However, to remove governmental constraints and facilitate special needs housing, the City will amend the Zoning Code as described in Program 3g (Facilitate Residential Care Facilities/Group Homes) to review residential care facilities against objective zoning standards that apply to all single-family residences.
2. Residential Care, Limited. A residential care facility providing 24-hour non-medical care for 6 or fewer persons in a single unit, in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living. This classification includes only those facilities licensed for residential care by the State of California. Under state law, a state-licensed residential care facility with 6 or fewer persons is considered a residential use and is permitted subject to the same regulations as other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. This classification includes residential care facilities restricted to persons 60 years of age or older if there are 6 or fewer residents. Six or fewer persons does not include the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or persons employed as facility staff.
In accordance with state law, under the Zoning Code, these facilities are permitted byright in all zones where single-family uses are permitted, including all three residential zoning districts, RLD (Single-Unit Residential), RMD (Medium-Density Residential) and RHD (High-Density Residential) and in the LC-RMD (Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density Zone) district, and are conditionally permitted in the PO, SC and GC districts. However, to facilitate special needs housing, the City will amend the Zoning Code as described in Program 3g (Facilitate Residential Care Facilities/Group Homes) to allow unlicensed residential care facilities that serve 7 or more residents by-right in residential zones.
3. Residential Care, Senior. A housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by the resident, the resident's guardian, conservator or other responsible person; where residents are 60 years of age or older and where varying levels of care and supervision are provided as agreed to at the time of admission or as determined necessary at subsequent times of reappraisal. Any younger residents must have needs compatible with other residents, as provided in Health & Safety Code §1569.316 or a successor statute. This classification includes continuing care retirement communities and lifecare Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-25
communities licensed for residential care by the State of California. These facilities are conditionally permitted in the RHD, PO, SC, and GC districts.
The Special Use provisions of the Municipal Code recognize the following specific types of Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) projects:
o Assisted Living Facility: a residential building or buildings that also provide housing, personal and health care, as permitted by the Department of Social Services, designed to respond to the daily, individual needs of the residents.
Assisted Living Facilities may include kitchenettes (small refrigerator, sink, microwave oven) within individual rooms. Assisted Living Facilities include congregate care, board and care homes, and skilled nursing facilities are required to be licensed by the California Department of Social Services. o Independent Living Center/ Senior Apartment: independent living centers and senior apartments that are multifamily residential projects reserved for senior citizens, where common facilities may be provided, but where each dwelling unit has individual living, sleeping, bathing, and kitchen facilities. o Life Care Facility: sometimes called “Continuing Care Retirement Communities”, or “Senior Continuum of Care Complex”, these facilities provide a wide range of care and supervision, and also provide health care (skilled nursing) so that residents can receive medical care without leaving the facility. Residents can expect to remain, even if they become physically incapacitated later in life. Life Care Facilities require multiple licensing from the State Department of Social Services, the State Department of Health Services, and the State Department of Insurance.
Development Standards for Residential Care Facilities
Residential care facilities in a residential district must maintain a minimum distance of 300 feet from another such facility. Facilities in all districts must comply with development standards for landscaping, walls, traffic level of service, passenger loading, and delivery hours. (§11.4.05.105) While these regulations are generally consistent with State law and do not pose a significant constraint to their development, the City will amend its zoning code to ensure its residential care facility regulations comply with State law (see Program 3g).
Mobile Home Parks
Mobile home parks are regulated under the Residential High Density (RHD) provisions of the Code. There is one mobile home park in Seal Beach (Seal Beach Shores Trailer Park). In 2000, the Redevelopment Agency issued bonds to allow for LINC Housing, a 501(c)(3) non-profit agency to acquire and manage the park. In 2009, the ownership of the park was transferred to Seal Beach Shores, Inc, a resident-owned 501(c)(3) non-profit entity.
C-26 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints
The City recognizes this mobile home park for its contribution to affordable housing. As noted in Chapter III, the Redevelopment Agency has provided rental assistance and rehabilitation loans and grants to residents of the Seal Beach Shores Trailer Park in order to maintain this important supply of affordable housing in the city. Programs 2d and 4b support continued affordability and rehabilitation activities in this park.
Manufactured Housing
The manufacturing of homes in a factory is typically less costly than the construction of individual homes on site thereby lowering overall housing costs. State law precludes local governments from prohibiting the installation of mobile homes on permanent foundations on single-family lots.
It also declares a mobile home park to be a permitted land use on any land planned and zoned for residential use and prohibits requiring the average density in a new mobile home park to be less than that permitted by the Municipal Code. A city or county may, however, require use permits for mobile home parks.
Regulations governing manufactured housing are provided in §11.4.05.075 of the Municipal Code and in state regulations (Title 25, California Code of Regulations). As provided for in §11.4.05.075 of the Municipal Code, a manufactured home shall constitute a permitted use in all residential districts, provided that any such manufactured home is certified under the standards set forth in the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1976 (42 USC 5401 et. seq.), as amended at the time of any application for placement of such manufactured home.
Moreover, manufactured homes are included under the definition of a single-family dwelling per Municipal Code §11.6.05.010, and are treated by the City as such for permitting purposes. The City’s development standards for mobile homes do not present an unreasonable constraint to this type of development.
Employee/Farmworker Housing
As described in Section A.3.4 of Appendix A, farm workers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary income is from seasonal agricultural work. Historically, Orange County’s economy was linked to agriculture. While there are still active farming areas on the Irvine Ranch and in some other cities, shifts in the local economy to production and service-oriented sectors have significantly curtailed agricultural production within the county. Today, Orange County is a mostly developed urban/suburban region with a strong local economy. According to recent Census employment data there are no farmworkers living in Seal Beach.
However, the California Legislature has established that cities must allow the development of employee/farmworker housing commensurate with local needs. State Health and Safety Code (Section 17021.5) requires that cities treat employee housing for six or fewer employees as singlefamily residential uses and allowed by right in residential zones which allow single-family uses.
Employee housing may not be defined as “a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, (or) dormitory.” The City does not currently allow employee housing (also called farmworker housing) in any zoning districts. Pursuant to Program 1q (Allow Employee/Farmworker Housing Consistent with Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-27
State Law.), the City will amend the Zoning Code to allow employee housing consistent with Health and Safety Code §17021.5 and 17021.6.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs are regulated by §11.4.05.115 of the Municipal Code, which is intended to implement State law (Government Code §65852.150, §65852.2 and §65852.22) or any successor statutes. ADUs and JADUs that comply with applicable standards are approved ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing.
Several amendments to ADU law have been adopted by the State legislature in recent years. In October 2022 pursuant to Ordinance 1699, the City adopted revised ADU/JADU development standards reflecting legislation from 2019 and 2020 and comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Since that time, additional amendments have been made to State law, and in August 2023, the City again revised the Zoning Code related to incorporate these changes. Program 1h is included in the Housing Action Plan to continue to monitor legislation and update City regulations in conformance with changes in State law, as necessary. In addition, the City will take steps to encourage the development of ADUs, such as creating an amnesty program for units constructed without permits, and provide incentives and other measures to facilitate the construction of ADUs (Programs 1h, 1i and 1j).
Emergency Shelters
California Health and Safety Code (§50801) defines an emergency shelter as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.”
In 2013, the Boeing Specific Plan was amended to permit emergency shelters by-right subject to the following development standards:
• Maximum of 25 beds
• Minimum separation of 300 feet between emergency shelters Sites within this specific plan are located within walking distance of services and employment centers and are served by public transportation. This specific plan encompasses approximately 107 acres of land, which includes two underutilized parking lots in two parcels of approximately 16 and 12 acres that are suitable for shelters. These emergency shelter regulations are consistent with SB 2 and do not pose a constraint to the establishment of such facilities. The maximum shelter size of 25 beds is appropriate in consideration of the number of unsheltered homeless persons in Seal Beach, which was estimated in the most recent Point in Time count to be 8 persons. Under Section 65583 of the Government Code, emergency shelters may include other interim interventions such as a navigation center, bridge housing, and recuperative care. These facilities, in particular navigation centers and recuperative care centers, can operate successfully on limited scales. A 20-bed recuperative care center has operated in conjunction with a non-profit C-28 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints
developer’s headquarters in nearby Midway City (unincorporated Orange County island) for many years.
AB 139 (2019) revised State law regarding parking standards for emergency shelters. AB 2339 (2022) made further changes to state laws regarding shelters. To ensure that City development standards and procedures continue to provide adequate sites for emergency shelters, Program 1k includes a Zoning Code amendment to revise zoning standards for emergency shelters consistent with current law.
Low Barrier Navigation Centers
In 2019, the State Legislature adopted AB 101 establishing requirements related to local regulation of low barrier navigation centers, which are defined as “Housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelters focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” Low Barrier means best practices to reduce barriers to entry, and may include, but is not limited to:
4. The presence of partners if it is not a population-specific site, such as for survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, women, or youth
5. Accommodation of residents’ pets
6. The storage of possessions
7. Privacy, such as partitions around beds in a dormitory setting or in larger rooms containing more than two beds, or private rooms
Low barrier navigation centers meeting specified standards must be allowed by-right in areas zoned for mixed use and in nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses. The Housing Element includes Program 1k to address this requirement.
The City does not have specific parking standards for emergency shelters or other low barrier navigation centers, defined as Community Social Service Facilities in the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code will be amended to include parking standards for emergency shelters, consistent with State law, including establishment of objective standards to provide sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, while not requiring more parking for emergency shelters than for other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. (Program 1k).
Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing
Transitional/supportive housing is normally temporary housing (generally six months to two years) for an individual or family who is transitioning to permanent housing. This type of housing can take several forms, including group housing or multi-family units, and often includes a supportive services component to allow individuals to gain necessary life skills in support of independent living.
Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-29
In 2013, the Zoning Code was amended to clarify that transitional/supportive housing is a residential use subject to the same standards and requirements as other residential uses of the same type in the same zone, in conformance with SB 2.
In 2018, AB 2162 amended State law to require that supportive housing be a use by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed uses are permitted, including non-residential zones permitting multifamily uses, if the proposed housing development meets specified criteria. The Housing Element includes Program 1k to address this requirement.
