November 2024 | Program EIR Addendum
State Clearinghouse No. 2023050732
ADDENDUM TO THE REDONDO BEACH
FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING
ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT PROGRAM EIR
City of Redondo Beach
Prepared for:
City of Redondo Beach
Contact: Marc Wiener, Community Development Director
Sean Scully, Planning Manager
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, California 90277
310.318.0637
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Mark Teague, Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
~ PLACEWORKS
Exhibit A
Final PEIR Addendum
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
Table of Contents
November 2024 Page i
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 1
1.1 BASIS FOR CEQA ADDENDUM.......................................................................................................... 5
1.2 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS FOR THIS ADDENDUM............................................................................ 6
1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION................................................................. 6
2. MODIFIED PROJECT...................................................................................................................... 9
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 11
3.1 AESTHETICS .............................................................................................................................................11
3.2 AIR QUALITY............................................................................................................................................15
3.3 ENERGY .....................................................................................................................................................17
3.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS......................................................................................................18
3.5 LAND USE AND PLANNING.............................................................................................................20
3.6 NOISE ..........................................................................................................................................................20
3.7 POPULATION AND HOUSING .........................................................................................................23
3.8 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION.........................................................................................23
3.9 TRANSPORTATION ...............................................................................................................................24
3.10 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...............................................................................................25
4. FINDINGS...................................................................................................................................... 27 Figures Page
FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP.......................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROJECT SITE............................................................13 Tables Page
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES ON THE BCHD CAMPUS UNDER THE MODIFIED PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................. 9 TABLE 2 CHANGES TO CITYWIDE GROWTH UNDER THE MODIFIED PROJECT COMPARED TO PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................. 9
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
November 2024 Page 1
1. Introduction and Background
This document is an Addendum to the City of Redondo Beach’s previously certified Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2023050732) (certified PEIR), which analyzed the implementation of updates to five of the State-required elements that make up the General Plan—Land Use, Open Space, Conservation, Safety, and Noise—Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Zone, and the Local Coastal Program Amendment (proposed project).
On November 5, 2024, the City of Redondo Beach took the following actions: Certification of the Program EIR; Adoption of those amendments to the Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Update, and Local Coastal Program Amendment that are intended to implement the Housing Element and those amendments regarding residentially designated properties not identified as program actions in the City’s Housing Element; Adoption of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program; and Adoption of those ordinances, guidelines, programs, actions, or other mechanisms of the Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Update, and Local Coastal Program Amendment that are intended to implement the Housing Element and those amendments regarding residentially designated properties not identified as program actions in the City’s Housing Element.
Action was not taken on the remainder of the General Plan Elements, Zoning Ordinance updates and Local Coastal Plan amendments.
This Addendum to the PEIR has been prepared in accordance with Sections 15162 and 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The proposed project includes a FAR of 0.75 on the BCHD property. The purpose of this Addendum is to provide analysis of whether a maximum proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.25 on the Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) campus, referred to as the “modified project” would result in a new significant environmental effect, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, requiring major revisions to the PEIR. The BCHD campus is located at 514 North Prospect Avenue, Redondo Beach (Assessor Parcel Number 7502-017-901) (Refer to Figure 1, Project Location Map).
Refer to Chapter 2, Modified Project, for a full description of proposed changes under the modified project as compared to the proposed project. Though the modified project does not propose any amendments or other changes to the PEIR, some parts of the modified project differ from those assumed in the PEIR’s analysis.
The City of Redondo Beach, as the lead agency under CEQA, has prepared this Addendum to the certified PEIR to consider environmental impacts associated with the modified project as compared to the proposed project studied in the certified PEIR. Furthermore, the modified project would comply with all applicable mitigation measures, similar to the proposed project.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
1. Introduction and Background
November 2024 Page 2
This page intentionally left blank.
PlaceWorks
Figure 1 - Location Map
0 Scale (Feet)
4,000
City of Redondo Beach
Marine Ave
Manhattan Beach Blvd
Artesia Blvd
190th St
Sepulveda Blvd
Del Amo Blvd
W Carson St
Knob Hill Ave
Rosecrans Ave
Pacifi c Coast Hwy
Redondo Beach Ave
182nd St
Hawthorne Blvd
Torrance Blvd
Lomita Blvd Prairie Ave
Inglewood Ave
Ardmore Ave
Valley Dr
Harper Ave
Harper Ave
Aviation Blvd
Calle
Miramar
Herondo St
Ocean Dr
27th St
32nd Pl
8th St
Emerald St
Ruby St
Aven G
6th St
147th St
Del Amo
Fashion
Center
Redondo Beach Ave
Commercial
405
1 CALIFORNIA
1 CALIFORNIA
C Mayor
Pacifi c Ocean
Torrance
Refi nery
Company
Chevron Oil Refi nery
Ocean Ave
Note: The City boundary extends 3 miles into the Pacifi c Ocean, which is not shown on this exhibit.
Source: City of Redondo Beach, 2023.
REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Diamond St
N Prospect
Ave
Project Boundary
Project Location
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
1. Introduction and Background
This page intentionally left blank.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
1. Introduction and Background
November 2024 Page 5
1.1 BASIS FOR CEQA ADDENDUM
According to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164(a), an addendum shall be prepared if some changes or additions to a previously certified EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions enumerated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations):
When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR):
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
1. Introduction and Background
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
1.2 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS FOR THIS ADDENDUM
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that an Addendum to the certified PEIR is the appropriate environmental document for the modified project. This Addendum reviews the changes proposed by the modified project and considers whether there is any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time that the PEIR was certified. It further examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent EIR may be required. This examination includes an analysis of the provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and their applicability to the modified project.
As lead agency under CEQA, the City of Redondo Beach is required to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the modified project. The scope of the review for project-related impacts for this Addendum is focused on the differences between impacts analyzed by the certified PEIR for implementation of the proposed project and the modified project. The proposed project will serve as the “baseline” for evaluating the impacts of the modified project and is therefore used as the “baseline” for the environmental impact analysis.
The baseline includes all applicable mitigation measures from the certified PEIR. As required by CEQA, this Addendum also addresses changes in circumstances or new information that would potentially involve new environmental impacts.
1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
This Addendum relies on the environmental analysis in the City of Redondo Beach’s previously certified Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance Updates, and Local Coastal Program Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2023050732). The Draft PEIR was circulated for public review from August 1, 2024, through September 16, 2024. A Final PEIR was prepared, and the Final PEIR was certified on November 5, 2024. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, this Addendum incorporates the certified PEIR (and its constituent parts, including the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program [MMRP]) by reference.
The PEIR analyzed updates to five of the State-required elements that make up the General Plan and associated zoning and Local Coastal Program revisions (i.e. proposed project). The PEIR evaluated the project’s implementation on a program-level basis. The PEIR also considered applicable federal, state, and local policies and included mitigation measures to ensure impacts are minimized to the extent feasible.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
1. Introduction and Background
November 2024 Page 7
The PEIR found that the proposed project would result in no impact or less-than-significant impacts with no mitigation required for the following environmental topics:
▪ Aesthetics
▪ Agriculture and Forestry Resources
▪ Air Quality (Impact 5.2-5)
▪ Biological Resources
▪ Cultural Resources (Impact 5.4-3)
▪ Energy (Impact 5.5-1)
▪ Geology and Soils
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ Land Use and Planning (Impact 5.10-1)
▪ Mineral Resources
▪ Noise (Impact 5.11-3)
▪ Population and Housing (Impact 5.12.2)
▪ Public Services
▪ Recreation
▪ Transportation (Impacts 5.15-3 and 5.15-4)
▪ Utilities and Service Systems
▪ Wildfire
The PEIR found that the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact with the incorporation of mitigation measures for the following environmental topics:
▪ Cultural Resources (Impact 5.4-2)
▪ Geology and Soils (Impact 5.6-4)
▪ Noise (Impact 5.11-2)
▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
The EIR determined that implementation of the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the following environmental topics:
▪ Air Quality
▪ Cultural Resources (Impact 5.4-1)
▪ Energy (Impact 5.5-2)
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Land Use and Planning (Impact 5.10-2)
▪ Noise (Impact 5.11-1)
▪ Population and Housing (Impact 5.12-1)
▪ Transportation (Impacts 5.15-1 and 5.15-2)
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
1. Introduction and Background
This page intentionally left blank.
November 2024 Page 9
2. Modified Project
Under the proposed project, the proposed maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the Public/Institutional (PI) designation applicable to the BCHD campus is 0.75. The certified PEIR estimated buildout of the campus at a 0.85 FAR to align with the proposed development plan/program in BCHD’s Healthy Living Campus Master Plan FEIR (SCH No. 2019060258). The 0.85 FAR at the BCHD campus was projected based on 203,700 square feet (157 dwelling units) and 151,220 square feet of non-residential growth (354,920 square feet total)1, resulting in a FAR of 0.85. The current General Plan designation does not place a cap on the FAR for any PI zones.
Since the certification of its PEIR, the City of Redondo Beach is providing additional analysis to study whether there are any additional impacts associated with a maximum FAR of 1.25 on the BCHD campus (modified project). As shown below in Table 1, a maximum FAR of 1.25 on the BCHD campus represents an increase of 153,983 non-residential square feet more than the total non-residential square feet analyzed in the certified PEIR as it relates to the BCHD campus. This would also result in 770 more employees than studied in the certified PEIR. Non-residential square feet would allow for uses and amenities associated with the PI land use designation, including hospitals and associated medical offices. As shown below in Table 2, the modified project would increase non-residential square feet and employment citywide by one percent and two percent, respectively. It should be noted that no physical redevelopment of the BCHD is proposed at this time.
