a “cumulative impact” as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines § 15355). The Project’s impacts to partial distant views of the San Gabriel Mountains, would be localized to the immediate Project site area and would not extend beyond the public viewing area that immediately abuts the Project site (Lampson Avenue). The views that would be affected only occur abutting the Project site and the Project site does not contain off-site components that could adversely affect scenic views that occur elsewhere in the City. (DEIR, p. 4.1-19) As noted under the analysis of Threshold b, the Project site is not located within close proximity to any designated State scenic routes. Therefore, the Project has no potential to contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to scenic resources within a designated scenic route corridor. (DEIR, p. 4.1-19) Under existing conditions, the area surrounding the Project site is entirely developed with residential land uses, the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB), Arbor Park, and the Navy Golf Course.
There are portions of undeveloped land within the JFTB between and adjacent to its runways. However, these areas are not readily visible from elsewhere in the City and therefore do not have an existing substantial impact on the visual setting of other portions of Los Alamitos. No new or pending development projects are known to occur adjacent to the Project site. Accordingly, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to local visual quality. Notwithstanding, as with the Project, any redevelopment in the surrounding area would be subject to applicable development regulation and design standards including, but not limited to the LAMC and General Plan. Mandatory compliance with applicable development regulations and design standards would ensure that development would incorporate high quality building materials, site design, and landscaping to preclude potential conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing visual quality. (DEIR, p. 4.1-19)
With respect to potential cumulative light and glare impacts, the Project would be required to comply with LAMC Chapter 8.48 - Lighting Performance Standards and Section 17.24.040 Light and Glare.
Development projects with artificial light sources in surrounding jurisdictions would be required to comply with the light reduction requirements applicable in their respective jurisdictions. Although cumulative development in the Project’s surrounding area is expected to introduce new sources of lighting and potentially reflective materials, the required compliance with the applicable legal standard
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 18
and code requirements would ensure that future cumulative development does not introduce substantial sources of lighting or glare. As such, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively-considerable, adverse impacts to the existing daytime or nighttime views of the Project site or its surroundings. (DEIR, p. 4.1-20)
3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Project impacts for Agricultural and Forestry Resources do not result in significant impacts. Findings are discussed below.
3.2.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.1 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
According to mapping information available from the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the Project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up land and does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland. The nearest area of any FMMP significance is adjacent to the Project site, within the Los Alamitos JFTB. Given that the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland, as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP, to non-agricultural use, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-7)
3.2.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 5.4.1 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Project site is currently zoned as “Multi-Family Residential (R-3).” The Project’s implementation will not result in a loss of land zoned for agriculture. There are no farming activities occurring at the Project site. As discussed above, the Project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up land. As a result,
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 19
the Project will not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-7)
3.2.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not 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)).
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 5.4.1 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Project site is located within the City of Los Alamitos and has a zoning designation of R-3. The Project site does not contain forest land. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland. Accordingly, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-8)
3.2.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in Section 5.4.1 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Project site and surrounding areas do not consist of forest land. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Accordingly, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-8)
3.2.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not 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.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 20
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.1 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
The Project would not result in changes in the environment which, due to their location and nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Accordingly, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-8)
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Project impacts for Air Quality do not result in significant impacts. Findings are discussed below.
3.3.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
In December 2022, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) released the Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels. Similar to the 2016 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements. The Project’s consistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 2022 AQMP as discussed below. (DEIR, p. 4.2-22) Criteria for determining consistency with AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section
12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook. These indicators are discussed below:
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 21
timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significant thresholds were exceeded. As evaluated under Thresholds b and c below, the Project’s localized and regional construction-source and operation-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance thresholds. As such, the Project is consistent with this criterion, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-22) • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of project build-out phase.
The 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by the applicable cities are provided to SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Los Alamitos General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. (DEIR, p. 4.2-22)
Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance.
Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, the Project is consistent with this criterion, and a less than significant impact would result. (DEIR, p. 4.2-22 to 4.2-23) The City of Los Alamitos General Plan designates the Project site for “Multi-Family Residential-25” land uses. The “Multi-Family Residential-25” land use designation is defined as “single family detached and attached residences, including all development permitted in other residential categories as well as stacked flats and other building types with 4 or more units. Other uses such as convalescent hospitals, churches, and mobile home parks are also permitted subject to special procedures. (DEIR, p. 4.2-23)
The Project consists of the development of 55 single family detached residential dwelling units (cluster homes), 114 multifamily (low-rise) residential dwelling units, and 76 affordable apartment dwelling units, as well as one market rate manager’s unit (total of 246 dwelling units). The Project’s proposed uses are consistent with the site’s land use designations. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Los Alamitos General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. As such, the Project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion. (DEIR, p. 4.2-23) The Project does not have the potential to result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations.
Construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 22
regional thresholds for emissions of any criteria pollutant. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan. As such, the Project is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, pp. 46-47). Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.2-23)
3.3.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
Construction
The latest version of California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) has been used for this Project to determine construction and operational air quality emissions. Refer to DEIR Appendices 3.1 through
3.2 of the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix B1 of the DEIR) for Criteria Air Pollutant CalEEMod Output Files. Construction emissions impacts could result from demolition activities, grading activities, and offsite utility and infrastructure improvements. (DEIR, p. 4.2-23) CalEEMod calculates maximum daily emissions for summer and winter periods. As such, the estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation for both summer and winter periods are summarized in DEIR Table 4.2-5, Overall Construction Emission Summary. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from the Project construction would not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.2-23) Operation
Operational emissions would be expected from Area Source Emissions, Energy Emissions, and Mobile Source Emissions. For additional information regarding the calculation of Project operational emissions, please refer to Appendix 3.2 of the Project’s Air Quality Analysis (Technical Appendix B1 of the DEIR). Operational emission impacts from the Project would include area source emissions as a result of architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape maintenance equipment, and mobile source emissions. (DEIR, p. 4.2-24)
Project mobile source emissions impacts are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation and the effect of the Project on peak hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in the vicinity of the Project. The estimated operational-source emissions from mobile sources and area sources for the
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 23
Project are summarized in DEIR Table 4.2-6, Summary of Peak Operational Emissions. As shown, Project operations would not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.2-24)
3.3.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
Construction Localized Impact Analysis
Criteria Pollutant Emissions
DEIR Table 4.2-7, Localized Construction-Source Emissions, identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. As shown, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for emissions of any criteria pollutant, and as such, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.2-26)
DPM Source Cancer and Non-Cancer Risks Impact Analysis
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction-source diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions is Location R3 which is located approximately 86 feet south of the Project site at an existing residence located at 4625 Ironwood Avenue. R3 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. At the Maximally Exposed Individual Receptor (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction-source DPM emissions is estimated at 2.59 in one million, which is less than the South Coast AQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be less than 0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. Location R3 is the nearest receptor to the Project site and would experience the highest concentrations of DPM during Project construction due to meteorological conditions (wind speed and direction) at the site. Because all other modeled receptors would experience lower concentrations of DPM during Project construction, all other receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified for location R3. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-26 to 4.2-27)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 24
Operation Localized Emissions Impact Analysis
Criteria Pollutant Emissions
According to South Coast AQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The proposed Project does not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no long-term localized analysis is needed. (DEIR, p. 4.2-27) CO Hot Spot Analysis
To establish a more accurate record of the baseline carbon monoxide (CO) concentration affecting the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any exceedance of the 1-hour (20.0 parts per million (ppm)) or 8-hour (9.0 ppm) CO standards. For example, of the 8.4 ppm 8-hr CO concentration measured at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection (i.e., the highest CO generating intersection within the “hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared. In contrast, an adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot,” would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-27 to 4.2-28)
The ambient 1-hr and 8-hr CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated to be 1.9 ppm and 1.5 ppm, respectively (data from Central Orange County station for 2021). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the proposed Project were ten times the traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection, due to the on-going improvements in ambient air quality and vehicular emissions controls, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO “hot spot” at any study area intersections. As noted above, only 0.7 ppm were attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at one of the busiest intersections in the SCAB. Therefore, if these traffic volumes were multiplied by ten times, it could be expected that the CO attributable to traffic would increase tenfold as well, resulting in 7 ppm – even if this were added to either the 1-hour or 8-hour CO concentrations within the Project study area, this would result in 9.1 ppm and 8.5 ppm for the 1-hr and 8-hr timeframes, respectively. Neither of which would exceed the applicable 1-hr standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hr standard of 9 ppm. As discussed further below, the Project would not result in an increase of traffic in these amounts. (DEIR, p. 4.2-28)
Furthermore, and to inform this analysis, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) concluded that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph) - or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact. The busiest intersection evaluated in South Coast AQMD’s 2003 AQMP was that at Wilshire Blvd and Veteran Ave., which had AM/PM traffic volumes of 8,062 vph and 7,719 vph respectively. (DEIR, p.