Single Room Occupancy (SROs)
Single-room-occupancy (SRO) facilities are small studio-type units intended for one or two persons. SROs can provide an affordable housing option for small households with very low or extremely low incomes. In 2013, the Zoning Code was amended to allow SROs subject to a conditional use permit in the RHD zone. However, to facilitate housing for special needs groups, especially lower-income persons, the City will amend its Zoning Code to allow SROs by-right in the RHD zone.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities normally have certain housing needs that include accessibility of dwelling units, access to transportation, employment, and commercial services; and alternative living arrangements that include on-site or nearby supportive services. The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Sections 5115 and 5116) of the California Welfare and Institutions Code declares that mentally and physically disabled persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings. This classification includes facilities that are licensed by the State of California to provide permanent living accommodations and 24 hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living. It includes hospices, nursing homes, convalescent facilities, and group homes for minors, persons with disabilities, and people in recovery from alcohol or drug addictions. The use of property as a licensed residential care facility for the care of six or fewer persons must be considered a residential use that is permitted in all residential zoning districts. No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these homes than otherwise required for homes in the same district.
Reasonable Accommodation
State law requires that local housing elements “shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities.” (Government Code §65583(c)(3)).
Chapter 11.5.30 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code (Reasonable Accommodations) provides standards and procedures for ensuring compliance with federal and state law in order to allow persons with disabilities to have equal access to housing on the same basis as individuals without disabilities. The ordinance includes the following provisions:
C-30 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints
• Application procedures, including the accommodation requested and the basis for the request.
• No fee is charged for a Reasonable Accommodation application. • Concurrent processing may be requested by an applicant when another discretionary permit is also required.
• Decision by the Planning Commission following a noticed public hearing and based on specialized findings, with a right of appeal to the City Council. • Required findings for approval of a reasonable accommodation, in light of fair housing concerns, as follows:
1. The requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the fair housing laws.
2. The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
3. The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City as “undue financial or administrative burden” is defined in fair housing laws and interpretive case law.
4. The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City’s zoning program, as “fundamental alteration” is defined in fair housing laws and interpretive case law.
5. The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others.
The Zoning Code also provides factors to guide the decision-maker in making findings on each relevant factor. The City will review its Zoning Code to ensure its reasonable accommodation procedures and findings comply with State and federal law (see Program 5e). The City has also updated its website to describe the reasonable accommodation process. Given the high percentage of elderly persons residing in the City who may require accommodations to age in place, the City will also take steps to disseminate information to this population group.
Density Bonus and Incentives for Affordable Housing
Under State density bonus law, cities must provide a density increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the Municipal Code and the Land Use Element of the General Plan and other incentives when builders agree to construct housing developments with units affordable to low- or moderate-income households. Chapter 11.4.55 of the Municipal Code (“Affordable Housing Bonus”) sets forth regulations and procedures for providing density bonus or other incentives. In recent years the State Legislature has adopted changes to density bonus requirements. Program 2a in the Housing Action Plan proposes to amend the Zoning Code Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-31
to ensure density bonus provisions comply with State law. In addition, the City will amend the Zoning Code to allow density bonus applications to be approved ministerially to provide additional incentives (Program 2a: Streamline the Density Bonus Review Process).
Condominium Conversions
The conversion of apartments to condominiums is regulated by Chapter 11.4.80 of the Municipal Code for all areas of Seal Beach except Leisure World. Key requirements that must be satisfied are summarized as follows:
• Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a subdivision map. • Each building as of the date of conversion shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, and the goals and policies of the General Plan, except where the building is nonconforming in compliance with Chapter 11.4.40: Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots.
• Condominium conversions shall observe the following standards for density. o RMD-18 District: 2,500 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit. o RHD-20 District: 2,178 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit. o RHD-33 District: 1,350 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit. o RHD-46 District: 960 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit. • Separate space heating, water heating, and metering/shutoff valves for water, gas, and electricity for each unit.
• All common attic areas over individual dwelling units shall be separated by sound-rated assemblies and access to each attic space shall be provided in compliance with the California Building Code.
• Tenant's Right to Purchase. As provided in Government Code 66427.1.D., any present tenant of any unit shall be given a nontransferable right of first refusal to purchase the unit occupied at a price no greater than the price offered to the general public. The right of first refusal shall extend for at least 90 days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report or commencement of sales, whichever date is later. • Each non-purchasing tenant not in default under the obligations of the rental agreement or lease under which he occupies his unit shall have not less than 180 days from the date of receipt of notification from the owner of his intent to convert, or from the filing date of the final subdivision map, whichever date is later, to find substitute housing and to relocate. Once notice of intent to convert is served to a tenant, any existing long-term lease agreement may be rescinded by the tenant without penalty. Notification of such termination shall be submitted in writing to the landlord 30 days prior to the termination of the lease.
C-32 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints
• From the date of approval of the Tentative Map until the date of conversion, no tenant's rent shall be increased more frequently than once every 6 months, and at a rate not greater than 50% of the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index (all items, Los Angeles-Long Beach), on an annualized basis, for the same period. This limitation shall not apply if rent increases are provided for in leases or contracts in existence prior to the filing date of the Tentative Map.
• The subdivider shall provide moving expenses of 2.0 times the monthly rent, but in no case less than $3,000, to any tenant who relocates from the building to be converted after approval of the condominium conversion by the City, except when the tenant has given notice of his intent to move prior to receipt of notification from the subdivider of his intent to convert.
When a condominium conversion is permitted, the increase in the supply of less expensive forsale units helps to compensate for the loss of rental units. No requests for condominium conversions have been filed in recent years. Program 4a calls for the continued implementation of the City’s condominium conversion Municipal Code section.
Short Term Rentals
A short-term vacation rental (STR) is a rental of a residential dwelling unit or accessory building for periods of less than 30 consecutive days. Over the past few years, short-term rentals have become an increasingly popular form of lodging throughout the country. The City recognizes the potential land use issues that can arise from operating short-term rentals in Seal Beach’s neighborhoods, such as parking, noise and trash. In addition, housing units that might otherwise provide long term rental housing for tenants are removed from the rental market, further impacting the shortage of available rental housing in the community. Due to these factors, Section
11.4.05.135 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code formerly prohibited short term rentals of residential properties in all areas of the City. However, two appellate courts have concluded that prohibition of short-term rentals in the Coastal Zone is inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Therefore, the City Council amended the Zoning Code in 2023 to allow STRs within the Coastal Zone, not to exceed one percent of the residential units, pursuant to Ordinance 1701. The City has applied to the Coastal Commission for a Coastal Development Permit, and through that process the regulations adopted by the City Council must be reviewed, potentially modified, and ultimately approved by the Coastal Commission to remain in compliance with the Coastal Act.
C.2.2 Building and Housing Codes and Enforcement
State law prohibits the imposition of building standards that are not necessitated by local geographic, climatic or topographic conditions and requires that local governments making changes or modifications in building standards must report such changes to the Department of Housing and Community Development and file an expressed finding that the change is needed.
Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-33
The City's building codes are based upon the current California Building Standards Code. Local amendments to the State code have been adopted to require fire sprinklers for some residential construction. Local amendments to Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 9.60.020.060.20 requires an automatic sprinkler system be installed throughout the following residential buildings:
903.2 Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems in buildings and structures shall be provided when one of the following conditions exists:
1. New Buildings: Notwithstanding any applicable provisions of Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.19, an automatic fire-extinguishing system shall also be installed in all occupancies when the total building area exceeds 5,000 square feet as defined in Section 202, regardless of fire areas or allowable area, or is more than two stories in height.
Exception: Subject to approval by the Fire Code Official, open parking garages in accordance with Section 406.5 of the California Building Code.
2. Existing Buildings: Notwithstanding any applicable provisions of this code, an automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in an existing building when an addition occurs and one of the following conditions exists:
a. When an addition exceeds 2000 square feet and the resulting building area exceeds 5000 square feet.
b. 903.2.8 Group R. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area as follows:9
i. New Buildings: An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all new buildings, including attached garages. ii. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout when one of the following conditions exists:
1. All existing Group R occupancies and U-1 garages when the total area is increased by 750 square feet or more.
2. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout any existing Group R Occupancy building when the floor area of the Alteration or Combination of an Addition and Alteration, is 50% 9 Group R is defined by the California Building Code Section 310 as R-1 (transient occupancy sleeping units such as boarding houses, congregate residents, hotels/motels), R-2 (permanent occupancy sleeping units such as apartments, congregate residences, hotels/motels, live work units, vacation timeshares), R2.1(occupancy in a supervised residential care environment), R-3 (occupants are primarily permanent in nature but not classified in R-1, R-2 or R-4), and R-4 (occupants are primarily permanent in nature, reside in a 24-hour basis in a supervised residential environment and receive custodial care).
C-34 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints
or more of area/value of the existing structure and where the scope of the work exposes building framing and facilitates sprinkler installation and is such that the Building/Fire Code Official determines that the complexity of installing a sprinkler system would be similar as in a new building.
c. Any addition to an existing building which has fire sprinklers installed.
Exceptions:
1. Existing Group R-3 occupancies converted to Group R-3.1 occupancies not housing bedridden clients, not housing non-ambulatory clients above the first floor and not housing clients above the second floor.
2. Existing Group R-3 occupancies converted to Group R-3.1 occupancies housing only one bedridden client and complying with Section 425.8.3.3.
3. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 13113 occupancies housing ambulatory children only, none of whom are mentally ill or mentally retarded, and the buildings or portions thereof in which such children are housed are not more than two stories in height, and buildings or portions thereof housing such children have an automatic fire alarm system activated by approved smoke detectors.
4. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 13143.6 occupancies licensed for protective social care which house ambulatory clients only, none of whom is a child (under the age of 18 years), or who is elderly (65 years of age or over).
Sprinklers are generally required throughout Orange County due to the hot, dry and strong Santa Ana winds, particularly in the fall and spring seasons and the potential of fires. While the amended building codes and enforcement increase the cost of development, the requirement for fire sprinklers does not pose a constraint to affordable housing or other residential development within the city.
C.2.3 Permits and Procedures
Residential Permit Processing
State Planning and Zoning Law provides permit processing requirements for residential development. Within the framework of State requirements, the City has structured its development review process to minimize the time required to obtain permits while ensuring that projects receive an appropriate level of review.
Municipal Code Table 11.5.05.025, Review Authority, identifies the City official or body responsible for reviewing and making decisions on each type of application, land use permit, and other entitlements required by the Zoning Code. Three levels of review are identified: the Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-35
Community Development Director, Planning Commission, and City Council. The typical planning approvals and their respective level of review are as shown in Table C-7.
Table C-7: Residential Permit/Procedure Review Authority Permit Type Director Planning Commission City Council
Development Permit (Zoning
Conformance) Decision Appeal Appeal
Minor Use Permit - Decision Appeal
Conditional Use Permit - Decision Appeal
Subdivision Maps - Recommendation Decision
Source: Seal Beach Zoning Code, Table 11.5.05.025
However, as shown in Table C-3, all residential uses, from single family detached homes to multifamily apartments, are permitted by-right with no discretionary review if the development application meets the zoning standards and obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are adequately addressed. This means that no discretionary approvals or public hearings for the residential land use entitlement are needed (except as appropriate for CEQA purposes). It should be noted that the City complies with the Permit Streamlining Act when processing all applications, including applications for residential development.