Table 1 Summary of Changes on the BCHD Campus under the Modified Project Scenario Residential Square Feet Non-residential Square Feet1 Employment
(Number of Jobs)
Proposed Project in the certified PEIR 203,700 (157 du) 151,220 756 Changes under Modified Project 0 +153,983 +770
Total with Modified Project 203,700 (157 du) 305,203 1,526 Percent Change 0% 102% 102%
1 These metrics assume that the BCHD campus proper (APN 7502-017-901) is divided from the Flagler Lot (which has a C-2 designation, was included in BCHD’s Healthy Living Master Plan, and was issued a building permit for a 9,300 square foot AllCove Teen Wellness Center).
Table 2 Changes to Citywide Growth Under the Modified Project Compared to Proposed Project Scenario Acres
Number of
Housing Units
Total
Population
Non-residential
Square Feet
Employment
(Number of
Jobs)
Proposed Project in the certified PEIR 3,973 35,3871 78,978 17,508,276 36,627 Changes under Modified Project 0 0 0 +153,983 +770
Total with Modified Project 3,973 35,387 78,978 17,662,259 37,397 Percent Change 0% 0% 0% +1% +2%
This page intentionally left blank.
1 These metrics assume that the BCHD campus proper (APN 7502-017-901) is divided from the Flagler Lot (which has a C-2 designation, was included in BCHD’s Healthy Living Master Plan, and was issued a building permit for a 9,300 square foot AllCove Teen Wellness Center).
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
2. Modified Project
November 2024 Page 11
3. Environmental Analysis
Section 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Cal. Code of Regs., Sections 15000 et. seq.) authorizes a lead agency to prepare an addendum to an EIR “if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Like the proposed project, the modified project would not directly result in physical development; rather, the modified project provides a program level analysis associated with an increase in FAR on the BCHD campus.
Before any redevelopment activities would occur on the BCHD campus, all such activities would be required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local, state, and federal requirements and obtain all necessary clearances, zoning entitlements, and permits.
Therefore, this Addendum specifically addresses environmental topics that potentially would be impacted by changes in FAR, which would facilitate an increase of 153,983 non-residential square feet, resulting in 770 more employees than studied in the certified PEIR. Increases in non-residential square feet, and thus employment, would potentially affect aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems.
At a programmatic level, the modified project would have no material impact on agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire above what was analyzed in the certified EIR, as no new ground disturbance would occur at the BCHD campus as the entire property has existing development, nor would the increase in allowable intensity of non-residential square feet extend beyond the limits of the existing BCHD campus and therefore, no further analysis of these topics is warranted for purposes of this Addendum.
3.1 AESTHETICS
The PEIR determined that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impacts to scenic vistas, scenic highways, visual character and substantial light or glare. As discussed in the PEIR, with respect to scenic vistas, the beach and ocean can only be viewed from a limited geographic area of the community because of the hilly topography of the southern portion of the City and the inland location of the northern portion of the City. Future development facilitated by the modified project would be limited to redevelopment on the BCHD campus and would not occur in protected open space areas, including beaches and coastal bluffs, and thus would not affect scenic vistas from associated vantage points (See Figure 1, Project Location Map).
Additionally, there are no scenic highways in or near Redondo Beach, and no eligible scenic highways run through the City limits. The nearest eligible scenic highway is a segment of SR-1 approximately 10 miles to the north. Future development on the BCHD campus facilitated by the modified project would not interfere with scenic resources within a state highway.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
As discussed above under Section 2, Modified Project, the certified EIR analyzed buildout on the BCHD campus that corresponds to a 0.85 FAR. The modified project’s proposed FAR of 1.25 on the BCHD campus would increase the allowable FAR on the BCHD campus by 47% as compared to the proposed 0.85 FAR, and thus allow an increase in building intensity as compared to existing conditions. The BCHD campus is situated within an established urban area and is currently developed with one- to five-story medical buildings and associated amenities and surface parking and parking garage (see Figure 2, Aerial Photograph of the Project Site). No physical development is proposed as part of the modified project; site plans and building design of a future redevelopment on the BCHD campus would be subject to the issuance of a Planning Commission Design Review discretionary entitlement pursuant to Section 10-2.2502 of the City’s Municipal Code. As stated in the Municipal Code, “Planning Commission Design Review is established to ensure compatibility, originality, variety, and innovation in the architecture, design, landscaping, and site planning of developments in the community. The provisions of this section will serve to protect property values, prevent the blight and deterioration of neighborhoods, promote sound land use, encourage design excellence, and protect the overall health, safety, and welfare of the City.”
As outlined in Section 10-2.2502 (b), Planning Commission Design Review would determine a future project's consistency with specific criteria, including but not limited to, user impact and needs, relationship to physical features, consistency of architectural style, balance and integration with the neighborhood, and building design.
Although, a proposed FAR of 1.25 would facilitate the potential increase in building height and/or expansion of existing structures on-site, when compared to existing conditions and the proposed 0.85 presented in the certified PEIR, with adherence to the Planning Commission Design Review, this increase in intensity would not have the potential to significantly alter the visual appearance of the site. Furthermore, the modified project would be required to comply with the policies of the General Plan Update to ensure that future development would preserve and enhance Redondo Beach’s visual character and quality. A primary goal of the General Plan Update is to retain the city’s current character by addressing consistency of new development with existing development. With adherence to the General Plan Update policies, and subject to Planning Commission Design Review, the modified project would not conflict with applicable regulations governing scenic quality, and like the proposed project, impacts would remain less than significant.