4.2-28)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 25
The highest trips on a segment of road for the Project operation is the intersection of Driveway 2 and Lampson Avenue with traffic volumes of 91 vph during AM peak hours and 133 vph during PM peak hours. As such, Project-related traffic volumes are less than the traffic volumes identified in the 2003 AQMP. The proposed Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot spot” either in the context of the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot study or based on representative BAAQMD CO threshold considerations. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would result in lessthan-significant impacts related to the creation of CO Hot Spots. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp.
4.2-28 to 4.2-29)
Potential Health Impact of the Project
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not exceed the South Coast AQMD localized significance thresholds for assessing localized health impacts from criteria air pollutants during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction. Further, Project traffic would not create or result in a CO “hotspot.” Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations due to operation of the Project, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-28 to 4.2-29)
3.3.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses (livestock and farming), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, diaries, and fiberglass molding facilities. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. (DEIR, p. 4.2-29) Construction
Potential odor sources associated with the Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coating during construction activities. The Project would be subject to standard construction requirements, including the use of low-VOC architectural coatings as required by South Coast AQMD Rule 1113, Table of Standards; and compliance with South Coast AQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which requires that a person shall not discharge air contaminants or other materials that would cause health or safety hazards to any considerable number of persons or the public.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 26
Compliance with these standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and thus would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.2-29) Operation
Potential sources of operational odors generated by the Project would include temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse). Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with current solid waste regulations. The proposed would also be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the Project operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.2-29)
3.3.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to air quality.
Finding
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to air quality are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.7 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to air quality; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
With exception of the issue of odors, the cumulative study area for air quality includes the City of Los Alamitos and the SCAB. The SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for State standards of ozone (O3), Fine Particulate Matter (10 microns or smaller) (PM10), and Fine Particulate Matter (2.5 microns or smaller) (PM2.5). The region is also designated as a nonattainment area for federal standards of O3 and PM2.5. Cumulative growth in population and vehicle use could inhibit efforts to improve regional air quality and attain ambient air quality standards. Thus, with the exception of odors, the setting for this cumulative analysis consists of the SCAB and associated growth and development anticipated in the air basin. For the issue of odors, the cumulative study area includes the Project site and lands in the immediate vicinity to the Project site, as odors diminish rapidly with distance from the source. (DEIR, p. 4.2-29)
According to South Coast AQMD, projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the South Coast AQMD to be cumulatively considerable. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.
As shown in DEIR Table 4.2-5, Overall Construction Emission Summary, construction activities associated with the Project would not exceed South Coast AQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutants.
Therefore, impacts associated with Project-related construction emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 4.2-30)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 27
Similarly, as shown in DEIR Table 4.2-6, Summary of Peak Operational Emissions, Project operationsource emissions would not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants. Therefore, impacts associated with the Project-related operational emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 4.2-30) As shown in DEIR Table 4.2-7, Localized Construction-Source Emissions, emissions would not exceed the South Coast AQMD Localized Threshold for CO, Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), PM10, or PM2.5.
Pursuant to the South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds, projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant impact; therefore, the Project’s emissions during construction would be less than significant on a direct and cumulative basis. (DEIR, p. 4.2-30) The Project does not include uses that generate stationary sources, or that attract mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site. Therefore, the Project would have a less-thancumulatively considerable LST impact during long-term operation. Additionally, the Project would have no potential to result in or contribute to a CO “Hot Spot.” Accordingly, impacts associated with CO “Hot Spots” would be less than cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 4.2-30) Cumulatively considerable odor impacts could occur if the Project in combination with other nearby projects resulted in combined construction- or operational-related odor impacts. However, the Project’s compliance with South Coast AQMD Rules 1113 and 402 would ensure that the Project does not generate substantial odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people during construction and operation. Additionally, there are no nearby related projects that generate substantial odors that could combine to create a cumulatively considerable odor impact. Therefore, impacts associated with odors would be less than cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 4.2-30) The Project includes the following Project Design Features (PDFs) that serve to reduce the Project’s impacts. This will also be included as a Conditional of Approval for the Project.
PDF AQ-1 The Project will utilize Tier 4 Interim construction equipment during construction activities.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for Biological Resources Thresholds b, c, e, and f do not result in significant impacts.
Findings are discussed below.
3.4.1 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 28
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 4.3.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Temporary Construction-Related Activities
The Project site contains no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thus, construction-related activities would not result in significant impacts on any riparian or special-status vegetation alliances. (DEIR, p. 4.3-32) The Project site does not support natural vegetation communities, only non-native ornamental vegetation. The development of the proposed Project would remove 5.97 acres of Developed/Ornamental lands and 6.40 acres of Disturbed/Ornamental lands. Removal of 12.37 acres of developed/ornamental and disturbed/ornamental lands would not result in a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive communities. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.3-32)
Long-Term Operation
The Project site contains no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Project site does not support natural vegetation communities, only nonnative ornamental vegetation. Long-term operation would not result in significant impacts on any riparian or special-status vegetation alliances. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.3-32)
3.4.2 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not 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. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 4.3.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Project site does not contain any wetlands as defined under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) or by the State of California. Based on the results of the Jurisdictional Delineation prepared by Glen
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 29
Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA), the shallow concrete drainage ditch does not meet the Corps’ definition of wetland or other waters of the U.S. because the concrete feature has no soils or vegetation. In addition, the area is excluded from Corps jurisdiction by rule under Section 328.3(b)(3) of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations as “Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water”. In addition to the concrete feature having no wetland characteristics, it also does not carry relatively permanent flow. (DEIR, p. 4.3-32)
Additionally, the concrete feature is not a wetland under the State Water Regional Control Board (SWRCB)’s definition, and the feature also would not be considered a water of the state. In particular, the concrete feature is not a wetland under the SWRCB’s definition which states: (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.
The area comprising the concrete feature lacks soil which is assumed in the term “saturation” since concrete cannot become saturated. Moreover, the SWRCB does not consider artificial features to be waters of the state if they were constructed and currently used and maintained primarily for the detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program (Procedures, Section II.3.d.iii).
The concrete ditch serves these purposes of accommodating stormwater runoff. (DEIR, p. 4.3-33) In addition, the concrete feature is not a “stream” in accordance with the definitions of a stream in the California Fish and Game Code as the drainage feature does not exhibit a bed, bank, or channel. The feature is an approximately two-inch-deep linearly shaped concrete slab that support no vegetation. As such, the concrete feature is not subject to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code Section 1602. (DEIR, p. 4.3-33) Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands during both construction and operational activities. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required. (DEIR, p. 4.3-33)
3.4.3 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 30
Substantial Evidence
On April 18, 2022, the City of Los Alamitos adopted a Parkway Tree Master Plan as part of its Urban Forest Program. This plan addresses City parkway trees. There are currently no parkway trees along the Project’s frontage. The Project would not result in an impact to the City parkway trees. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required. (DEIR, p. 4.3-34)
3.4.4 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold f; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
The Project site is not subject to any Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required. (DEIR, p. 4.3-34)
3.4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The temporary direct and/or indirect impacts of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources. Findings
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to biological resources are discussed in detail in DEIR Section 4.3.7. The City finds that development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(1), “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects creating related impacts”. The phrase “Related projects” refers to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, which would have similar impacts to the proposed project. (DEIR, p. 4.3-34)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 31
The Project site does not contain any special-status plant species nor does the site have the potential to support such species. Therefore, the Project would not impact any special-status plant and, thus, the Project would have no potential to contribute to a cumulative impact to special-status plant species.