It should also be noted that if a subdivision map is required, the project must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Residential developments outside the Coastal Zone only require review of project plans by the Planning Division during the plan check process to ensure conformance with applicable regulations and development standards. Projects in the Coastal Zone are currently reviewed for consistency with zoning before the applicant can apply for a Coastal Development Permit. Upon the applicant’s submittal of documentation confirming that any required Coastal Development Permit has been obtained, the applicant may apply for approval of a building permit; the building permit process is described below. Assuming development conforms to zoning regulations, no public hearing is required. The typical time required to process these approvals is 30 days.
Required findings for the Community Development Director’s development permit (zoning conformance) approval are as follows (Municipal Code Section 11.5.25.010.D):
1. The proposed use and structure conform with the provisions of the Zoning Code;
2. The proposed use and structure are compatible with uses and structures in the immediate neighborhood;
3. The plans provide protection to adjacent structures from noise, vibration and other undesirable environmental factors;
4. Proposed lighting is directed inward and downward to reflect light away from adjoining properties;
C-36 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints
5. The following are designed to avoid traffic congestion, protect pedestrian and vehicular safety and welfare and eliminate any adverse effect on surrounding property:
a. Structures and improvements;
b. Vehicular ingress and egress and internal circulation; c. Setbacks;
d. Height of buildings;
e. Walls; and
f. Landscaping.
Although these findings have not been used to constrain the development of housing supply, Program 3i (Update Findings for Housing Projects to Ensure Objectivity) will modify these findings to ensure that they are objective findings that require no discretion on the part of the Director when applied to housing projects.
In addition to the permit types/procedures identified in Table C-7 above, Chapter 11.5.25 of the Municipal Code (Director Determinations) establishes the procedures for determinations by the Community Development Director. The Municipal Code Section 11.5.25.020 (Minor Modifications) does allow for the Community Development Director to approve minor modifications (including to residential projects) from dimensional requirements of the Code, specifically for setbacks, fences or walls, and buffer yards, as well as to floor or lot coverage for approved plans, up to 5 percent.
Table C-8 reflects the fact that approval timelines for single-family and multi-family projects in Seal Beach are difficult to estimate, since the City has not received single-family or multi-family housing applications in the last several years 10 , due in part to process and procedural requirements from the California Coastal Commission. Therefore, representative data to provide an accurate estimate of approval timelines for single-family or multi-family housing in Seal Beach is not available. However, at HCD’s request, the City has included estimated approval timeframes based on the level of review (in many cases Director review), approval findings, and discretionary approval procedures (the latter applies for projects that are not exempt from CEQA). The City is anticipating receiving housing development applications during the 6th Housing Element Update Cycle given the many programs in the Main Body Section 4 (Goals, Policies, and Programs) that 10 While the current, in process Old Ranch Country Club specific plan application includes a housing component, as well as a hotel and modifications to the existing clubhouse and golf facilities, and also includes components to be negotiated under a development agreement. The complexity of this type of project makes the project not representative of typical approval timeframes for housing developments. See Section B.2.2 (Current Projects Pending Approval) in Appendix B for more information.
Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-37
are designed to facilitate the development of housing, including Programs 1b: Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone and 3c: Local Coastal Program.
Table C-8: Estimated Approval Timelines
Permit/Approval Type Approval
Authority
Estimated Approval Timelines
Development Permit for Single-Family
Dwelling/Duplex
Director 1 month
Development Permit for Multi-Family (3+
units)
Director 1 month for CEQA-exempt projects; 6 to 12 months or more for projects that require CEQA review
Note: As stated and shown in Table C-3 above, all residential uses, from single family detached homes to multi-family apartments, are permitted by-right with no discretionary review if the development application meets the zoning standards and obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are adequately addressed. This means that no discretionary approvals or public hearings for the residential land use entitlement are needed (except as appropriate for CEQA purposes).
Source: City of Seal Beach
In addition, although the City does not have recent data on this, at HCD’s request, the City estimates that the time lapse between project approval and application for building permit would typically be six months or less. However, larger projects may see lapses of a year or more, depending on the complexity of the project. More complex projects may take a longer period to prepare a full set of plans and meet any CEQA mitigation measures that might be required prior to securing the building permit. In addition, development projects within the Coastal Zone require discretionary review and approval by the Coastal Commission following review and approval by the City. Coastal Commission review may take as little as two months to more than a year, depending on the complexity of the project. In the future, if the Coastal Commission certifies a Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the City, less complex projects may be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the LCP and Coastal Act, but more complex projects may still require direct Coastal Commission review. See Program 3c (Local Coastal Program) for more information.
Minor and Conditional Use Permits
The City’s use permit process is described in Chapter 11.5.20 (Development Permits) of the Municipal Code. This includes both minor use permits and conditional use permits; but again, as described in Table C-3, no use permits are required for single or multi-family residential development in residential zones.
A Minor Use Permit (MUP) is required for Group Housing in the RHD district. A MUP is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The typical time required to process a MUP is 45 days. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for Group Housing in the PO (Professional Office) district and for Single Room Occupancy units in the RHD district. A CUP is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, and the typical time to process a CUP is 60 days. To the extent required by law, the City will modify its group home requirements to ensure compliance with State law as part of a Zoning Code update to occur following adoption of this Housing Element. See Programs 3g (Facilitate Residential Care Facilities/Group Homes) and 3j (Reduce C-38 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints
Parking Requirements for Studios and 1-Bedroom Units) for more information as part of the City’s efforts to facilitate development of these types of housing.
An MUP or CUP shall only be granted if the reviewing body finds, based upon evidence presented at the hearing, that the proposal conforms to all of the following criteria as well as to any other special findings required for approval of use permits in specific zoning districts:
1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and with any other applicable plan adopted by the City Council;
2. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with use permit approval and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code;
3. The site is physically adequate for the type, density and intensity of use being proposed, including provision of services, and the absence of physical constraints;
4. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect uses and properties in the surrounding neighborhood; and
5. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use at the location proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use.
Once a project requiring discretionary approval is approved by the Planning Commission, applicants outside the Coastal Zone may move immediately into plan check and building permit issuance. Any documents or information required to satisfy conditions of approval may be submitted and resolved during the plan check process. Upon submittal to the Building Division, which may be done electronically for faster and simpler access, the initial review typically takes 14 to 30 days, depending upon complexity of the project. Corrections, should they be needed, take less than two weeks and often only a few days to review. Once construction commences, building inspections and subsequent permits as needed are almost immediate, with inspections typically being available the day after requested.
Coastal Development
For projects within the Coastal Zone, the applicant must submit an application to the Coastal Commission and obtain approval of a Coastal Development Permit prior to submittal of an application for a building permit from the City. The City has no control over the Coastal Commission review and decision-making timeline. Adoption of the City’s LCP (Program 3c) will eliminate this step in the review process for most projects, reducing the overall time required to permit residential development in the Coastal Zone.
Design Review
There are no design review requirements in the city, with exception for some provisions in the Main Street Specific Plan, affecting a very limited geographic area and primarily targeting Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-39
commercial street fronts. Objective design standards will be incorporated into the Zoning Code update proposed by Program 1b.
Environmental Review
Environmental review is required for all developments meeting the definition of “projects” under CEQA. Seal Beach has a number of environmental and development constraints due to its sensitive environmental resources and coastal location.
Under State law, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for any development that has the potential of creating significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, which is typical of large projects.
Some residential projects are either Categorically Exempt or require only an Initial Study and Negative Declaration. A Negative Declaration typically takes four to six weeks to prepare, depending on complexity of the project and required technical studies, followed by a state-mandated public review period. Categorically Exempt developments require a minimal amount of time. As a result, environmental review does not pose a significant constraint to housing development in the city.
Residential uses are permitted by right and environmental review is not required, unless the applicant proposes to amend the General Plan or Zoning Code, or deviate from certain standards.
As a part of the Zoning Code update (Program 1a), a Program EIR is being developed, which will streamline future development proposals that are consistent with the Program EIR.
Requests to Develop Below Anticipated Densities
Requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the Housing Element may also constitute a constraint to housing development. Over the last housing cycle, the City received one application to develop a site with less units than anticipated. The Ocean Place development (known in the previous Housing Element as the DWP Specific Plan Property) originally proposed to construct 32 units; however, as discussed under the Local Coastal Program in the Governmental Constraints Section, only 30 units were ultimately constructed specifically due to restrictions placed on the project by the California Coastal Commission.
In order to ensure future development implements densities planned for in the Housing Element sites inventory, the City will increase the minimum densities at most housing opportunity sites to 40 units/acre. See Appendix B for more information on the sites inventory.
Permit and Development Fees
State law limits fees charged for development permit processing to the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Various fees and assessments are charged by the City and other public agencies to cover the costs of processing permit applications and providing services and facilities such as schools, parks and infrastructure. Almost all of these fees are assessed through a pro rata share system, based on the magnitude of the project's impact or on the extent of the benefit that will be derived. Development fees will vary from project-to-project C-40 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints
depending on the specific characteristics. Table C-9 summarizes the development fees for typical residential projects.
Table C-9: Planning and Development Fees
Fee Category Fee or Deposit Amount
Planning and Application Fees1
Pre-Application Conference $1,000
Parcel Map $7,968
Tentative Tract Map $9,960 (varies by size)
Concept Approval (coastal) $1,328
Major Site Plan Review $6,375
Minor Use Permit $885
Conditional Use Permit $4,427
Planned Unit Development $26,561
Specific Plan $26,561
Environmental Review1
Categorical Exemption $664
Initial Study (review and preparation) $2,500 deposit
Negative Declaration $10,000 deposit
Environmental Impact Report (review)2 $20,000 deposit
Regional Development Impact Fees3
Water connection fees4 $5,307
Sewer connection fees $2,754
Traffic Impact fees (per unit)
$789 (condo)
$960 (apartment)
$1,463 (single-family house)
Est. total fee % of total development cost5
SF – 1-3%
MF – 3-5%
Source: City of Seal Beach Development Services Department, June 2023 Notes:
1. Items with deposits are based on actual processing costs which may exceed initial deposit amount.
2. Applicant is required to reimburse City for consultant costs.
3. Impact Fees are imposed by regional agencies and vary by location
4. Assuming 1” water service line
5. Assumes development cost of $1,000,000 for SF and $600,000 for MF and CEQA exemption The City periodically evaluates the actual cost of processing the development permits when revising its fee schedule. The current fee schedule is based on a fee study completed in 2021.