With respect to light and glare, the modified project would allow future intensification and redevelopment of the BCHD campus, which could increase nighttime light and glare emanating from the campus. However, both the BCHD campus and surrounding area redevelopment would not significantly increase light and glare above existing conditions nor introduce new incompatible uses with respect to light and glare as a result of the requirements for future redevelopment of the BCHD campus to comply with General Plan Update policies and the issuance of a Planning Commission Design Review. In addition, future redevelopment of the BCHD campus would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 10-2.912, which requires that outdoor lighting be designed to not adversely impact surrounding uses but also provide a sufficient level of illumination.
Furthermore, proposed General Plan Policy OS-3.5 would ensure that glare impacts would be reduced by requiring outdoor fixtures to be fully shielded to prevent lighting up the sky rather than the ground. With adherence to General Plan policies and the City’s Municipal Code including a Planning Commission Design Review, substantial light and glare would not extend substantially beyond the site where it is generated, and like the proposed project, impacts under the modified project would remain less than significant.
PlaceWorks
Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph of Project Site
0 Scale (Feet)
250
Project Boundary
Source: Nearmp 2024.
REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT EIR ADDENDUM
CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Tomlee Ave
Towers St
N Paulina Ave
Mildred Ave
Amethyst St
Beryl St
N Prospect Ave
Flagler Ln
Tomlee Ave
Diamond St
N Maria Ave
Amethyst St
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Dominguez Park
Towers
Elementary
School
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
November 2024 Page 15
3.2 AIR QUALITY
The PEIR determined that the proposed project would potentially conflict with or obstruct the implementation of South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (AQMD) 2024 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
Buildout of the proposed project would increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service population and would not be consistent with the AQMP. In addition, air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Therefore, the proposed project would be inconsistent with the AQMP. Construction-related regional air quality impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would be significant and unavoidable.
Similarly, localized operation-related air quality impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project were considered significant and unavoidable impacts. The PEIR determined that the proposed project would not result in odor impacts and that adherence to South Coast AQMD Rule 402 would minimize and provide control for potential odors associated with construction and operational activities. Therefore, impacts related to odors were less than significant.
Because the modified project would result in increased nonresidential square feet, as compared to the proposed project, it is anticipated that emissions associated with this alternative would be slightly less in comparison to the proposed project. As discussed further below under Section 3.9, Transportation, although the increase in intensity would result in a slight increase in total VMT, the higher density and intensity uses adjacent to mixeduse development would contribute to improved transportation efficiency and would overall slightly reduce VMT per service population, and thereby marginally reduce air quality impacts.
Like the proposed project, future redevelopment of the BCHD campus facilitated by the modified project would implement mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, shown below. Because no physical development is currently proposed as part of the modified project, it is reasonable to assume that like the proposed project, project impacts related to air quality, after mitigation, would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Redondo Beach for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Redondo Beach Planning Division for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Redondo Beach Building & Safety Division shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include, but are not limited to the following:
▪ Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
• Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
• Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities. • Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
▪ Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits. ▪ Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
▪ Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
▪ Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/compliance/vocs/architectural -coatings/super-compliant-coatings.
These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Division.
AQ-2 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Redondo Beach for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Redondo Beach Planning Division for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Redondo Beach Planning Division shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
▪ For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
▪ Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
November 2024 Page 17
▪ Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 § 2485).
▪ Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen.
▪ Provide bicycle parking facilities per the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures and Residential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen.
▪ Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures and Residential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen. ▪ Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers).
Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.
AQ-3 Industrial and Warehouse Development Health Risk Assessments. Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Redondo Beach, project applicants for new industrial or warehousing development projects that 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered transport refrigeration units, and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Redondo Beach Planning Division for review and approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast AQMD. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk and/or noncancer hazard index exceeds the respective threshold, as established by the South Coast AQMD at the time a project is considered, the project applicant will be required to identify best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) and appropriate enforcement mechanisms and demonstrate that they are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to restricting idling on-site or electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.
3.3 ENERGY
The PEIR determined that construction of individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel use (energy resources), and future individual development projects would temporarily increase demands for energy associated with transportation.
Operation of new development projects accommodated under the proposed project would create additional demands for electricity and natural gas compared to existing conditions.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
The General Plan Update includes policies related to land use, transportation planning, energy efficiency, and renewable energy generation that would contribute to minimizing the City's total energy consumption.
Implementation of policies under the General Plan Update in conjunction with and complementary to regulatory requirements would ensure that energy demand associated with growth under the proposed project would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, energy impacts associated with implementation and operation of land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be less than significant.