The Project site currently supports approximately just over four acres of open field, previously consisting of maintained turf, that may be used occasionally by raptor species for foraging.
Nevertheless, the site does not constitute regionally important foraging habitat for raptors, given the large range (a few to many squire miles depending on the species) required by raptors and limited size of the potential foraging area. Thus, the loss of approximately four acres of potential foraging raptor habitat would not be a significant impact. Additionally, the adjacent and surrounding areas to the Project site including Arbor Park, Navy golf course, Old Ranch Country Club, JFTB and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station provide larger (approximately over 5,000 acres combined nearly all of which is undeveloped and includes agricultural lands and wetland habitats) and generally better quality raptor foraging habitat associated with lack of developed areas. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-34 to 4.3-35) The Project site and surrounding areas consist of mostly developed lands. The Project site is developed and is adjacent to residential and other urban developed areas. An approximately 100-acre solar farm is currently under construction within the JFTB. Although undeveloped land, the site for the solar farm on the JFTB is disturbed with limited habitat capacity or potential. Other future developments relevant to this analysis and within the area, depicted on DEIR Figure 4.0-1, Cumulative Location Development Map, include LA 1-4 in Los Alamitos, GG 1-4 in Garden Grove, and SB 1-7 in Seal Beach. These projects are already developed or are proposed for redevelopment and are part of the existing built environment. (DEIR, p. 4.3-35)
Two sensitive (State watch list) animal species, Cooper’s hawk and wintering merlin were detected onsite but would not be subject to significant impacts. No sensitive plant species or sensitive habitats were detected onsite. Two CDFW special-status bat species, the western red bat and western yellow bat were detected acoustically offsite within the Navy golf course but did not roost onsite based on focused emergent surveys on the Project site. The Project would not result in an impact to specialstatus bat species on a project-specific or cumulative level, because the Project site supports limited potential roosting habitat onsite for these two species, the Project will incorporate larger sized box tree species as a project design feature (including the western sycamore and cottonwood trees) that foliage specialist bats prefer and will plant the trees on the fringes of the development adjacent to current open space areas. (DEIR, p. 4.3-35)
One CDFW special-status bird species, the Vermilion flycatcher was not detected on site but is known to breed adjacent to the Project site and environs. The Project will incorporate larger sized box tree species (including the western sycamore) as a project design feature and will plant these trees on the fringes of the development, adjacent to Arbor Park and the Navy golf course (PDF B-1). Additionally, as shown in DEIR Figure 3-18, Landscape Plan, and pursuant to PDF B-2, the Project will plant approximately 441 trees onsite (excluding shrubs and ground cover), including the western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), paperbark melaleuca (Melelauca quinquenervia), olive (Olive sp.), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), Crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), Brisbane box (Lophostemon
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 32
confertus), Australian willow (Geijera parviflora), Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), yew pine (Podocarpus macrophyllus) and other species. When mature, these tree species are expected to provide nesting habitat for numerous nesting bird species, with some potential for the Vermilion flycatcher.
Therefore, with the project design features incorporated, no cumulative impacts to these species would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.3-35)
Additionally, other developments would be subjected to regulations related to biological resources such as Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), California Fish and Game Codes, California Endangered Species Act (CESA), Clean Water Act, and other statutes that protect biological resources. (DEIR, p.
4.3-36)
Given the surrounding built environment, the fact that unbuilt nearby properties include better habitat for species located in the area, the Project would not result in any significant impacts to biological resources, and redevelopment would occur on an already built site; the Project would not result in a cumulative impact to biological resources, nor would any incremental effect of the Project be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 4.3-36)
The Project would not impact any riparian or sensitive natural communities; therefore, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to these resources. (DEIR, p. 4.3-36)
The Project would not impact any State-protected or federally-protected wetlands. Accordingly, the Project has no potential to contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to State or federally protected wetlands. (DEIR, p. 4.3-36)
The Project would remove ornamental trees on site that have the potential to support nesting birds protected by federal and State regulations. The Project would not result in the removal of trees off-site or in the surrounding area and would therefore not cumulatively contribute to impacts to nesting birds.
Additionally, related projects are required to comply with the MBTA (Mitigation Measure MM 4.3- 2), which protects nesting birds. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to nesting birds. (DEIR, p. 4.3-36)
The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Other development projects in the cumulative study area would be required to comply with applicable local policies and/or ordinances related to the protection of biological resources as a standard condition of review/approval. Because the Project and cumulative development would be prohibited from violating applicable, local policies or ordinances related to the protection of biological resources, a cumulatively considerable impact would not occur. (DEIR, p. 4.3-36) The Project site is not located within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
Because there is no conservation plan applicable to the Project impact area, there is no potential for
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 33
the Project to contribute to the violation of a conservation plan. No cumulative impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.3-36)
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for Cultural Resources Threshold a does not result in significant impacts and related findings are discussed below.
3.5.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.5 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
Implementation of the Project would require demolition of all structures that are located on the Project site under existing conditions. Because the existing building on site was constructed in 1972, a historical resources evaluation was prepared by LSA Associatesto determine the historical significance of the property based on California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) criteria. (DEIR, p. 4.4- 14)
Criterion 1: Is it associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States? The Southwest Regional Laboratory was part of a post-WWII shift by the federal government to actively support R&D but was not at the forefront of this trend and does not appear to have made any significant contributions to it. Although the 1972 building was the first non-campus facility constructed solely for educational research and development in the nation, no evidence was found that it started a trend for off-campus facilities or that such a trend would be an important historical event. The Project also used an experimental fast-tracking construction process that was intended to be a model for future similar projects, but no evidence was found that this model was employed in subsequent similar projects. For these reasons, the building is not significant under this criterion. (DEIR, p. 4.14-15) Criterion 2: Is it associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history? No evidence was found indicating that the building is directly associated with the lives of any person or persons important to local, State, or national history. It is not significant under this criterion. (DEIR, p. 4.14-15)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 34
Criterion 3: Does it embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method or construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values? The existing building retains a high degree of integrity and embodies many of the characteristics of the Corporate International style such as the boxy form, flat roof with no eave, smooth exterior wall surfaces lacking ornamentation and decoration, and the flush metal-framed windows arranged in horizontal bands. It is a nice example of a comparatively modest Corporate International style building, but it does not express the design concepts of the Corporate International style more fully than the many other buildings of its type. Because of the prevalence of outstanding examples of the style, the Southwest Regional Laboratory building does not rise to a level beyond the ordinary. Although it was designed by the master architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), it is not one of the best or most representative examples of the firm’s highly awarded work. SOM is credited with solidifying the aesthetic of the Corporate International style. The firm, which has won over 1,700 awards, is especially known for their Corporate International style skyscrapers. Noteworthy historic-period buildings by SOM include the Manhattan House (1951), the National Register-listed Lever House (1952), Inland Steel building (1956), One Chase Manhattan Plaza (1961), One Wilshire (1966), John Hancock Center (1969), and Willis Tower (1973). The design and scale of the Southwest Regional Laboratory building does not reach the same level of exceptionalism as these buildings or many others designed by SOM and the firm does not list the Southwest Regional Laboratory building among its many noteworthy and influential designs. The building does not possess high artistic values because it does not express the design concepts of the Corporate International style more fully than other buildings of its type. For these reasons, it is not significant under this criterion. (DEIR, p. 4.14-15) Criterion 4: Has it yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation?
This building was constructed in 1972 using common methods and materials and is unlikely to yield any important information to the history of the local area, California, or the nation. It is not significant under this criterion. (DEIR, p. 4.14-16)
Summary
The existing building is not eligible for listing in the CRHR under any criteria and therefore does not qualify as a historical resource as defined by CEQA. No evidence was found that the property has any important associations with significant historical trends, events, or people, and it does not appear to have the potential to yield important historical information. Although it retains a high degree of architectural integrity and was designed by the master architectural firm SOM, it is not a particularly distinctive example of the Corporate International style or an important example of SOM’s work.
Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.14-16)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 35
3.5.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to cultural resources for Thresholds a through c.
Findings
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to cultural resources are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to cultural resources; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The potential for implementation of the Project to contribute to cumulative impacts to historical resources was analyzed in conjunction with other projects located in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The Project site does not contain historical resources, and there are no related projects in the immediate vicinity that would have an effect on historical resources. Therefore, implementation of the Project has no potential to contribute towards a cumulative impact to significant historical sites and/or resources. (DEIR, p. 4.4-17)
As discussed, implementation of the Project would not impact any known archaeological resources and the likelihood of uncovering previously unknown archaeological resources during Project construction is low due to past grading activities associated with the existing development. Impacts to previously undiscovered subsurface archeological resources are typically site specific from ground disturbing activities at the site and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts unless resources are identified immediately adjacent to the Project site. Nonetheless, the potential exists that a significant archaeological resource could be discovered during grading into native soils. There are no related projects in the vicinity that would affect archaeological resources. It should be noted that site-specific archeological resource investigations would be required for other projects before the City would permit ground disturbances or demolition or substantial alteration of existing structures. Such investigations would include some degree of surface-level surveying and identify resources on the affected project sites that are or appear to be eligible for listing on the national or state registers for historic resources. Such investigations would also recommend mitigation measures to protect and preserve cultural resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.4-17 to 4.4-18)
Mandatory compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq., would assure that all future development projects within the region treat human remains that may be uncovered during development activities in accordance with prescribed, respectful and appropriate practices, thereby avoiding significant cumulative impacts. (DEIR, p. 4.4-18)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 36
3.6 ENERGY
Project impacts for Energy Thresholds a and b do not result in significant impacts. Findings are discussed below.
3.6.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
Construction
The Project’s construction process would consume electrical energy and fuel. Project-related construction would represent a short-term energy demand and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of electricity or fuel resources. Construction of the Project is expected to commence in January 2024 and would last through April 2027. Project construction-related activities are estimated to consume approximately 593,784 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity and approximately 188,030 gallons of diesel fuel. Construction worker trips for full construction of the Project would result in the estimated fuel consumption of 90,130 gallons of fuel. Additionally, fuel consumption from construction vendor trips will total approximately 30,928 gallons. Detailed calculations are provided in subsection 4.3 of the Project’s Energy Analysis (refer to Technical Appendix E of the DEIR). (DEIR, p. 4.5-7)
Construction equipment fuel use would be typical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive, and Project construction equipment would conform to the applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards. In 2014, CARB adopted the nation's first regulation aimed at cleaning up off-road construction equipment such as bulldozers, graders, and backhoes. These requirements ensure fleets gradually turnover the oldest and dirtiest equipment to newer, cleaner models and prevent fleets from adding older, dirtier equipment. Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable CARB regulation regarding retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of diesel off-road construction equipment. Additionally, CARB has adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling in order to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and other Toxic Air Contaminants. Compliance with anti-idling and emissions regulations would result in a more efficient use of construction-related energy and the minimization or elimination of wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Idling restrictions and the use of newer engines and equipment would result in less fuel combustion and energy consumption. (DEIR, p. 4.5-7)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 37
Use of materials in bulk reduces energy demands associated with preparation and transport of construction materials as well as the transport and disposal of construction waste and solid waste in general. (DEIR, p. 4.5-8)
Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel- powered equipment and are enforced by the Air Resources Board (ARB). Additionally, given the cost of fuel, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction. (DEIR, p. 4.5-8)
Due to the temporary nature of construction and the financial incentives for developers and contractors to use energy-consuming resources in an efficient manner, the construction phase of the proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, construction-related impacts related to electricity and fuel consumption would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.5-8)
Operation
Energy consumption in support of or related to Project operations would include transportation fuel demands (fuel consumed by passenger car and truck vehicles accessing the Project site), fuel demands from operational equipment, and operational energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities). (DEIR, p. 4.5-8) Transportation Energy
The estimated transportation energy demands are summarized on DEIR Table 4.5-1, Total ProjectGenerated Traffic Annual Fuel Consumption. The Project would result in 9,655,902 annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 353,819 gallons of fuel. (DEIR, p.
4.5-8)
Fuel would be provided by current and future commercial vendors. Trip generation and VMT generated by the Project are consistent with other residential, park, and commercial uses of similar scale and configuration, as reflected respectively in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Ed., 2021); and CalEEMod. (DEIR, p. 4.5-9) The Project is located on an infill site that is surrounded by existing urban uses; the existing transportation facilities and infrastructure would provide future residents, visitors, and employees associated with the Project access to a mix of land uses in close proximity to the Project, thus further reducing fuel consumption demand. Additionally, the Project will also be providing a community electric vehicle for use by residents of the affordable housing component (PDF-GHG-3) as well as providing parking and EV infrastructure (PDF-GHG-4) that would further promote fuel efficient vehicles. For these reasons, operational-related transportation fuel consumption would not result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 38
resources. Therefore, the operational impact related to vehicle fuel consumption would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.5-9)
Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. The location of the Project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. The Project would implement sidewalks, facilitating and encouraging pedestrian access. Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access would reduce VMT and associated energy consumption. In compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code and City requirements, the Project would promote the use of bicycles as an alternative means of transportation by providing short-term and/or long-term bicycle parking accommodations. As such, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-9 to 4.5-10)
Operational Energy Demands
Project building operations would result in the consumption of electricity, which would be supplied to the Project by Southern California Edison (SCE). Building operations would involve energy consumption for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling, refrigeration, lighting, and electronics. As summarized on DEIR Table 4.5-2, Project Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary, operations for the Project would result in approximately 1,131,132 kWh of electricity annually and would offset the demand through the use of on-site photovoltaic solar power which is expected to generate 1,229,520 kWh of electricity annually (PDFGHG-1) – which results in a net electricity demand of 98,388 kWh/year of electricity. No natural gas will be used as the Project will be all electric (PDF-GHG-2). (DEIR, p. 4.5-10) Future development projects would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the California Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. For example, the Title 24 Lighting Power Density requirements define the maximum wattage of lighting that can be used in a building based on its square footage. Title 24 standards are widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards, would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. The Project would incorporate the PDFs GHG-1 through GHG-4. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.5-10) CEQA Guidelines Appendix F
An analysis of the factors identified in CEQA Guidelines Appendix F is provided in DEIR Table 4.5- 3, CEQA Guidelines Appendix F Energy Analysis. As shown, the Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 39
resources, during Project construction or operation; and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.5-11)
The Project includes the following Project Design Features (PDFs) that serve to reduce the Project’s impacts.
PDF GHG-1 The Project will include solar photovoltaic panels with the capability to generate up to 1,229,520 kWh/annually.
PDF GHG-2 The Project will be 100% electric and will not include natural gas.
PDF GHG-3 The Project will provide a community electric vehicle for the affordable housing component for residents to drive short distance trips to the local grocery store.
PDF GHG-4 The Project’s parking areas will be designed to provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. At minimum, the number of EV charging stations will equal the Tier 2 Residential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Section A4.106.8.2.1.