C.2.4 On and Off-site Improvements
After the passage of Proposition 13 and its limitation on local governments’ property tax revenues, cities and counties have faced increasing difficulty in providing public services and facilities to Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-41
serve their residents. One of the main consequences of Proposition 13 has been the shift in funding of new infrastructure from general tax revenues to development impact fees and improvement requirements on land developers.
Developers of residential tracts in the City are required to install arterial and local streets; sewer; water lines; storm drainage; curbs, gutters, sidewalks; street lighting; underground utilities; and landscaping in the public right-of-way within and adjacent to a tract. These facilities are in most cases dedicated to the City or other agencies that are responsible for maintenance. Without the site improvement requirement there are no other means of providing necessary infrastructure to the City's land parcels. Requirements for site improvements are at a level necessary to meet the City's costs and/or service obligations and are necessary to protect health, safety, and welfare.
The costs of these required off-site improvements vary depending on the location and type of development. The City may also impose development fees on future housing developments in order to recover some of the cost of installing off-site improvements including upgrading the circulation system and other urban service systems to serve increased density. Seal Beach has the vast majority of necessary infrastructure, such as streets, electrical and water facilities, already in place. Dedication of land or in-lieu fees may also be required of a project for rights-ofway, transit facilities and recreational facilities, consistent with the Subdivision Map Act.
A typical local street requires a 60-foot right-of-way, with two 12-foot travel lanes. The City’s road standards are typical for cities in Orange County and do not act as a constraint to housing development. Table C-10 illustrates the City’s road improvement standards.
Table C-10: Road Improvement Standards
Roadway Designation
Number of
Lanes
Right-of-Way
Width
Curb-to-Curb
Width
Principal Arterial 8 140’ 120’
Major Arterial 6 120’ 102’
Primary Arterial 4 100’ 84’
Secondary Arterial 4 80’ 64’
Local Street 2 60’ 36’
Source: City of Seal Beach Public Works Department
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contains a schedule of public improvements including streets and other public works projects to facilitate the continued build-out of the City’s General Plan. The CIP helps to ensure that construction of public improvements is coordinated with private development.
C.2.5 Federal Land Uses (NWS Seal Beach)
The Naval Weapons Station (NWS) Seal Beach was established in 1944 for weapons and munitions loading, storage and maintenance and has operated continuously into present day.
This federal land use occupies 8.2 square miles within the city, accounting for approximately 70% of the jurisdiction. It is estimated that NWS Seal Beach employs about 740 military and civilian C-42 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints
personnel on the installation, with about 320 family members and up to 850 reservists that may be present on training weekends. NWS Seal Beach housing includes 178 enlisted family housing units, 36 units of unaccompanied housing (formerly known as bachelor enlisted quarters or barracks), and eight officer houses; these units are limited to service members stationed on-site.
This federal land use constitutes the majority of land within Seal Beach. Within NWS Seal Beach, the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge constitutes approximately 900 acres as a marine protected area to protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas. The Navy contracts with farmers for agricultural uses on-site, primarily north of Westminster Boulevard. While significant acreage of vacant land exists on NWS Seal Beach, federal ownership and active military use prevents additional residential units from being developed on-site without initiative from the federal government. As noted in the land inventory, the Navy is currently moving forward with one site for development.
In the unlikely event military uses are ever vacated from this site, existing environmental constraints would limit development. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge would remain protected, and other sensitive habitats on-site could be identified as well. Contamination and hazardous material clean-up would also be required.
C.2.6 Airport Land Use Commission
The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is the county entity under the Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21670 that assists local agencies in assuring land use compatibility near Orange County airports. The Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) Los Alamitos is located just north of Seal Beach, and includes the Los Alamitos Army Airfield. As such, portions of the City are located within the Airport Influence Area that ALUC reviews under its Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). Standards include restrictions on height for safety purposes, as well as noise considerations for compatibility. Most development proposals are accommodated under approvals from the Director or Planning Commission, although amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code would be reviewed by the ALUC for consistency with the AELUP when required by State law. As the updated Housing Element and Zoning Code Update undertaken as a part of Program 1a would need to be presented to the ALUC, it is not anticipated that individual projects would require further General Plan or Zoning Code amendments, and therefore would not require ALUC review.
Nevertheless, to provide further information on this potential constraint, the following analysis is provided. Nine housing opportunity sites are within planning areas identified in the AELUP, and in drafting the Housing Element, the City reviewed the adopted AELUP for compatibility (also see Section B.2.5 in Appendix B for an in-depth discussion of how the City’s housing sites relate to the AELUP). As set forth in the City’s General Plan, all development on the proposed housing opportunity sites shall comply with the noise criteria and safety standards set forth in the AELUP.
The adopted Housing Element acknowledges the requirement that all elements of the General Plan must be internally consistent, and residential development capacities established in the Land Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-43
Use Element and constraints to development identified in the Safety/Noise Element are reflected in the Housing Element. Should a future development trigger review by the ALUC, noise and safety are expected to be the key issues the ALUC would consider. The following sections provide more detail on these topics.
Noise
The AELUP uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) system for measuring noise impacts, which is a weighted average of noise over time. The AELUP defines the noise exposure in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 2) as “Moderate Noise Impact” and in the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 1) as “High Impact.” (AELUP Sections
3.2.3, 3.2.4.) Residential uses are identified as “conditionally consistent” for the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour and “normally inconsistent” for the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour (AELUP Section 3, Table 1 “Limitations on Land Use Due to Noise”). The AELUP does not prohibit residential uses in either Noise Impact Zone 1 or Noise Impact Zone 2. Instead, the AELUP provides that residential uses should be developed with insulation systems that bring the sound attenuation to no more than 45 dB inside, consistent with the City’s General Plan Noise Element and State Building Code. The City’s Noise Element acknowledges the AELUP; it further states that up to 70 dBA CNEL is conditionally acceptable for multi-family residential uses.
Safety
AELUP Section 2.1.2 (Safety) describes accident potential zones and clear zones at the JFTB.
Accident potential zones (APZ) and clear zones (CZ) were set in 1994 and based on Department of Defense criteria. According to the AELUP, prior to1995, the ALUC utilized a 10-year accident history which found that the accident potential zone was located within the boundaries of JFTB, and no additional accident potential zones are identified in the adopted AELUP beyond the clear zones. No development is proposed by the Housing Element within CZs.
Section C.3 Non-Governmental Constraints
C.3.1 Housing Supply/Conditions
Market Overview: For-Sale Development
As shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Table A-20), the Region’s home values have increased significantly since 2000 and again in 2012, when they had reached a low point following the Great Recession (2009-2012). From 2000 to 2018, the median home value in the SCAG region and in Seal Beach increased by approximately 151 percent.
Following the recovery from the Great Recession and until 2020, interest rates remained at low levels of 3.5 to 4.5 percent. When interest rates are low, capital investment and housing production generally increase, and more buyers are likely to take out a mortgage than when C-44 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints
interest rates are higher. In addition, consumers are able to borrow more money for the same monthly payment. During the COVID-19 pandemic, national 30-year mortgage rates dropped to even lower levels, declining to as low as 2.65 percent in January 2021. However, interest rates began to increase in early 2022, to 5.3 percent by May 2022, the highest rate since June 2009.11 The increase in home borrowing rates may impact the performance of the home buying market, but the severity of these impacts is uncertain due to the unusual conditions during the pandemicrecovery, including a shortage of housing supply, increased savings, and significant changes to how many Americans work and live.
Market Overview: Rental
As shown in the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Section A.5.3, Rental Costs), similar to most beach communities in Southern California, Seal Beach rents are relatively high compared to comparable regional rental prices. According to U.S. Census data, the median rent in Seal Beach in 2019 was $1,907 per month.
Renters bear the brunt of an overall rise in housing costs without the benefit of fixed-rate mortgages. Per the Needs Assessment (Appendix A, Section A.5.3, Rental Costs), Seal Beach renters are less cost-burdened and severely cost-burdened compared to the SCAG region. When looking at renters who are severely cost-burdened across income category in Seal Beach, 19 percent of renters spend 50 or more percent of their income on housing compared to 29 percent of renters in the SCAG region (Appendix A, Table A-22). Additionally, 42 percent of Seal Beach renters spend 30 percent or more of their income on housing and are considered cost-burdened, compared to 55 percent in the SCAG region. In total, 61 percent of Seal Beach renters compared to 84 percent of SCAG region renters experience some level of cost burden.
C.3.2 Development Costs
Land Costs
Land represents one of the most significant components of the cost of new housing. Land values fluctuate with market conditions, and ongoing increases in the housing market have affected land values. Changes in land prices reflect the cyclical nature of the residential real estate market. The high price of land throughout Orange County, especially in coastal areas, poses a significant challenge to the development of lower-income housing. Popular housing and real-estate websites demonstrate this issue; in the surrounding coastal cities of Orange County like Long Beach and Huntington Beach, an acre of land in a coastal city can sell at a premium. Land cost varies greatly depending on lot location, size, configuration, and the ability to support development. Proximity to the coast, San Gabriel River, or other desirable views can increase property value as well. 11 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), Primary Mortgage Market Survey® Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-45
The limited availability of vacant land is a constraint to the development of new housing within the City. Underutilized commercial sites offer the greatest potential for new housing. Additionally, the demographic and customer shift from auto-oriented single-use retail centers to mixed-use, urban and walkable places makes existing successful retail centers candidates for residential development.
Density affects development feasibility by determining the land cost per unit. As discussed in the Governmental Constraints section of this chapter, allowable multi-family residential densities in Seal Beach are technically sufficient to facilitate development of affordable housing in that they allow 20 or more units per acre. Given the high land values, additional incentives/subsidies may be required to achieve the City’s desired number of affordable housing goals (see Programs 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1o, 1p, 2a and 2d).
Construction Costs
Construction cost is affected by the price of materials, labor, development standards and general market conditions. The City has no influence over materials and labor costs, and the building codes and development standards in Seal Beach are not substantially different than most other cities in Orange County. In recent years, construction costs for materials and labor have increased at a significantly higher pace than the general rate of inflation.