The individual development projects facilitated by the proposed project would comply with the applicable requirements of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Consequently, the proposed project would be generally consistent with the overall objective of the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) to reduce GHG emissions consistent with the State’s AB 32 GHG emission reduction targets, in order to reduce transportation energy. However, the General Plan Update would not be consistent with the CAP’s Goal LUT:
G, Land Use Strategies, and several of SCAG’s RTP/SCS goals. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan Update could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the City’s CAP, and impacts would be potentially significant. As such, the PEIR determined that there are no feasible mitigation measures that can fully reduce VMT impacts at full buildout of the proposed project and fully reduce the proposed project's inconsistencies with the goals of SCAG's 2024-2050 RTP/SCS. Impacts related to energy would remain significant and unavoidable.
The modified project would facilitate an increase of non-residential square feet from what was studied in the Program EIR. As discussed in Section 3.9, Transportation, below, the increased intensification of non-residential square feet allowed on the project site under the 1.25 FAR would result in a slight improvement in transportation efficiency by increasing employment opportunities and medical facilities and associated amenities near transit services concurrent with a proposed increase in density and intensity of nearby residential and commercial land use designations along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), facilitated by the proposed project.
Although the increase in intensity would result in a slight increase in total VMT, the higher density and intensity uses adjacent to mixed-use development would contribute to a reduction in energy use from the transportation sector and would overall, slightly reduce VMT per service population. Therefore, the modified project could result in shorter distances traveled, as there would be an increase in employment within proximity to housing and other amenities. Overall, impacts to energy use under the modified project would be similar, if not slightly reduced, compared to the proposed project but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
3.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Development under the proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from land uses in the City. The PEIR determined that the proposed project would reduce energy sector emissions by increasing energy efficiency, energy conservation, and use of renewable energy.
However, GHG emissions reduction are only 1 percent less than the CEQA baseline and not the 85 percent necessary to ensure the City is on a trajectory to achieve the long-term reductions goals of AB 1279 and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals. Additionally, while the General Plan Update would be consistent with many of the strategies in the City’s CAP, the General Plan Update would not be consistent with the CAP’s Goal LUT: G, Land Use Strategies, and several of SCAG's RTP/SCS goals.
Therefore, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were considered significant and unavoidable.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
November 2024 Page 19
As discussed in Section 3.9, Transportation, below, the modified project would result in increased employment opportunities around transit and mixed use development, which would provide mobility options, and it is anticipated that GHG emissions associated with this modified project would be slightly less in comparison to the proposed project. Policies and implementation measures for the proposed project would be applicable to the modified project and would have the potential to reduce GHG emissions. Overall, impacts of the modified project would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain significant. Like the proposed project, the modified project would implement mitigation measure GHG-1.
Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 The City of Redondo Beach shall prepare an update to its Climate Action Plan (CAP) to achieve the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets of Senate Bill (SB) 32 for the year 2030 and chart a trajectory to achieve the long-term GHG reduction goal set by Assembly Bill (AB) 1279. The updated CAP shall be completed within three years of certification of the General Plan EIR. The updated CAP shall be updated every five years to ensure the City is monitoring the plan’s progress toward achieving the City’s GHG reduction target and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving a specified level. The update shall consider a trajectory consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal established under SB 32 for year 2030, AB 1279 for year 2045, and the latest applicable statewide legislative GHG emission reduction that may be in effect at the time of the CAP update.
The CAP update shall include the following:
▪ GHG inventories of existing and forecast year GHG levels. ▪ Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to achieve the GHG reduction goals of Senate Bill 32 for year 2030.
▪ Tools and strategies for reducing GHG emissions to ensure a trajectory with the longterm GHG reduction goal and carbon neutrality goal for year 2045 of AB 1279. ▪ Plan implementation guidance that includes, at minimum, the following components consistent with the proposed updated CAP:
• Administration and Staffing
• Finance and Budgeting
• Timelines for Measure Implementation
• Community Outreach and Education
• Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management
• Tracking Tools.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
3.5 LAND USE AND PLANNING
The PEIR concluded that no aspect of the proposed project would divide the existing city. On the contrary, the proposed project includes provisions that directly address land use connectivity, compatibility, and encroachment of new development on existing neighborhoods and land uses. However, the PEIR determined that future development in accordance with the proposed project would conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and project impacts, even after mitigation, would remain significant and unavoidable. The modified project would include climate benefits, land use patterns, and goals and polices that align with the RTP/SCS. Implementation of the proposed project would support a variety of land use types, including high-density housing and mixed-use development that encourage better connectivity to employment and commercial uses, and in closer proximity to public transit. However, the proposed project would not be consistent with several of the goals of SCAG’s 2024-2050 RTP/SCS with respect to VMT at buildout and impacts associated with air quality, GHG, and VMT would be significant.
Therefore, the proposed project would conflict with SCAG’s Connect SoCal goals aimed at improving air quality and reducing GHG emissions, and impacts were considered significant.