3.6.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
The following section analyzes whether the Project would conflict with or obstruct applicable plans and regulations for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Construction
The Project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction equipment, and the use of electricity for temporary buildings, lighting, and other sources. California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, limit idling from both on- road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. The Project would be required to comply with these regulations. There are no policies at the local level applicable to energy conservation specific to the construction phase.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 40
energy efficiency; and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.5- 13)
Operation
California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) establishes a goal of renewable energy for local providers to be 44 percent by 2040. Similarly, the State is promoting renewable energy targets to meet the 2022 Scoping Plan greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The Project would result in approximately 1,131,132 kWh of electricity demand annually and would offset the demand through the use of on-site photovoltaic solar power which is expected to generate 1,229,520 kWh of electricity annually – which results in a net electricity demand of 98,388 kWh/year of electricity. No natural gas will be used as the Project will be all electric. (DEIR, p. 4.5-13)
The Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the California Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Title 24 standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. For example, the Title 24 Lighting Power Density requirements define the maximum wattage of lighting that can be used in a building based on its square footage. Title 24 standards are widely regarded as the most advanced energy efficiency standards, would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. Additionally, the Project would incorporate project design features PDFs GHG-1 through GHG-4. (DEIR, p. 4.5-13) City of Los Alamitos General Plan
The Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan is shown in DEIR Table 4.5-4, General Plan Consistency Analysis. As shown, the Project would not result in any inconsistency with any of the applicable General Plan goals and policies. (DEIR, p. 4.5-14) Compliance with the aforementioned mandatory measures would ensure that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.5-14)
3.6.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to energy.
Findings
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to energy are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.7 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to energy; therefore, no mitigation is required.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 41
Substantial Evidence
Cumulative impacts result if the Project, along with cumulative projects, taken together could result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. The areas considered for cumulative impacts to electricity and natural gas supplies are the service areas of the SCE and SoCalGas, respectively, described above in Section 4.5.1. (DEIR, p. 4.5-14)
The Project, related projects, and additional forecasted growth in SCE’s service area would cumulatively increase the demand for electricity supplies and infrastructure capacity. As with the Project, during construction and operation, other future development projects would be expected to incorporate energy conservation features and comply with applicable regulations including California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and state energy standards under Title 24, which would contribute to minimizing wasteful energy consumption. As such, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of electricity would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.5-15) Buildout of the Project, related projects, and additional forecasted growth would cumulatively increase the demand for transportation-related fuel in the state and region. As with the Project, other future development projects would be expected to reduce VMT by encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation and other design features that promote VMT reductions. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of transportation fuel would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.5-15)
As indicated above, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a federal or State plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Project and other new development projects within the cumulative study area would be required to comply with all of the same applicable federal, State, and local regulatory measures aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption and the conservation of energy.
Accordingly, the Project would not cause or contribute to a significant cumulatively considerable impact related to conflicts with a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (DEIR, p. 4.5-15)
3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Project impacts for Geology and Soils Thresholds b and e do not result in significant impacts. Findings are discussed below.
3.7.1 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 42
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in Section 4.6.5 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Construction-Related Activities
Redevelopment of the Project site would result in the demolition of all structures on-site and removal of ornamental landscaping. Grading and construction activities would occur that would expose and disturb soils that are currently covered by impervious surfaces and ground covering. Disturbed soils would be subject to potential erosion during rainfall events or high winds due to the removal of stabilizing vegetation and building materials (e.g., existing concrete foundations) and exposure of these erodible materials to wind and water. (DEIR, p. 4.6-9)
Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-9 to 4.6-10)
Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project Applicant will be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution – including erosion/sedimentation – is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. In addition, the Project would be required to implement erosion and dust control measures pursuant to South Coast AQMD Rule 403 to minimize water- and windborne erosion. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and the erosion control and dust control measures would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from Project-related construction activities. Therefore, impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p.
4.6-10)
Long-Term Operational Activities
Following construction, wind and water erosion on the Project site would be minimized, as the areas disturbed during construction would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces (i.e., building
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 43
foundations and paved parking areas). Minimal areas of exposed soil would occur in the Project site’s landscaped areas. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10)
The Project Applicant is required to prepare and submit to the City a Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The Preliminary WQMP is appended to the DEIR (Technical Appendix I2) and an updated report was included in the FEIR (Attachment E) and has been submitted for City approval. The WQMP is required to identify and implement an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce or eliminate discharge to surface water from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. Adherence to the requirements noted in the Project’s required WQMP (DEIR Technical Appendix I2; FEIR Attachment E), and LAMC Chapter 8.44, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Controls as explained in Section 4.9, would ensure that the Project’s potential erosion impacts during operation would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10)
3.7.2 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not 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.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in Section 4.6.5 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Project would connect to the existing wastewater system. The Project would not utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.6-12)
3.7.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to geology and soils.
Findings
Potential cumulative geology and soils impacts of the Project related to risk of loss due to earthquakes, substantial loss of topsoil, unstable soil, expansive soil or septic tanks are discussed in detail in Section
4.6.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to these topics; therefore, no mitigation is required.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 44
Substantial Evidence
All potential Project-related direct and indirect impacts related to geology and soils would be addressed through mandatory compliance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), LAMC, other standard regulatory requirements, and the site-specific recommendations identified in the Geotechnical Report contained within Technical Appendix F1 of the DEIR. (DEIR, p. 4.6-13) With the exception of erosion hazards, potential hazardous effects related to geologic and soil conditions addressed under Thresholds a, c, d, and e are unique to the Project site and inherently restricted to the specific property proposed for development. That is, issues including fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils would involve effects to (and not from) a proposed development project, are specific to conditions on the subject property, and are not influenced or exacerbated by the geologic and/or soil hazards that may occur on other, off-site properties. Because of the site-specific nature of these potential hazards and the measures to address them, there would be no direct or indirect connection to similar potential issues or cumulative effects to or from other properties. (DEIR, p. 4.6-13)
As discussed under Threshold b, regulatory requirements mandate that the Project incorporates design measures during construction and long-term operation to ensure that significant erosion impacts do not occur. Other development projects in the vicinity of the Project site would be required to comply with the same regulatory requirements as the Project to preclude substantial adverse water and wind erosion impacts. Because the Project and other projects within the cumulative study area would be subject to similar mandatory regulatory requirements to control erosion hazards during construction and longterm operation, cumulative impacts associated with wind and water erosion hazards would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-13)
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development in the vicinity of the Project site that have a potential for uncovering paleontological resources. Generally, impacts relating to paleontological resources are site-specific and addressed on a site-by-site basis. Therefore, as discussed under Threshold f, while there is potential for an impact on a specific site, the impact would not ordinarily extend beyond the site or the immediate surrounding area. Additionally, Mitigation Measures MM 4.6- 1 through MM 4.6-2 would ensure Project-specific paleontological impacts are reduced to less than significant. There could be circumstances in which a paleontological resource extends over more than one property. Therefore, a cumulative impact could occur to paleontological resources if grading on the Project site in combination with grading activities at an adjacent cumulative project would impact a paleontological resource. However, there are no adjacent cumulative related projects that could potentially combine with the Project to result in impacts to unknown paleontological resources that may lie in the subsurface. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts related to paleontological resources. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-13 to 4.6-14)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 45
3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Project impacts for Greenhouse Gas Emissions do not result in significant impacts and related findings are discussed below.
3.8.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
Construction
For construction phase Project emissions, Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHGs) are quantified and amortized over the life of the Project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the Project, the South Coast AQMD recommends calculating the total GHG emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year Project life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. As such, construction emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. The amortized construction emissions are presented in DEIR Table 4.7-3, Amortized Annual Construction Emissions. (DEIR, p. 4.7-26) Operation
The annual GHG emissions associated with the operations of the Project would result in direct and indirect emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and Nitrous Oxide (N2O), and would not generate other GHGs of sufficient quantity to affect the analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on CO2, CH4, and N2O. (DEIR, p. 4.7-26)
Direct Project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from energy source, water usage, and solid waste generation. GHG emissions are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels; these emissions are considered to be indirect emissions. Electricity usage associated with the Project was calculated by CalEEMod using default parameters. Pursuant to project design feature PDF-GHG1, Project will include the installation of solar, which is expected to generate approximately 1,229,520 kWh per year. (DEIR, p. 4.7-27)
Project-related GHG emissions were quantified with CalEEMod, which relies upon vehicle trip rates and Project-specific land use data to calculate emissions. As shown on DEIR Table 4.7-4, Project GHG Emissions, construction and operation of the Project would generate a 2,757.11 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr); the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD screening
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 46
threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.7-27)
The Project includes the following PDFs that serve to reduce the Project’s impacts.
PDF GHG-1 The Project will include solar photovoltaic with the capability to generate up to 1,229,520 kWh/annually.