One indicator of construction costs is the Building Valuation Data, compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The unit costs compiled by the ICC include structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work, in addition to interior finish and normal site preparation. The data are national, and do not account for regional differences, nor include the price of land upon which the building is constructed. The most recent Building Valuation Data, dated February 2021, reports the national average for development costs per square foot for apartments and single-family homes as follows: 12
• Type I or II, R-2 Residential Multi-family: $157.74 to $179.04 per square foot • Type V Wood Frame, R-2 Residential Multifamily: $120.47 to $125.18 per square foot • Type V Wood Frame, R-3 Residential One- and Two-Family Swelling: $130.58 to $138.79 per square foot
• R-4 Residential Care/Assisted Living Facilities generally range between $152.25 to $211.58 per square foot
Additionally, labor costs are influenced by the availability of workers and prevailing wages. In January 2002, SB 975 expanded the definition of public works and the application of the State’s 12 International Code Council, Building Valuation Data – FEBRUARY 2021, https://cdn-web.iccsafe.org/wpcontent/uploads/BVD-BSJ-FEB21.pdf, accessed December 15, 2021.
C-46 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints
prevailing wage requirements. It also expanded the definition of what constitutes public funds, capturing significantly more projects (such as housing) beyond just public works that involve public/private partnerships. Except for self-help projects, SB 975 requires payment of prevailing wages for most private projects constructed under an agreement with a public agency aiding the project. As a result, prevailing wage requirement substantially increases the cost of affordable housing construction. In addition, a statewide shortage of construction workers may be further exacerbated by limitations and restrictions due to the current COVID-19 pandemic. Although construction costs are a significant factor in the overall cost of residential development, the City of Seal Beach has no direct influence over materials and labor costs and must comply with regulations under SB 975.
C.3.3 Availability of Financing
Seal Beach is typical of Southern California communities with regard to private sector home financing programs and interest rates. In recent years, mortgage interest rates have been very low by historic standards, resulting in increased affordability for home purchasers with good credit.
However, as interest rates rise, purchasing power declines. The high cost of housing units in the city may create challenges for the ability of potential buyers to fulfill down-payment requirements on a home that is not affordable. Conventional home loans typically require 5% to 20% of the sales price as a down payment. Program 3b, which would support a federal tax credit program, may assist in making home ownership more affordable.
C.3.4 Market Constraints Summary
Higher for-sale prices and comparable market rents and higher land costs compared to other parts of the SCAG region impose constraints for attracting new housing development in Seal Beach. Additionally, due to high housing demand, Seal Beach is generally built out, so future housing development will be constrained by existing development, require demolishing existing structures, improvements, and uses, and/or be developed on infill sites (the latter forms the majority of the City’s sites inventory as described in Appendix B). The lack of available vacant land may constrain housing production due to the increased costs associated with redevelopment.
C.3.5 Community Resistance to Housing
Another constraint to housing production in Orange County and Seal Beach is community resistance to new developments. There are various concerns often expressed, including new housing developments will cause increased traffic, place a burden on other infrastructure (e.g., water supply, schools, etc.), adversely affect community character, and result in loss of valuable open space. Regardless of the factual basis of the concern, vociferous opposition can slow or stop development.
Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-47
While potential opposition to affordable housing exists in many communities throughout Southern California , Seal Beach allows multi-family developments by-right in residential zones to facilitate project review and approval. The City continues to inform the community about State requirements for streamlining housing and works diligently to maintain compliance with ongoing amendments to State law.
Section C.4 Environmental and Infrastructure
Constraints
C.4.1 Environmental Constraints
Environmental constraints include physical features such as steep slopes, fault zones, floodplains, sensitive biological habitat, and agricultural lands. In many cases, development of these areas is constrained by state and federal laws (e.g., FEMA floodplain regulations, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, and the state Fish and Game Code and Alquist-Priolo Act).
The most noteworthy environmental constraints in Seal Beach are seismicity and soil stability related to a shallow groundwater. The Newport-Inglewood fault runs through the city. Since the city’s topography is relatively gentle, steep slopes and landslides are not a major concern.
The City’s land use plans have been designed to protect sensitive areas from development, and also to protect public safety by avoiding development in hazardous areas. While these policies constrain residential development to some extent, they are necessary to support other public policies. In Southern California, nearly all development projects face potential community-wide environmental constraints such as traffic, noise and air quality impacts, in addition to site-specific constraints. None of the sites identified in the land inventory (Appendix B) have site-specific environmental constraints that would preclude the assumed level of development.
Coastal constraints related to sea level rise are discussed alongside the Local Coastal Program in the Governmental Constraints section. Additionally, two major wetland areas are located within the City: the Los Cerritos Wetlands, located on the Hellman Ranch Property, and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, located on the NWS Seal Beach property. Several development proposals were issued over the years to develop Hellman Ranch and failed for various reasons.
In 1981, the City approved a 1,000-unit project by Ponderosa homes that was ultimately denied by Coastal Commission because the project did not provide for wetlands conservation. In 1989, the City approved a 329-unit project by Mola Development Corp., but the project was ultimately blocked by lawsuits. In 1996, John Lang Homes proposed a 70-unit project to occupy about 10 percent of the property. As part of this proposal, Coastal Commission required portions of the Hellman Ranch Property to be deed restricted for future wetland restoration. During the grading process, cultural resources and Native American burials were found on-site. Ultimately, the project was scaled back to 64 homes. While Hellman Rancho/Los Cerritos Wetlands area C-48 | City of Seal Beach Housing Constraints
constitutes a significant acreage of vacant space within the city, this area is not suitable for residential development in the future. 13
Similarly, the 900+ acre wetlands located on NWS Seal Beach are protected as a National Wildlife Refuge. In the unlikely event the US Navy elects to vacate its property in Seal Beach, these wetlands would continue to be protected by US Fish and Wildlife Service. Other land use limitations associated with NWS Seal Beach is discussed under Federal Land Uses within the Governmental Constraints section, above.
Wildfire severity zones and FEMA flood zones can also pose constraints to development. The CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone map does not identify any very high fire hazard severity zones in Seal Beach. The AFFH mapping tool identifies some areas that are within a FEMA 100-year flood zone. The only significant flood zone in the city exists almost entirely within the NWS Seal Beach area. Some minor flood zones exist along the coast, a small flood zone at the western edge of Census Tract 995.04, and a small flood zone surrounding Old Ranch Country Club in Census Tract 1100.12. It is unlikely that these hazard zones would significantly hinder housing development. See Appendix C.2.1 (Land Use Controls) above for an analysis of the City’s existing floodplain management regulations.
C.4.2 Infrastructure Constraints
The majority of Seal Beach is built out and has the necessary infrastructure, streets, electrical lines, and water distribution already in place for new development. New development is able to tap into existing water and sewer lateral lines, with no new sewer or water mains necessary. The City’s General Plan identifies adequate infrastructure and public service capacity to accommodate the anticipated build out. As part of the zoning effort, environmental review will be conducted and all service providers asked to identify any potential deficiencies and means to provide the required capacity.
The City of Seal Beach provides several utilities and services to customers within the city including water, sewer, street sweeping, and tree trimming. External providers provide customers with dry utilities. Electricity is provided through Southern California Edison. Internet service is provided through Spectrum. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan was updated in 2021, and recognizes the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. Furthermore, the Urban Water Management Plan forecasts residential water savings over time due to anticipated changes in codes, standards, and public outreach on water conservation.
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contains a schedule of public improvements including streets and other public works projects to maintain existing infrastructure and facilitate 13 The Orange County Register, New hands at the ranch, https://www.ocregister.com/2006/08/19/newhands-at-the-ranch/, accessed December 15, 2021.
Housing Constraints City of Seal Beach | C-49
the continued build-out of the City’s General Plan. The CIP helps to ensure that construction of public improvements is coordinated with development. Capacity for additional units would be created as build-out continues and specific projects are proposed. Providers have priority for lowincome units.
Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-1
Appendix D:Existing Programs Review
Contents
Appendix D: Existing Programs Review .....................................................1 Section D.1 Existing Housing Programs Review.......................................................................2 D-2 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review
Section D.1 Existing Housing Programs Review
Section 65588(a) of the Government Code requires that jurisdictions evaluate the effectiveness of the existing Housing Element, the appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies, and the progress in implementing programs for the previous planning period. This appendix contains a review of the housing goals, policies, and programs of the previous housing element, and evaluates the degree to which these programs have been implemented during the previous planning period. This analysis also includes an assessment of the appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies. The findings from this evaluation have been instrumental in determining the City’s housing programs for the 2021-2029 planning period.
Program Evaluation for Households with Special Needs
The prior Housing Element identified a number of programs to address the needs of special needs households. Most of these programs (e.g., Programs 1a, 1c, 2b, 2d, 3a, 3c, 3d, 4a, 5b, and 5c) relied on the construction of new affordable units to address needs, but no such units were constructed during the past cycle. For example, Program 1a (Provision of Adequate Sites for New Construction through the General Plan and Zoning Code) supported the development of new housing, though the program did not result in provision of housing that is suitable for those with special needs. Additionally, Program 1c (Second Units) supported the adoption of an ADU ordinance in 2021 and updates in 2022 and 2023, but did not result in units for those with special needs. The results of the programs for households with special needs summarized below reflect very limited progress made towards housing resources for those with special needs. To improve housing conditions for special needs groups in the 6th cycle, the City is implementing the following programs:
• Program 1a (Provide Adequate Sites for Housing through updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code
• Program 1b (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone) • Program 1g (Community Engagement and Outreach)
• Program 1h (Accessory Dwelling Units)
• Program 1k (Emergency Shelters, Low Barrier Navigation Centers, and Transitional/Supportive Housing)
• Program 2a (Streamline the Density Bonus Review Process) • Program 2c (Affordable Housing Resources)
• Program 1r (Allow Employee/Farmworker Housing Consistent with State law) • Programs 3g (Facilitate Residential Care Facilities/Group Homes) • Program 3h (Remove Minimum Unit Size Requirements)
• Program 3j (Reduce Parking Requirements for Studios and 1-Bedroom Units) • Program 3k (Remove Conditional Use Permit Requirement for Single Room Occupancy Units)
Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-3
• Program 4c (Provide Home Renovation Assistance Loans to Lower Income Households through Community Development Block Grants)
• Program 4d (Provide Home Renovation Assistance Loans to Lower Income Households through the Orange County Single-Family Rehabilitation Program) • Program 5g: Accessible Housing
• Program: 5h (Fair Housing Task Force)
• Program 5i (Affordable Housing Benefits Campaign)
• Program 5j (Fair Housing Mobility Program)
Seniors and Disabled Residents
As described in Appendix A, approximately 39% of the City’s population is aged 65 years or older.
The high percentage of elderly residents is attributed to the presence of Leisure World, a senior community where residents must be aged 55 or older to purchase homes and reside in the neighborhood. Persons in this age group are more likely to be disabled. No new units targeted to this population were constructed during the last cycle. However, the City successfully continued to subsidize improvements to bathrooms in homes owned by 714 income-qualified households of Leisure World. These improvements allow residents to age in place and accommodate disabilities.