As discussed under Section 3.9, Transportation, of this Addendum, although total VMT would slightly increase, because the modified project would result in increased employment opportunities around transit, residential, and mixed use development, which would provide mobility options, it is anticipated that air quality and GHG emissions associated with this modified project would be slightly less in comparison to the proposed project because of a reduction in VMT per service population. Policies and implementation measures for the proposed project would be applicable to the modified project and would have the potential to reduce air quality and GHG emissions. Overall, impacts of the modified project would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain significant and unavoidable.
3.6 NOISE
The PEIR determined that impacts related to construction noise, even after mitigation, would remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts related to vibration and operations-related vibration would be reduced to less than significant. Under the General Plan Update, the primary source of temporary noise in the city would be demolition and construction activities associated with development projects and activities. However, because construction activities associated with any individual development may occur near noise-sensitive receptors and because, depending on the project type, equipment list, time of day, phasing and overall construction durations, noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time or during the more sensitive nighttime hours, construction noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project were considered potentially significant.
The development of residential, automotive, industrial, or other uses and activities under the proposed General Plan Update could generate substantial stationary noise. In addition, changes in both citywide and regional land use patterns and transportation networks, such as the increased development of mixed-use areas or changing concentrations of job opportunities from certain locations to others, particularly those accessible to existing and planned public transit, can result in a shift in traffic patterns and thereby decrease traffic on certain roadways. However, adherence to the proposed General Plan policy provisions would ensure that the noise
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
November 2024 Page 21
environment in Redondo Beach does not increase in a manner that worsens existing noise compatibility or exposes noise-sensitive land uses to “unacceptable” noise levels. With implementation of the General Plan policies and Mitigation Measures, future development and activities under the proposed General Plan Update would result in a less than significant impacts. Industrial operations throughout the city would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. Because specific project-level information is not available at this time, it was not possible to quantify future vibration levels at vibration-sensitive receptors that may be near existing and future vibration sources. Therefore, with the potential for sensitive uses to be exposed to annoying and/or interfering levels of vibration from industrial operations, operations-related vibration impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project were considered potentially significant.
The modified project would facilitate an increase of non-residential square feet compared to what was analyzed in the PEIR. As no physical development is proposed, it is speculative to estimate construction noise at this time, but it is reasonable to assume that overall construction and operational noise impacts would be similar compared to the proposed project, although more non-residential square feet allowed by the modified project could take longer to construct than the proposed project, which would extend the exposure to construction noise.
With respect to traffic noise, impacts under the modified project may slightly increase as compared to the proposed project because the modified project would slightly increase total VMT but could reduce VMT per service population (see Section 3.9, Transportation, below). The increase in non-residential growth facilitated by the modified project would represent a 2% increase citywide as compared to the proposed project and thus an increase in noise would be negligible. Overall, impacts with respect to noise and vibration would be similar to the proposed project and remain significant and unavoidable. Like the proposed project, the modified project would implement the following mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measures
N-1 Construction Noise Measures. Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Redondo Beach. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans. The City of Redondo Beach Planning and Building Divisions shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted to the City include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits. ▪ During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
▪ Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
▪ Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors, shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses.
▪ Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. ▪ Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City Engineering, Planning, and Building Divisions. ▪ At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. ▪ Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling.
All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. ▪ During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noiseproducing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
▪ If construction is anticipated for prolonged periods, as required by the Community Development Director, or their assigned designee, erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 4 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier.
N-2 Noise and Vibration Analysis. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, within 100 feet of nonengineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed these thresholds, alternative uses shall be used,
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
November 2024 Page 23
such as drilling piles instead of pile driving and static rollers instead of vibratory rollers. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.
N-3 Vibration Analysis. Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Redondo Beach for development projects subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (i.e., nonexempt projects), that utilize equipment that has the potential to result in vibration (e.g., pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers), a vibration analysis shall be conducted to assess and mitigate potential vibration impacts. This vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer and shall follow the latest CEQA guidelines, practices, and precedents
3.7 POPULATION AND HOUSING
The certified PEIR determined that implementation of the proposed project would directly induce population and employment growth in the area but would slightly improve the jobs-housing balance. The proposed project would accommodate future growth by providing for infrastructure and public services to accommodate the projected growth. Policies under the Redondo Beach General Plan’s Housing and Land Use Elements would ensure the City supports a variety of housing types and densities and provides job growth to accommodate Redondo Beach residents. Nonetheless, because the proposed project’s buildout projections are greater than the projected growth through SCAG, implementation of the proposed project was considered a potentially significant impact related to population and employment growth. The PEIR determined that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the proposed project’s impacts to population growth. As a result, impacts to population growth as a result of future development in accordance with the proposed General Plan Update would remain significant and unavoidable.
The modified project would facilitate an increase of 153,983 non-residential square feet over the total square feet, resulting in 770 more employees than studied in the certified Program EIR. The modified project would increase the jobs to housing ratio from 1.02 to 1.04 (2 percent); thus, the modified project has the potential to slightly improve the city’s job-housing balance (refer to Section 5.12, Population, Table 5.12-7, Buildout Comparison of Existing Conditions to the Redondo Beach General Plan 2050, of the Certified PEIR). However, impacts would slightly increase compared to the proposed project with respect to employment because it would slightly further increase growth beyond projections identified in SCAG’s regional forecasts for 2050. Under the modified project, an increase of 770 jobs would increase the projection of jobs identified in the buildout by 2 percent.