PDF GHG-2 The Project will be 100% electric and would not include natural gas.
PDF GHG-3 A community electric vehicle for the affordable housing component shall be provided for residents to drive short distance trips to the local grocery store.
PDF GHG-4 The Project’s parking areas will be designed to provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. At minimum, the number of EV charging stations will equal the Tier 2 Residential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Section A4.106.8.2.1.
3.8.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a framework to determine Project-level consistency when there is not a CEQA-qualified Climate Action Plan (CAP) available to tier from. CARB recommends that the first approach for determining whether a proposed residential or mixed-use residential development would align with the State’s climate goals is to examine whether the project includes key project attributes that reduce operational GHG emissions while simultaneously advancing fair housing. The 2022 Scoping Plan goes on to note that Projects that can demonstrate consistency with the priority areas identified on Table 3 Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs from the 2022 Scoping Plan would be aligned with the State’s priority GHG reduction strategies and would be deemed consistent with the Scoping Plan. As such, these Projects are considered to be consistent with the Scoping Plan or other plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHGs.
Therefore, the GHG emissions associated with such projects would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact under CEQA. (DEIR, p. 4.7-28)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 47
The Project’s consistency with the Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs from the 2022 Scoping Plan is summarized in DEIR Table 4.7-5, Project Consistency With 2022 Scoping Plan Key Residential And Mixed-Use Project Attributes That Reduce GHGs. As shown, the Project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan’s key residential and mixed-use project attributes to reduce GHGs. As such, the Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan, such as California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 and Energy Code. The Project would not have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Accordingly, impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.7-28)
3.8.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to greenhouse gases.
Findings
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to GHG emissions are discussed in detail in Section
4.7.7 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to these topics; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG emissions, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis consistent with the requirements outlined in CEQA Guidelines 15064(h)(3). As discussed, implementation of the Project would comply with the 2022 Scoping Plan and would not result in net annual emissions that exceed the GHG emissions significance threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/yr. Therefore, Project-related GHG emissions and their contribution to global climate change would not be cumulatively considerable, and GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-31)
3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Project impacts for Hazards and Hazardous Materials Thresholds a through g do not result in significant impacts. Findings are discussed below.
3.9.1 THRESHOLDS A AND THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement (Threshold a): The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Impact Statement (Threshold b): The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 48
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a and Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section
4.8.5 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a or Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
Implementation of the Project would result in the demolition of the existing building and surface parking lot and the construction and long-term operation of 246 residential units. In the event that any hazards or hazardous materials were to be present on the Project site or any hazardous materials were to be used or stored on the Project site during construction or long-term operation, the Project’s activities would have the potential to expose workers or residents on the site, the public, and/or the environment to a hazardous environmental condition. An evaluation of this potential is provided below. (DEIR, p. 4.8-15)
Potential Hazards in Demolition Materials
The use of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) (a known carcinogen) and lead-based paint (LBP) (a known toxic), both of which are considered hazardous materials, was a common building construction method prior to 1978 and may be present in the existing building. All proposed demolition activities would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local hazardous materials regulation, which includes mandatory provisions for the safe removal, transport, and disposal of PCBs, ACMs and LBP. (DEIR, p. 4.8-16)
Additionally, the Project is required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions) and Title 17 of the CCR, Division 1, Chapter 8: Accreditation, Certification, and Work Practices for Lead-Based Paint and Lead Hazards applies. South Coast AQMD Rule 1403 establishes survey requirements, notification, and work practice requirements to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating during building renovation and demolition activities. Assuming that ACMs are present in the existing structure located on-site, then Rule 1403 requires notification of the South Coast AQMD prior to commencing any demolition activities. Rule 1403 also sets forth specific procedures for the removal of asbestos and requires that an on-site representative trained in the requirements of Rule 1403 be present during the stripping, removing, handling, or disturbing of ACM. Mandatory compliance with the provisions of Rule 1403 would ensure that construction-related grading, clearing, and demolition activities do not expose construction workers or nearby sensitive receptors to significant health risks associated with ACMs. Because future development on the Project site would be required to comply with AQMD Rule 1403 during demolition activities, impacts due to ACMs would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-16) (DEIR, p. 4.8-16)
Title 17, CCR, Division 1, Chapter 8: Accreditation, Certification and Work Practices for Lead-Based Paint and Lead Hazards, defines and regulates lead-based paint. Any detectable amount of lead is regulated. During the demolition of the existing structure, there is a potential for exposing construction workers to health hazards associated with lead. The Project would be required to comply with Title 17, CCR, Division 1, Chapter 8, which includes requirements such as employer-provided training, air
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 49
monitoring, protective clothing, respirators, and handwashing facilities. Mandatory compliance with these requirements would ensure that construction workers and the public are not exposed to significant LBP health hazards or upset during demolition and/or during transport of demolition waste to an appropriate disposal facility and would ensure that impacts related to LBP remain less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-16)
Moreover, EFI prepared a Phase II ESA for the Project site dated September 22, 2022, based on a geological survey and soil sampling conducted on August 16, 2022. Select soil samples were collected and analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline (TPHg), TPH as diesel (TPHd), TPH as oil (TPHo), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PCBs, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), arsenic, and lead (Pb). Analytical results for PCBs indicated concentrations were not detected above the laboratory reporting limits in any of the soil samples analyzed (refer to Page 4.8-5 of the Draft EIR). However, caulk containing PCBs were used in buildings in the 1950s through the 1970s and may be present in the existing building. Therefore, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local hazardous materials regulation, which includes mandatory provisions for the safe removal, transport, and disposal of PCBs including Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 761. (DEIR, p. 4.8-16, as revised in Section 4.0 of the FEIR) There is also a potential for mercury containing products at the existing buildings. When a mercurycontaining product breaks and the mercury is released, the exposed mercury can evaporate and become an invisible, odorless toxic vapor. Mercury-containing products exhibit hazardous characteristics as described in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, chapter 11 and are classified as a type of hazardous waste called “universal waste.” Universal wastes are hazardous wastes that pose a lower immediate risk to people and the environment when handled properly. Due to this lower risk, universal wastes can be handled and transported under more relaxed rules compared to other hazardous wastes.
The Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local hazardous materials regulations including California Health and Safety Code Section 25214.8.16 to prevent mercury releases. (DEIR, p. 4.8-16, as revised in Section 4.0 of the FEIR) Compliance with the above regulatory requirements would ensure that removal of ACMs, or LBPs, PCBs, or mercury would result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.8-16, as revised in Section 4.0 of the FEIR) On-Site Conditions and Impacted Soils
Based on a review of regulatory databases and a site reconnaissance, the Project site does not contain any hazards, nor is the Project site affected by any off-site hazards. The Phase I ESA and Limited Phase II ESA identified no Recognized Environmental Condition (RECs), historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), or controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) during the course of the assessment. The potential chemicals of concern detected in the soil in the areas assessed do not indicate that a significant subsurface chemical release occurred. The detected concentrations found during the investigation are considered to be de minimis for the proposed residential redevelopment. Therefore, past and present uses do not represent a significant
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 50
environmental concern for the Project site. As a result, implementation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-16 to 4.8-17) Potential Temporary Construction-Related Activities
Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would be operated on the Project site during demolition and construction activities. This heavy equipment likely would be fueled and maintained by petroleum‐based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which are considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. (DEIR, p. 4.8-17)
This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the Santa Ana RWQCB. With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.8-17)
Impact Analysis for Long-Term Operation
The long-term operation of the proposed Project would not include any components associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials beyond those typical of a residential development, which would be conducted in accordance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations.
Operation of the proposed residential uses would involve the use of small quantities of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as paints, household cleaners, fertilizers, and pesticides. With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Based on the foregoing, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project are regarded as less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.8-17)
3.9.2 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 51
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in Section 4.8.5 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Project site is not located within a one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. As discussed under Thresholds a and b, construction of the Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations and would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Past and present uses do not represent a significant environmental concern for the Project site. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the South Coast AQMD, EPA, DTSC, and the Santa Ana RWQCB.