The City also continued to make available information regarding fair housing and other housing programs. For example, Program 5a (Fair Housing Services) facilitated fair housing and refer inquiries to the Fair Housing Council of Orange County, and Program 5c (Housing Information and Referral Services) supported the housing and referral services provided by the Housing Authority of Orange County by posting contact information on the City website and at public buildings.
The City offers a number of programs to enhance the quality of life for its seniors. For example, Program 5b (Removal of Architectural Barriers) utilized the Home Improvement Program to remove architectural barriers and encourage participation by elderly and disabled residents. The City offers two transportation programs to travel around the City; one is a fixed-route shuttle, and the other is a Dial-A-Ride program. The City also offers a meal delivery program to seniors; provides a lunch program; sponsors a pinochle club; and arranges tax preparation assistance.
Developmentally Disabled Persons
Persons with developmental disabilities can obtain services through the Dayle McIntosh Center.
The Orange County Regional Center serves more than 60 qualified residents in Seal Beach. The City does not provide services for this population, but continues to make available information regarding resources on its website and at City facilities.
Extremely Low-Income Households
Program 2b (Affordable Housing Resources) included an objective to prioritize assistance for extremely low-income units and projects to meet the City’s regional housing need of one extremely low-income unit during the planning period. However, there were no units developed D-4 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review
for this population during the last cycle. The City continued to publicize housing programs and services that could assist this population.
Large Households
The number of large households in Seal Beach is significantly lower than in the County, primarily because of the number of elderly households comprised of one or two persons. Nevertheless, the City continued to publicize programs and services that could meet the needs of this population.
There were no new units designed to meet the needs of this group constructed during the last cycle as stated in Program 1a (Provision of Adequate Sites for New Construction through the General Plan and Zoning Code).
Female Headed Households
In Seal Beach, female-headed households comprise approximately six percent of all households, compared to 14 percent of households in the SCAG region (Appendix A, Housing Needs Assessment, Section A.3.4 Special Housing Needs). In order to support the community’s population of female-headed households, the City publicized programs and services to meet the needs of this population. However, as stated previously for Program 1a (Provision of Adequate Sites for New Construction through the General Plan and Zoning Code), there were no new units designed to meet the needs of this group constructed during the last cycle.
Farm Workers
At present, there has not been demand from the Orange County farm labor force for housing in Seal Beach to provide housing for agricultural labors in nearby communities.
Homeless Persons
In January 2019, the Orange County “Point-in-Time” survey reported a total of eight unsheltered persons and no sheltered persons living in Seal Beach (Appendix A, Housing Needs Assessment, Section A.3.4 Special Housing Needs). The City has identified locations for shelters in accordance with State law. No applications for shelter development were received. The City will amend its Zoning Code to be in compliance with new State law requirements. Additionally, as stated in Program 1d (Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing), the City has taken a proactive approach of advancing a partnership with the County of Orange for mental health services and placement of individuals and families in need of housing assistance.
Table D-1 presents the City’s progress in meeting the quantified objectives from the previous Housing Element.
Table D-2 summarizes the programs contained in the previous Housing Element along with the source of funding, program objectives, accomplishments, and implications for future policies and actions.
Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-5
Table D-1: Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives, 2013-2021, City of Seal Beach Program Category Quantified
Objective Progress
New Construction
Extremely Low 1
Very Low 0
Low 3
Moderate 4 2
Above Moderate 72 31
Total 80 33
Rehabilitation**
Very Low -
Low -
425
210
Moderate -
Above Moderate -
Total - 635
Conservation & Assistance***
Very Low
Low
25 25
Moderate 75 75
Above Moderate - -
Total 100 100
*Quantified objectives for new construction are for 2006 -2014 RHNA period **Seal Beach Shores Trailer Park rehabilitation and Leisure World VL/L-Income Accessibility Program ***Seal Beach Shores Trailer Park preservation
D-6 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review
Table D-2: Housing Element Program Evaluation, 2013-2021, City of Seal Beach Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions
Program 1a Provision of
Adequate Sites for New
Construction through the
General Plan and Zoning
Code.
1. In order to enhance the feasibility of affordable
housing development, the City will offer incentives
and concessions such as expedited processing,
administrative assistance with applications for
funding assistance, and modified development
standards.
2. The City will report its progress in implementing
this program to HCD on an annual basis, pursuant
to Government Code §65400.
3. The City shall comply with the “no net loss”
provisions of Government Code §65863 through
the implementation of an ongoing project-byproject evaluation process to ensure that adequate sites are available to accommodate the
City’s RHNA share throughout the planning
period. The City shall not reduce the allowable
density of any site in its residential land inventory,
nor approve a development project at a lower
density than assumed in the land inventory,
unless both of the following findings are made:
a) The reduction is consistent with the adopted
General Plan, including the Housing Element; and
b) The remaining sites identified in the Housing
Element are adequate to accommodate the City’s
share of regional housing need pursuant to
Government Code §65584.
If a reduction in residential density for any parcel
would result in the remaining sites in the Housing
The City continued to support new construction
of residential projects, and reported progress in
the annual report to HCD. There was no net
loss of housing.
The City successfully facilitated the
development of Ocean Place (at the DWP
property) with the development of 30 new
homes. This site was included in the prior
Element’s site inventory, and the ultimate
development density was slightly higher than
originally designated, despite a requirement
from the Coastal Commission to set aside a
portion of the site for visitor-serving uses. This
project was the first major development project
within the generally built-out city in many years.
Staff has significantly streamlined the
development process through implementation
of an online submittal portal, providing 24/7
access to the community development virtual
counter. The website has also been updated to
improve access to information to expedite the
process for development applications and
building plan check. Additionally, the city is
currently in the process of implementing a new
permitting software, which will offer shared
Modify This program is considered
successful with the
development of new
housing on a previously
identified site; however, this
program did not result in
provision of housing that is
suitable for those with
special needs, such as
disabilities, elderly
households, large
households, and female
headed households. No
affordable units were
constructed. Some
enhancements are included
in the 6th Cycle to more
thoroughly address
compliance with
Government Code and
internal City efforts.
Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-7
Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions
Element land inventory not being adequate to
accommodate the City’s share of the regional
housing need pursuant to Sec. 65584, the City
may reduce the density on that parcel if it
identifies sufficient additional, adequate and
available sites with an equal or greater residential
density so that there is no net loss of residential
unit capacity.
access to data between divisions, and further
streamline the development process.
Program 1b Land Use
Compatibility.
Continue to use zoning and other land use
controls to ensure the compatibility of residential
areas with surrounding uses
The City continues to implement zoning
processes that support residential uses,
including facilitation of the Ocean Place
development project of 30 new homes.
Continue This program is considered
successful in creating
livable environments that
support residential uses,
particularly access to parks,
open space, and amenities
that increase desirability.
Program 1c Second Units. Continue to allow for the development of second units consistent with state law and the Municipal
Code
The City adopted a new ordinance to allow for
development of accessory dwelling units and
junior accessory dwelling units, in conformance
with State law. The ordinance includes
provisions that streamline most development
applications to a plan check process Interest in
ADUs is growing, with seven permits issued in
2022 and as many submitted in the first 8
months of 2023..
Modify This program is considered
successful with the
adoption of an ADU
ordinance in 2021 and
updates in 2022 and 2023.
Future Zoning Code
changes will be
implemented to align with
state law as needed. The
City will also take steps to
ensure homeowners are
D-8 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review
Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions
aware of the opportunity to
create ADUs and create
incentives to encourage the
occupancy of these units by
households and individuals
in lower income categories
and those with special
needs.
Program 1d Emergency
Shelters and
Transitional/Supportive
Housing.
Continue to facilitate the provision of emergency
shelters and transitional/supportive housing
consistent with state law
The Zoning Code was amended in 2013 to
allow these uses. Nevertheless, no
applications for emergency shelters or
transitional/supportive housing were submitted.
However, the City has taken a proactive
approach to support those experiencing
homelessness, including advancement of a
partnership with the County of Orange for
mental health services and placement of
individuals and families in need of housing
assistance.
Modify
The City will continue to
support shelters and
supportive housing
consistent with State law,
and the Zoning Code. The
Zoning Code will be
amended to bring standards
for shelters and
transitional/supportive
housing into compliance
with State law. Staff will
continue work to prioritize
partnerships and innovative
solutions for those
experiencing
homelessness.
Program 1e Innovative Land
Use and Construction
Techniques
Continue to encourage the use of innovative land
use techniques and construction methods to
minimize housing costs provided that basic
health, safety, and aesthetic considerations are
not compromised. Encourage the use of planned
Limited development occurred during the last
planning period; therefore, effectiveness of
innovative techniques is difficult to evaluate.
However, recent interest in land recycling by
Eliminate
As laws change related to
housing implementation,
sustainable development,
and resource conservation,
this program has become
Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-9
Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions
unit developments, mixed use, and alternative
construction methods. The City will provide
flexibility in development standards and siting
requirements to minimize development costs
developers has raised questions about new
types of construction and housing.
irrelevant and has not
proven beneficial.
Program 1f Provision of
Adequate Public Facilities and
Services.
Continue to utilize environmental and other
development review procedures to ensure that all
new residential developments are provided with
adequate public facilities and services
The City successfully utilized this process to
ensure adequate facilities and services to new
housing during the prior planning period. .
Continue This program is considered
successful and must be
continued to ensure all new
development is adequately
served. The City’s
Environmental Impact
Report, currently underway
to support the rezoning
process, will provide new,
relevant information to
inform this program.
Program 2a Density Bonus. Continue to promote the use of density bonuses among potential residential developers
No density bonus applications were submitted
within the planning period. Modify
Pursuant to State law, the
City will continue to support
density bonus projects. The
City’s Zoning Code will be
amended to provide
consistency with applicable
state laws. The City will
expand outreach to
developers regarding the
use of density bonuses to
provide affordable units.
Program 2b Affordable
Housing Resources.
• Maintain a list of non-profit housing developers
active in Orange County.
• Contact qualified non-profit housing developers
This program is considered successful. The
City proactively sought out resources to support
affordable housing, including successfully
Modify
The City will continue to
seek out resources to
support the preservation
D-10 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review
Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions
to explore opportunities for affordable housing
development annually, or whenever development
opportunities arise.
• Explore a variety of funding resources, such as
Multi-Family Housing Program (MHP) funds and
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).
Periodically consult with the State Department of
Housing and Community Development HCD for
current and new funding availability.