Overall, and similar to the proposed project, impacts to population and housing under the modified project would also be significant and unavoidable, but not by a materially greater amount or in ways that would lead to significantly greater impacts.
3.8 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
The PEIR concluded that future development and population growth in the City accommodated by the proposed project would increase the demand for the provision of local public services, thereby increasing the demand for fire and police protection services, and increasing school enrollments, demand for library services, and demand for park, open space and recreational amenities. However, compliance with existing and proposed
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
policies, regulatory codes and standards, and funding mechanisms would ensure that the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. While no physical development is proposed as part of the modified project, future development on the BCHD campus, facilitated by the FAR of the modified project would also be required to comply with existing and proposed General Plan Update policies, regulatory standards and funding mechanisms. In addition, future redevelopment of the BCHD campus would be addressed by the Planning Commission Design Review. As a result, similar to the proposed project, and with compliance with all applicable policies, codes, standards, funding mechanisms, and approvals, impacts to public services under the modified project would remain less than significant.
3.9 TRANSPORTATION
The PEIR determined that the proposed project would conflict with some policies from SCAG’s 2024–2050 RTP/SCS because buildout facilitated by the proposed project would increase VMT per service population beyond the threshold (16.8 percent below SBCCOG Baseline Conditions) and would result in a significant impact. Therefore, the proposed project would generate long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Additionally, given the growth in population and employment in the city and the magnitude of GHG emissions reductions needed to achieve the GHG reduction target, GHG emissions were considered significant. Although the proposed project would include climate benefits, land use patterns, and goals and polices that align with the RTP/SCS, and would otherwise be consistent with implementation of programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, impacts associated with VMT, Air Quality, and GHG were determined to be significant and therefore, the proposed project would not be consistent with SCAG’s 2024–2050 RTP/SCS and impacts were determined to be significant. Additionally, because the proposed project is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development in the city and does not directly result in development, use of VMT reduction strategies would need to be assessed on a project-by-project basis. Therefore, the certified PEIR determined that VMT impacts were considered significant. There are no feasible mitigation measures identified in the PEIR that would fully reduce VMT impacts at full buildout of the proposed project.
Additionally, the PEIR determined that there are no feasible mitigation measures that would fully reduce the proposed project’s inconsistencies with the goals of SCAG’s 2024–2050 RTP/SCS.
With respect to VMT for the modified project, the increased intensification of non-residential square feet allowed on the project site under the 1.25 FAR would result in a slight improvement in transportation efficiency by increasing employment opportunities and medical facilities and associated amenities near transit services concurrently with a proposed increase in density and intensity of nearby residential and commercial land use designations along Pacific Coast Highway facilitated by the proposed project (approximately 0.7 miles to the west). Additionally, bus lines run along North Prospect Avenue and Beryl Street, within the immediate vicinity of the project site. Future development on the project site would require implementation of applicable Travel Demand Management (TDM) development standards pursuant to Article 11 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Article 11 requires that nonresidential development provide facilities and/or programs that accommodate the use of ridesharing, transit, and pedestrian/bicycle commuting as alternatives to single-occupant vehicle trips to reduce VMT and mitigate transportation impacts. Prior to approval of any development project that meets or exceeds the threshold for triggering TDM strategies, an applicant is required to comply with the applicable
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
November 2024 Page 25
TDM and trip reduction standards set forth by Article 11. Therefore, the modified project would marginally reduce VMT per service population compared to the proposed project. Although VMT per service population would be slightly reduced under the modified project, total VMT for the City would increase slightly when compared to the proposed project, and as such, cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Additionally, like the proposed project, the modified project does not propose any incompatible uses that would significantly increase hazards or affect emergency access. Future redevelopment facilitated by the modified project would undergo a review process at the City to ensure consistency with adopted standards, including site plan review, related to access and circulation. Like the proposed project, the modified project impacts would be considered less than significant.
In summary, the modified project would require implementation of mitigation measures in the PEIR including AQ-1 through AQ-3 and GHG-1 to reduce inconsistencies with the goals of SCAG’s 2024–2050 RTP/SCS related to VMT and emissions. However, there are no feasible mitigation measures identified in the certified PEIR that would fully reduce VMT impacts at full buildout of the proposed project or the modified project.