Operation of the proposed residential uses would involve the use of small quantities of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes, such as paints, household cleaners, fertilizers, and pesticides. The nearest existing school to the Project site is the Montessori Greenhouse School, located approximately one mile northeast of the Project site. Accordingly, the Project has no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-17 to 4.8-18)
3.9.3 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.5 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires DTSC, the State Department of Health Services, State Water Resources Control Board, and the State Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to maintain a list of hazardous materials sites that fall within specific, defined categories. The Project site is not located on any list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, no impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.8-18)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 52
3.9.4 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project site is not within two miles of an airport and the Project site is not identified as within an airport influence area.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in Section 4.8.5 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Project site falls within the airport planning area of the Los Alamitos JFTB. In 1975 the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) amended the AELUP for the JFTB to protect the public around the JFTB while ensuring operation of the JFTB. The AELUP was most recently amended in 2017, which reflected updates based on changes made to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The Project site is not located within a Clear Zone or accident potential zone (APZ) (refer to DEIR Figure 4.8-1, JFTB Impact Zones). The northwestern vertex of the Project site intersects the JFTB 60-65 A-weighted Decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour.
Land uses within the airport planning-area boundaries such as the Project site are required to conform to safety, height, and noise restrictions established in the AELUP for the JFTB. (DEIR, p. 4.8-18) The maximum building height of the Project is approximately 41 feet. Project site elevations range from 21 feet to 39 feet. The proposed Project would not exceed the established Part 77 Horizontal Surface for the primary JFTB runway of 150 feet above airport elevation. Also, on January 26, 2022, the FAA issued Determinations of No Hazard to Air Navigation (DEIR Technical Appendix J2) after its aeronautical study of the Project revealed that the structures would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Additionally, as shown in DEIR Figure 4.8-2, Los Alamitos JFTB Flight Patterns, the Project site is not located within any of the flight pattern in the JFTB. Buyer awareness is required as part of the City’s approval process for the Project. The buyer awareness notification process is built into the real estate disclosure laws of the State to ensure that potential buyers are fully informed before buying a home near an airport if they are sensitive to the types of annoyances or disruptions that may come with the location. Therefore, the City meets the overflight notification requirements as suggested by the Handbook, State law, the AICUZ and AELUP, and the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-18 to 4.8-19)
As discussed in DEIR Section 4.11, Noise, based on a review of noise level contours for the JFTB a small portion of the proposed residential uses would be located within the conditionally consistent 60- 65 dBA noise contour under projected conditions. Exposure of exterior use areas to noise levels in excess of 70 dBA CNEL would be considered significant, and exposure of residential land uses to noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL would be significant unless noise levels in interior habitable rooms are reduced to 45 dBA CNEL. Typical modern residential construction can achieve a noise level reduction of 25 dBA with windows closed. Thus, with the implementation of PDF N-2 (Refer to DEIR
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 53
Section 3.0, Project Description, for the discussion of PDF N-2), a windows closed condition was evaluated, which indicates maximum interior noise levels would range from 35 to 40 dBA CNEL from aircraft noise exposure. Therefore, the Project would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. (DEIR, p. 4.8-19)
The currently adopted General Plan contains Policies 1.4, 3.1, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 from the Growth Management Element, and Policies 4.1 and 4.6 from the Public Facilities and Safety Element to assure future development will be consistent with the AELUP. Compliance with the policies and land use regulations would further minimize safety hazards for people residing and working near the Los Alamitos JFTB. Refer to DEIR Table 4.10-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, for an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the policies above. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. (DEIR, p. 4.8-19)
Compliance with FAA Regulation Part 77 Notification Area and Horizontal Imaginary Surface for the Los Alamitos JFTB is provided in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR. Based on the FAA’s Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation (DEIR Technical Appendix J2), the proposed structures do not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Therefore, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.8-19)
3.9.5 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in Section 4.8.5 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold f; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
During construction, the Project would result in roadway improvements along Lampson, including replacement of the existing median curb and construction of the two proposed driveways. Construction on Lampson will require an encroachment permit and approval from the City Engineer Lane closures that may be required for median improvements would be temporary and require a permit and compliance with LAMC 12.08.200, Safety precautions–Obstruction of traffic. Compliance with LAMC 12.08.200 would ensure safe crossing and access for all vehicle and pedestrians at all times. (DEIR, p. 4.8-21)
The City adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in 2015. The EOP identifies the City’s emergency planning, organizational structure, and response policies/procedures to natural disasters and incidents of terrorism. The purpose of the EOP is to mitigate the effects of hazards, identify measures to be taken which will preserve life and minimize damage, enhance response capabilities, provide necessary assistance during emergencies, and establish a recovery system in order to return the City to
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 54
its normal state of affairs. The City currently does not have any designated evacuation routes, however, the EOP recognizes that during a major evacuation event, all major roadways would be available for evacuation purposes. Implementation of the Project would not result in changes to the existing roadways that would impair or physically interfere with the EOP or evacuation routes. (DEIR, p. 4.8- 21)
The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities. During construction and long-term operation, the proposed Project would be required to maintain adequate access for emergency vehicles.
The effectiveness of emergency response and firefighting operations is directly related to the proper installation and maintenance of fire access roadways, the proper sitting of hydrants, adequate water supply, and access to structures. In accordance with Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Guideline B-09, Fire Master Plans for Commercial & Residential Development, Firesafe Planning Solutions prepared a Fire Master Plan for the Project (see DEIR Figure 4.8-3, Fire Master Plan). The Fire Master Plan demonstrates the Project’s compliance with the California Fire and Building Codes and other regulations governing water availability for firefighting and emergency access to the Project site, including but not limited to fire access and roadway design, fire lane identification, and access to structures. Accordingly, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. (DEIR, p. 4.8-21)
3.9.6 THRESHOLD G
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold g are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.5 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold g; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
The City’s General Plan identifies very little risk of wildland fire hazards due to the urban nature of Los Alamitos, Rossmoor, and the surrounding communities. The primary fire hazard is urban fires– those that burn in developed areas and include commercial, industrial, and residential structures. The Project would result in the development of the Project site with residential buildings that would remove the vegetation which would reduce the presence of fuel in the event of a wildfire. The proposed residential structures would be designed to comply with State and local fire safety requirements. DEIR Figure 4.8-3, Fire Master Plan, demonstrates compliance with all codes and other regulations governing water availability for firefighting and emergency access to the Project site and structures. In addition, the Project site is not located within a very fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures, directly, or indirectly, to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fire, and no impact would occur. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-21 to 4.8-22)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 55
3.9.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Findings
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to hazards and hazardous materials are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
As discussed above under the responses to Thresholds a and b, the Project’s construction and operation would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Such uses also would be subject to additional review and permitting requirements by the Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division. Similarly, any other developments in the area proposing the construction of uses with the potential for use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials also would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, and such uses would be subject to additional review and permits from their local oversight agency. Therefore, the potential for release of toxic substances or hazardous materials into the environment, either through accidents or due to routine transport, use, or disposal of such materials, would be less than cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 4.8-22) As discussed above under Threshold c, no existing or planned schools are located within a one-quarter mile of the Project site, and therefore, the Project has no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and no impact would occur. Therefore, the Project has no potential to combine with other development projects to result in substantial hazardous materials-related impacts within one-quarter mile of the Project site. (DEIR, p. 4.8-22) As indicated under Threshold d, the Project site is not listed on any hazardous materials sites lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; no impact would occur. Because the Project site is not classified as a hazardous materials site, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to, or exacerbate, adverse environmental effects resulting from other hazardous materials sites in the Project vicinity. (DEIR, p. 4.8-22)
As discussed above under Threshold e, the Project would not violate the standards outlined in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the Los Alamitos JFTB. Because the Project and cumulative development within the airport planning area are subject to compliance with the policies and land use regulations in the AELUP, the potential for a cumulative impact to occur related to potential safety hazards for people residing and working near the Los Alamitos JFTB would be minimized. (DEIR, p. 4.8-22)
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 56
As discussed above under Threshold f, the Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route; therefore, it has no potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan and would result in no impact. Thus, the Project would have no effect on emergency access and there is no potential for the proposed Project to contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with emergency facilities or emergency evacuation routes. (DEIR, p. 4.8-24) As discussed above under Threshold g, the Project site is not located in an area that is susceptible to wildland fire hazards, and therefore would result in no impact related to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. As such, the Project would not contribute to any cumulative impact related to wildland fires. (DEIR, p. 4.8-24)
3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Project impacts for Hydrology and Water Quality Thresholds a through e do not result in significant impacts and related findings are discussed below.