• Provide interested developers with an inventory
of residential sites available for development.
• Prioritize assistance for extremely-low-income
(ELI) units and projects such as single room
occupancy (SRO) and supportive housing
commensurate with the City’s regional housing
need of 1 ELI unit during the current planning
period.
obtaining Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds and Permanent Local
Housing Allocation (PHLA) through the County
of Orange, as well as a direct allocation of Local
Early Action Planning (LEAP) funds. CDBG and
PHLA funds are programmed to support lowincome households with aging-in-place bathroom renovations and have assisted
approximately 714 elderly households. LEAP
funds have been allocated to development of
the Housing Element and the preparation of the
Local Coastal Program, which will further assist
in reducing barriers to preservation and
construction of affordable housing by
streamlining the development approval
process. Staff continues to consult with nonprofit developers on housing opportunities, though no proposals for deed-restricted
affordable housing were submitted in the prior
planning period. Other than renovations
described above, the City did not make any
significant progress in addressing the needs of
households with special needs.
and creation of affordable
housing The City will be
more proactive in seeking
relationships with affordable
housing developers who
can help address the need
for affordable units, as well
as those addressing the
needs of households with
special needs, such as the
elderly and disabled.
Program 2c Land Write Downs
and Assistance with Off-Site
Improvements
Consider subsidizing the cost of land and off-site
improvements for affordable housing
development on a project-specific basis when
feasible
No development applications for affordable
housing were received during the prior planning
period; however the City will continue to
consider subsidizing costs on a project-specific
basis.
Continue This program may continue
to be useful in the future,
should a feasible project be
presented. The City does
not receive a direct
allocation of funding
typically seen in housing
Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-11
Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions
development, such as
CDBG or HOME funds. The
City remains willing to work
with the private and nonprofit development industry
to partner for other
resources such as tax
allocation credits and other
resources developers may
access.
Program 3a Section 8 Rental
Assistance
• Continue to cooperate with the Orange County
Housing Authority in providing Section 8 rental
assistance to very-low-income households
• Assist the County Housing Authority in
promoting the Section 8 program to both property
owners and eligible renters by publicizing the
program on the City’s website, the City
newsletter, local libraries, and within Leisure
World.
The City continued to cooperate with OC
Housing Authority to support the Section 8
program by posting available information.
There are currently 5 Housing Choice Vouchers
used in Seal Beach.
Modify
Though housing vouchers
are limited in supply and
allocated by the County, the
City will continue to support
this effort in partnership.
The City will expand its
outreach program to
familiarize landlords and
potential tenants with the
program.
Program 3b Mortgage Credit
Certificates
Continue participation in the MCC program and
contact the County annually to determine current
program status. Distribute program information at
City libraries and on the City website. The number
of households assisted with this program will
depend on market conditions and program
availability
The City continued to cooperate with OC
Housing Authority to support the MCC program
by posting available information.
Continue The City will continue to
support sharing information
on the MCC program.
D-12 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review
Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions
Program 3c Maintenance of
Affordability Covenants on City
or Agency-Assisted Housing
Continue to monitor the affordability of any very
low-, low-, and moderate-income housing units
assisted with public funds
Under redevelopment dissolution law, the
County of Orange was named the Housing
Successor, and covenants were transferred to
the County for oversight.
Modify This program was not
implemented as no new
affordable units were
developed; however,
monitoring programs will be
established when new
affordable units are
developed.
Program 3d Local Coastal
Program
Prepare and obtain Coastal Commission
certification of a Local Coastal Program
The City was able to obtain grant funding from
the Coastal Commission to develop a Local
Coastal Program. A draft Land Use Plan was
submitted in Fall 2021, and comments returned.
Revisions were completed and submitted to the
Coastal Commission in May 2023, with the goal
of having a completed LCP submitted to the
Coastal Commission in Summer 2025.
Continue The Local Coastal Program
process is moving forward
in coordination with the
California Coastal
Commission.
Program 4a Condominium
Conversion
Continue to enforce the Condominium
Conversion Ordinance
No units were converted to condominiums
during the last planning period.
Continue The City will continue to
enforce Code Section
11.4.80 to protect tenant
rights and reduce impacts to
lower income households
Program 4b Replacement
Housing in Local Coastal Zone
Continue to review development projects on a
case-by-case basis to ensure that replacement
low- and moderate-income housing is provided if
feasible
The City monitored development projects for
loss of housing. No housing units were lost.
Modify This program will be
modified to meet current
laws regarding replacement
housing in all areas of the
city.
Program 4c Housing
Conditions Monitoring
Continue to conduct annual surveys of the
targeted beach area to identify housing units with
deferred maintenance issues and mail brochures
The city sought to address deferred
maintenance issues for all housing, including
the beach areas. However, the City does not
Modify The City will expand
windshield surveys
throughout the city to
Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-13
Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions
about the City’s rehabilitation programs to owners
of the identified units. Apply for funding
assistance annually from the Urban County
program if rehabilitation needs are identified
have funding available to support a
rehabilitation program for beach units. The
Urban County program (CDBG subrecipient
program) is available only to designated census
tracts, which do not include beach areas.
monitor conditions and work
with property owners on
deferred maintenance or
blight issues.
Program 4d Zoning and
Building Codes Enforcement
• Continue to enforce the City’s zoning and
building codes through contract code compliance
services.
• Provide information about assistance programs
to property owners with violations
The City provides code enforcement services
through a Neighborhood Services Officer. The
program has very effectively assisted in
maintaining health and safety standards set
forth in the Municipal Code. In most cases,
issues are resolved by providing information to
the property owners, and citations do not need
to be issued.
Continue The City continued to
enforce the City’s zoning
and building codes and
provide information to
property owners. City staff
will continue to seek out
programs that may be
available to property
owners needing assistance
to resolve code violations.
Program 5a Fair Housing
Services
Continue to provide fair housing and tenant
landlord counseling services through the Fair
Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC).
The Community Development Director will serve
as the primary point of contact for fair housing
issues and will refer inquiries to the FHCOC
The number and type of issues handled by
FHCOC within Seal Beach is typical of the
issues addressed in other communities.
Modify
The City continued to
facilitate fair housing and
refer inquiries to the Fair
Housing Council of Orange
County. Efforts will be
expanded to ensure tenants
and landlords understand
fair housing laws and
available resources to
enforce them through
information on the City’s
website and workshops. In
addition, the City will take a
more proactive approach to
D-14 | City of Seal Beach Existing Programs Review
Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions
understanding the nature
and location of fair housing
complaints that may be
filed.
Program 5b Removal of
Architectural Barriers
Continue to utilize the Home Improvement
Program to remove architectural barriers and
encourage participation by elderly and disabled
residents
The City currently utilizes CDBG funds as a
sub-recipient through the County to make
necessary improvements to bathrooms within
the Leisure World community. The
improvements modify bathtubs, showers, and
toilets to allow seniors to age in place. Funding
varies by year, though the program has been in
place since 2005. From the FY 2012-13
program, through December 2021, a total of
$1.58 million has been spent to improve 714
units. Residents must income-qualify for
assistance. In 2020, the City, in partnership with
the County, was able to obtain additional
funding for this program through PLHA.
Modify This program will be
modified to better describe
the activity and goals.
Program 5c Housing
Information and Referral
Services
Continue to support the housing and referral
services provided by the Housing Authority of
Orange County by posting contact information on
the City website and at public buildings
The City has not successfully tracked referral
outcomes
Modify The City will continue to
collaborate with the OC
Housing Authority and will
compile information on
other housing resources.
Further, city staff will more
actively engage with the
County and other regional
partners to seek out
resources and solutions to
housing issues and to
Existing Programs Review City of Seal Beach | D-15
Program Objective Accomplishments Analysis Future Policies and Actions
ensure that information
provided by the City is
accurate.
Program 6a Green Building
Techniques
• Distribute a Green Building Tips handout at City
Hall and on the City website.
• Continue to offer reduced fees for residential
remodeling projects that include energy
conservation features
The success of this effort has not been
tracked
Modify The city will continue to
provide information on
the benefits of energy
saving techniques.
Program 6b Promote Smart
Growth
Seek to incorporate smart growth principles in
future land use and zoning amendments
The recent Ocean Place development occurred
utilizing smaller lots within walking distance of a
number of amenities, including a new park.
Continue The City will consider how
to better implement this
program with the Zoning
Code update.
1 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element
Appendix E: Public Participation
Summary
Contents
Appendix E: Public Participation Summary...............................................1 Section E.1 Public Participation Summary ..............................................................................2 2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 2
Section E.1 Public Participation Summary
Section 65583(c)(5) of the Government Code states that "The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all the economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." Public participation played an important role in the formulation and refinement of the City’s housing goals and policies and in the development of a Land Use Plan which determines the extent and density of future residential development in the community.
The City conducted a diligent public outreach and engagement effort for development of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. The aim of this outreach was to better understand the perspective of all segments of the community and produce more effective and context-sensitive policies and programs to support housing development and address special needs populations. Public outreach also allowed the City to identify concerns of citizens and housing service providers and integrate local knowledge into the Housing Element that was not available in reports, online, or in City documents and may not have been initially apparent.
This Appendix summarizes the outreach efforts and input received in two sections:
• Summary of Public Engagement: An overview of the participants and public comments received.
• Documentation: Copies of the City’s public notice list and a publicly available F&Q resource guide produced to support the outreach efforts.
Early in the Housing Element update process the City created a web page (https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/PlanningDevelopment/Housing-Element-Update) where Frequently Asked Questions (see below), an online housing survey, meeting notices, agendas, draft documents and other reference materials were posted for review. The City received 14 comments regarding the information presented on the website.
The City also created a Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee to assist in the selection of housing sites. This committee held two public meetings.
Housing organizations, service providers and other interested parties that were included in the distribution of public notices are shown in Table C-1. Table C-2 provides a summary of questions raised during Housing Element preparation and responses to those questions.
As shown in Table C-1, more than a dozen organizations representing the interests of lowerincome households, persons with special needs, and affordable housing developers were invited to participate in the Housing Element update at each step of the process.
City residents and other interested stakeholders had many opportunities to recommend strategies, review, and comment on the Housing Element update.
3 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element
City Council/Planning Commission study session March 8, 2021 Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee meeting April 5, 2021
Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee meeting April 27, 2021 City Council/Planning Commission study session September 20, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing January 18, 2022
City Council public hearing February 7, 2022
ALUC Hearing February 17, 2022
City Council public hearing to overrule ALUC August 29, 2022 Zoning Update Study Session April 24, 2023
Zoning Update Community Meeting October 11, 2023
During the review process, including review by HCD, three (3) letters or emails were received.