Although VMT would be slightly reduced under the modified project compared to the proposed project, cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
3.10 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
As disclosed in the certified PEIR, existing and/or proposed facilities and purveyors would be able to accommodate future project-generated wastewater, water demand, stormwater drainage, solid waste, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications demand, and not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities. The modified project would facilitate an increase of 153,983 non-residential square feet, and 770 more employees, an increase of 2 percent in employment citywide, above what was analyzed in the PEIR. As concluded in the certified PEIR, the proposed project is well within existing facilities’ capacities; therefore, the increase in intensity proposed under the modified project (specifically with respect to the potential increase in employment facilitated by the modified project) would be adequately accommodated by existing and/or proposed facilities and utility purveyors. Additionally, future redevelopment on the BCHD campus would be subject to City zoning entitlements, permits, fees, and applications to ensure that future development would not pose burdens on the existing infrastructure. Overall, impacts would be slightly increased compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
3. Environmental Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.
November 2024 Page 27
4. Findings
This Addendum provides the analysis necessary to evaluate the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 to determine whether a subsequent EIR is required. The analysis in this Addendum confirms that the modified project would not result in any new substantial project changes or substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the Final EIR due to the involvement of a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact. Further, there is no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Final PEIR was certified, showing any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3).
Thus, the modified project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an Addendum.
The following identifies the standards in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as they relate to the modified project.
When an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project if the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, all of the following:
1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
2. No substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The modified project includes a zoning amendment and no physical development is proposed, nor would implementation of the modified project result in physical changes to the environment that were not disclosed in the PEIR. Moreover, the modified project would not create new impacts or the need for additional mitigation measures. The policies identified in the General Plan Update would reduce physical environmental effects associated with future development. These policies in the General Plan Update would also apply to the modified project. The PEIR addresses potentially significant impacts related to air quality, cultural resources (Impact 5.4-1), energy (Impact 5.5-2), GHG emissions, land use and planning (Impact 5.10-2), noise (Impact 5.11-1), population and housing (Impact 5.12-1), and transportation (Impacts 5.15-1 and 5.15-2). The policies and mitigation identified in the certified PEIR to reduce physical environmental effects would also apply to the modified project. Because a future development project must be consistent with the City’s General Plan, zoning, development standards, and would undergo Planning Commission Design Review, the adopted measures to address physical impacts on the environment would be applied, resulting in the same overall impacts as evaluated in the PEIR. As demonstrated in this
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
4. Findings
Addendum, the modified project’s contribution of a 1% increase in citywide non-residential square feet and 2 % increase in employment (associated with the modified FAR of 1.25), would not result in new significant environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed under the PEIR, and no changes are proposed under the modified project, nor have any substantial changes occurred with respect to circumstances, which would warrant major revisions to the PEIR.
3. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR The PEIR addresses potentially significant impacts related to impacts related to air quality, cultural resources (Impact 5.4-1), energy (Impact 5.5-2), GHG emissions, land use and planning (Impact 5.10- 2), noise (Impact 5.11-1), population and housing (Impact 5.12-1), and transportation (Impacts 5.15-1 and 5.15-2). The policies and mitigation identified in the PEIR to reduce physical environmental effects would also apply to the modified project. Because a future development project must be consistent with the City’s General Plan, zoning, and development standards, the adopted measures to address physical impacts on the environment would be applied, resulting in the same overall impacts as evaluated in the PEIR. Therefore, there would be no new significant environmental impacts under the modified project that were not previously disclosed under the PEIR. b. Significant effects previously examined will not be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR
As demonstrated in this Addendum, the modified project would have the same significant impacts as those disclosed in the PEIR. The policies and mitigation measures identified in the PEIR to reduce physical environmental effects would also apply to the modified project. The modified project would require a zoning amendment to increase the FAR on the BCHD campus to 1.25 and like the proposed project, no physical development is proposed. Implementation of the modified project would not result in significant physical changes to the environment that were not disclosed in the PEIR.
Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts associated with the modified project would occur.
c. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible that would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative The modified project would require a zoning amendment to increase the FAR on the BCHD campus to 1.25 and like the proposed project, no physical development is proposed. Implementation of the modified project would not result in adverse physical changes to the environment that were not disclosed in the PEIR. Moreover, the modified project would not create new impacts or the need for additional mitigation measures. The policies identified in the General Plan would reduce physical environmental effects associated with future development. These policies in the General Plan would
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
4. Findings
November 2024 Page 29
also apply to the modified project. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of any environmental impacts previously evaluated in the PEIR; therefore, there is no need for new mitigation measures or alternatives. d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative The modified project would have the same significant impacts as the previously PEIR, and all associated policies and mitigation measures identified in the PEIR to reduce physical environmental effects would apply to all future development. There would be no new significant impacts resulting from implementation of the modified project. There is no new mitigation or alternative that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment
The modified project would not result in any of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) because the proposed changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, requiring major revisions to the PEIR, and there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the PEIR was certified, showing any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Accordingly, this Addendum provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to support the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required and that an Addendum to the certified PEIR is the appropriate environmental document to evaluate changes associated with the modified project.
R E D O N D O B E A C H F O C U S E D G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E , Z O N I N G O R D I N A N C E U P D A T E
A N D L O C A L C O A S T A L P R O G R A M A M E N D M E N T P R O G R A M E I R A D D E N D U M
C I T Y O F R E D O N D O B E A C H
4. Findings
This page intentionally left blank.