3.10.1THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
The Project Applicant would be required to comply with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which authorizes the NPDES permit program that regulates point sources of pollution discharging to a water body. The NPDES program would require the Project Applicant and/or construction contractor to prepare a SWPPP and obtain authorization to discharge stormwater under an NPDES construction stormwater permit because the Project would result in construction on a site that is larger than one acre.
The Project Applicant also would be required to comply with the California Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 13000 et seq., of the California Water Code), which requires that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of California.
The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. (DEIR, p. 4.9-14) Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts
Construction of the Project would involve demolition, clearing, grading, paving, utility installation, building construction, and landscaping activities, which have the potential to generate silt, debris, organic waste, chemicals, paints, and other solvents; should these materials come into contact with water that reaches the groundwater table or flows off-site, the potential exists for the Project’s
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 57
construction activities to adversely affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during Project construction in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. (DEIR, p. 4.9-14)
Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB and LAMC Chapter 8.44, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. In addition, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities. The SWPPP will specify the BMPs that the Project’s construction contractors would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or treated appropriately prior to being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-14 to 4.9- 15)
Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that Project construction does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.9- 15)
Operational Water Quality Impacts
Pursuant to the LAMC Chapter 8.44, the Project Applicant would be required to implement a WQMP to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. The WQMP is a site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to address the pollutants of concern of a development project via BMPs, implementation of which ensures the on-going protection of the watershed basin. The Project’s preliminary WQMP is included as Technical Appendix I2 of the DEIR and an updated report was included in the FEIR (Attachment E) and includes both storm drain scenarios. As identified in the Project’s preliminary WQMP, the proposed Project is designed to include evapotranspiration, rainwater harvesting BMPs, biotreatment BMPs, non-structural source control BMPs, and structural source control BMPs. The Project site would be divided into seven (7) Drainage Management Areas (DMA). Each drainage area would have an area drain system to convey runoff from landscape and roof drainage along curb inlet Modular Wetlands Systems to intercept surface runoff from surrounding walkways and drive aisles. The area drain system design would be determined during final engineering and would connect directly to the proposed water quality treatment devices. Non-structural source control BMPs include education for property owners, tenants and occupants, activity restrictions, common area landscape management, BMP maintenance, title 22 CCR compliance, uniform fire code implementation, common area litter control, employee training, common area catch basin inspection, and street sweeping private streets and parking lots.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 58
Structural source control BMPs include storm drain system stenciling and signage, trash and waste storage areas, efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control. (DEIR, p. 4.9-15)
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during longterm operation. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.9- 15)
Groundwater Quality
During soil sampling conducted for the Project, groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 11 to 13 feet below existing grade. Additionally, historic high groundwater is estimated to be about 10 feet below existing grade. Excavation associated with the Project’s grading activities have the potential to encounter groundwater. However, the Project would comply with regulatory requirements, including the Construction General Permit which would address potential groundwater quality impacts. Project Construction would not adversely affect groundwater on or off site. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-15 to 4.9-16)
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during construction or long-term operation. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.9-16)
The Project includes the following PDF that will result in a reduction of the Project’s impacts.
PDF HYD-1 The Project will be built such that the finished floor elevation for the onsite buildings is set 1 foot minimum above the peak 100-year storm event water surface elevation in accordance with Orange County Flood Protection Requirements.
3.10.2THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 59
Substantial Evidence
According to the Project’s Geotechnical Evaluation, groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 11 to 13 feet below existing grade. Additionally, historic high groundwater is estimated to be about 10 feet below existing grade. The Project Applicant does not propose the use of any wells or other groundwater extraction activities. Therefore, the Project would not directly draw water from the groundwater table. (DEIR, p. 4.9-16)
Sources of Orange County Water District (OCWD) groundwater recharge supplies include Santa Ana River – Base Flow and Storm Flow, Santiago Creek – Storm Flow/Santa Ana River, Natural Recharge – Precipitation and subsurface inflow, Recycled water – Groundwater Replenishment System and Water Replenishment District of Southern California and Imported Water – Untreated and Treated. (DEIR, p. 4.9-16)
Development of the Project would increase impervious surface coverage by 48% on the Project site, which would, in turn, reduce the amount of water percolating down into the underground aquifer that underlies the Project site and a majority of the City and surrounding areas (i.e., Orange County Groundwater Basin). The Project site, however, is located in the western portion of the Orange County Groundwater Basin and would not physically impact any of the major groundwater recharge supplies discussed above in the Basin. Additionally, the Project site is not within or a part of a recharge facility for the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Therefore, the Project’s reduction in percolation at the site would not impact groundwater recharge supplies. The Project would not result in substantial, adverse effects to local groundwater levels. (DEIR, p. 4.9-16)
Based on the infiltration testing conducted within the Geotechnical Investigation (DEIR Technical Appendix F1), the infiltration rates were approximately 0.03 inches per hour and 0.04 inches per hour.
Therefore, due to the extremely low measured infiltration rate, low permeability fine-grained soils at depth, shallow groundwater, and site liquefaction potential, infiltration is not feasible at the Project site. Accordingly, buildout of the Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Based on the foregoing information, the Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. (DEIR, p. 4.9-16)
For the reasons stated above, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-16 to 4.9-17)
3.10.3THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
“ATTACHMENT X”
4665 Lampson Avenue
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 60
on- or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required. Substantial Evidence
Proposed Storm Drain Facilities
Two stormwater drainage facility plans have been proposed to accommodate stormwater runoff associated with the increase in this amount of impervious surface: on-site storm drain facilities and an alternate off-site storm drain facilities. The analysis below demonstrates that the Project has been designed to capture and treat stormwater runoff such that it would not impact downstream facilities. (DEIR, p. 4.9-17)
Storm Drain Facilities – Preferred Route
The preferred treatment of stormwater runoff for the Project would be conveyance by roof downspouts or street surface flow to proposed gutters and collected by thru-curb inlet bio-filtration devices or catch basin inlets for water quality treatment. The bio-filtration devices include an internal overflow bypass that direct flows via onsite underground storm drain system to an underground detention system located under parking areas at the southwest portion of the site. From the detention system, a stormwater sump pump located in the southwest corner of the site will outlet flows into the existing 18” storm drain pipe at the southwest corner of the site to outlet to the JFTB. The detention system and pump will be sized so that the outlet flows from the developed site will be equal to, or less than, existing flows. In the event the stormwater pump fails or the outlet pipe becomes clogged, the emergency overflow for the site will flow onto Lampson Avenue matching historical drainage patterns. (DEIR, p. 4.9-17) The combined, total 100-year peak flow rate for the Project site is 31.51 cfs under existing conditions.
The combined, total 100-year peak flow rate for the Project site is approximately 42.15 cfs under the proposed conditions without improvements. DEIR Figure 4.9-4, Proposed Conditions Hydrology Map illustrates the post-development drainage conditions of the Project site. The proposed drainage design would follow the existing drainage pattern with surface flows to on-site drainage facilities that would ultimately outlet into the existing storm drain pipe at the southwest corner of the Project site. The results from the hydrology study demonstrate that the proposed conditions of the Project site of 42.15 cfs would generate a higher peak runoff flowrate than the existing condition of the site of 31.51 cfs. (DEIR, p. 4.9-17, as revised in Section 4.0 of the FEIR) Due to increased peak runoff flows created from the proposed change in land use and increased impervious coverage by 48%, stormwater would need to be detained and minimized on-site to match existing conditions. To prevent overflow into Lampson Ave, the detention system will be sized to