These letters addressed a variety of issues and concerns, including the need to focus on households with extremely low and low incomes; compatibility with the adjacent JFTB; land use restrictions that may prevent housing development; and the desire for a more interactive public participation process.
The City has also engaged key stakeholders in discussions about the zoning changes that must be made to accommodate the RHNA. These stakeholders include planners, development professionals, a mortgage broker, real estate investors, property managers, an affordable housing advocate, affordable housing developers, and former City officials, both elected and appointed.
Many were residents of Seal Beach. The stakeholders have informed the approach to promoting housing in the Main Street/Downtown area, and development of mixed-use areas. The City has also engaged in discussions with representatives from the Navy to discuss the need for affordable housing and how a collaboration might also address the Navy’s needs for services for its employees and service members. Discussions with affordable housing developers occurred regarding potential development of the City’s site on the Navy base (See Section 4 of the Housing Element for relevant programs).
Prior to submittal of all drafts to HCD for review, this document was posted on the City’s website for seven days to solicit public comment. Notice of the draft’s availability was shared with all persons/organizations who requested to be notified of milestones in the Housing Element review process.
2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 4
Table C-1
Public Notice Distribution List
City of Seal Beach Housing Element Update
Kennedy Commission
17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
League of Women Voters of Central
Orange County
P.O. Box 10621
Santa Ana, CA 92711
OC Association of Realtors
25552 La Paz Road
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Neighborhood Housing Services of
OC
198 W. Lincoln Ave., 2nd Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
Habitat for Humanity of Orange
County
2200 S. Ritchey St.
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Jamboree Housing Corp.
17701 Cowan Avenue, #200
Irvine, CA 92614
The Related Companies of
California 18201 Von Karman Ave
Ste 900
Irvine, CA 92612
Community Housing Resources,
Inc.
17701 Cowan Avenue, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
BIA/OC
17744 Sky Park Circle #170
Irvine, CA 92614
Dayle McIntosh Center
501 N. Brookhurst Street, Suite 102
Anaheim, CA 92801
OC Housing Providers
25241 Paseo de Alicia, Suite 120
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Regional Center of Orange County
P.O. Box 22010
Santa Ana, CA 92702-2010
OC Business Council
2 Park Plaza, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92614
OC Housing Trust
198 W. Lincoln Ave., 2nd Floor
Anaheim, CA 92805
Mercy Housing
480 S Batavia St
Orange, CA 92868
OC Housing & Community
Development
Attn: Rebecca Leifkes
1501 E. St Andrew Place, 1st Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Orange County Housing Authority
1501 E St Andrew Pl
Santa Ana, CA 92705
City of Long Beach
Development Services Department
Linda F. Tatum, Director
411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802
City of Los Alamitos
Development Services Department
Ron Noda, Acting Director
3191 Katella Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
City of Huntington Beach
Community Development Dept
Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director
2000 Main Street – 3rd Floor
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Orange County Water District
Michael Markus, General Manager
18700 Ward St
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Orange County Sanitation District
Jim Herberg, General Manager
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
City of Garden Grove
Comm. and Economic
Development
Lisa Kim, Director/ACM
11222 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Rossmoor Community Services
District
Joe Mendoza, General Manager
3001 Blume Dr,
Rossmoor, CA 90720
5 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element
OC Development Services
Amanda Carr, Interim Deputy
Director
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach
Gregg T. Smith, Public Affairs
Officer
800 Seal Beach Boulevard
Seal Beach, CA 90740-5000
California Coastal Commission
South Coast District
Amber Dobson, District Manager
301 E Ocean Blvd Suite 300, Long
Beach, CA 90802
Southern California Edison
P.O. Box 800
Rosemead, CA 91770
SoCal Gas Company
Centralized Correspondence
PO Box 1626
Monterey Park CA 91754-8626
City of Westminster
Community Development
Department
Alexa Smittle, Director
8200 Westminster Boulevard
Westminster CA 92683
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians
Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairman
P.O. Box 393
Covina, California 91723
Gabrieleño Tongva Indians of CA
Tribal Council
5450 Slauson Avenue, Suite 151
PMB
Culver City, California 90230-6000
Gabrieleño Tongva Nation
Sam Dunlap
P.O. Box 86908
Los Angeles, California 90086
Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, California 91778
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, California 90707
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians
Joyce Stanfield Perry, Tribal
Manager
4955 Paseo Segovia
Irvine, California 90603
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians -
Acjachemen Nation
David Balardes
32161 Avenida Los Amigos
San Juan Capistrano, California
92675
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians
Alfred Cruz
P.O. Box 25628
Santa Ana, California 92799
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Director
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, California 92581
Ti ‘AT Society
Cindi Alvitre
6515 East Seaside Walk #C
Long Beach, California 90803
Los Alamitos Unified School District
10293 Bloomfield St.
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
Coast Community College District
1370 Adams Avenue
Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626
Joint Forces Training Base, Los
Alamitos
4522 Saratoga Ave, Building 15
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
OC Airport Land Use Commission
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 6
Table C-2
Summary of Public Comments
City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Comment Response
Since most single-family lots are allowed 2 ADUs,
does the sites inventory allow the City to assume the
total potential number of ADUs for RHNA purposes?
State policy does not allow the full ADU potential to
be assumed for RHNA purposes. Cities may estimate
potential future ADU production based on past
trends.
What does “by-right” development mean? “By-right” means the development review process must be based only on objective standards involving
no personal judgment.
If a property is listed in the inventory of housing sites, is the City or the property owner required to develop
the property during the 8-year planning period?
No – the sites listed in the inventory only indicates
that the potential exists for additional housing
development. However, through various programs,
the City is encouraging and facilitating development
at these sites.
If a property listed in the inventory of housing sites is shown as having potential for low-income housing,
can the property only be developed with affordable
housing?
No – sites shown as accommodating low-income
housing only indicates that the property is considered
suitable for low-income housing under State law.
Generally, sites that allow a density of at least 30
units/acre are considered suitable for low-income
housing in cities with a population of greater than
25,000 in Orange County.
How were the issues in Seal Beach that limit
development areas, such as sensitive environmental
areas and Federal Government land ownership,
factored into the Housing Element and RHNA?
These issues were considered as part of the RHNA
process and the Housing Element discusses these
constraints to housing development. Moreover,
environmental impacts are discussed in the CEQA
document for this project.
Affordable housing is very unlikely to be built in highcost areas like Seal Beach. What happens if the City doesn’t meet the RHNA goals?
Cities that do not achieve their RHNA allocations may
be required to offer “streamlined” permit processing
under SB 35.
7 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element
2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 8
9 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element
2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 10
11 | City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element
2021-2029 Housing Element City of Seal Beach | 12
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-1 Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing (AFFH)
Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)..........................1 Section F.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................2 Section F.2 Public Participation ..............................................................................................2 F.2.1 Issues Potentially Reducing Participation.............................................................2 Section F.3 Assessment of Fair Housing ................................................................................4 F.3.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ..............................................4 F.3.2 Integration and Segregation.................................................................................9 F.3.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty.........................................29 F.3.4 Access to Opportunity........................................................................................33 F.3.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs .......................................................................43 F.3.6 Other Relevant Factors......................................................................................55 F.3.7 Summary of Fair Housing Issues .......................................................................58 Section F.4 Site Inventory.....................................................................................................60 F.4.1 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation......................................................60 F.4.2 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity.........................................................61 Section F.5 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions .....................................................62 Section F.1 Introduction
Housing Element law (Government Code Sec. 65583.2(a)) requires the inventory of sites to be consistent with fair housing objectives. As described in more detail in the following pages, the existing sites inventory is comprised largely of underutilized sites with realistic potential for residential development and potential accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Because the current capacity of these sites is not sufficient to fully accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories, additional candidate sites for rezoning are identified in Table B-2.
The focus of the sites inventory fair housing analysis is on opportunities for low- and moderateincome housing. Opportunities for additional affordable housing are accommodated through highdensity multi-family developments and ADUs. The sites inventory addresses fair housing objectives by providing opportunities for affordable housing throughout the community. Potential ADUs also create opportunities for affordable housing dispersed throughout the city in low-density residential neighborhoods. Through these parallel strategies, affordable housing choices for protected classes are expanded in all portions of Seal Beach.
The candidate sties for rezoning identified in Table B-2 are not concentrated in low-resource areas or areas of segregation and concentrations of poverty. Most of the sites are currently zoned commercial and developed with retail uses.
The issue of displacement will be addressed through compliance with Government Code Sec. 65583.2(g)(3), included in Program 1e, which requires that for any proposed development on a site that has had residential uses within the past five years that are or were subject to lower-income affordability restrictions, or are or were subject to any other form of rent or price control, or are or were occupied by lower-income households, the City shall require the replacement of all affordable units at the same or lower income level as a condition of development on the site. Replacement requirements shall be consistent with those set forth in Section 65915(c)(3).
Section F.2 Public Participation
Community outreach related to the Housing Element update is documented in Appendix E, Public Participation Summary. The City hosted two public Ad Hoc Committee Meetings and two City Council/Planning Commission study sessions in a virtual format. An online survey was published and received 14 responses. City residents and other interested stakeholders had the opportunity to participate through the City’s website, and questions received through this platform are also documented in Appendix E.
F.2.1 Issues Potentially Reducing Participation
COVID-19 and in-person gathering restrictions significantly affected outreach capabilities and attendance related to the Housing Element Update. As the Ad Hoc meetings and study sessions Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-3 were hosted virtually, the City experienced a decrease in participation over previous years. This decrease in participation was not only found with the Housing Element update process, but is a general trend observed across other community outreach efforts since March 2020.
As Seal Beach is a city with an older demographic, the online-only space potentially reduces participation by creating challenges for older residents. Only 88.9% of households in Seal Beach have a computer (compared to 95.3% of households within Orange County), and 84.1% of households have a broadband Internet subscription. As nearly 40% of the Seal Beach population is over the age of 65, this discrepancy in Internet access is likely due to older population.
Nevertheless, COVID-19 restrictions prevented in-person gatherings and the City was required to engage the community in a virtual space to protect the health and safety of the community.1 1 US Census Quickfacts, 2019.
Section F.3 Assessment of Fair Housing
F.3.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Orange County
The City of Seal Beach is one of thirteen cites that participate in the Orange County Urban County Program, along with the County’s unincorporated areas. The Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (County AI) was adopted in June 2020 and “is a thorough examination of structural barriers to fair housing choice and access to opportunity for members of historically marginalized groups protected from discrimination by the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA).”2
The County AI describes the departments and organizations that handle fair housing enforcement and outreach in Seal Beach. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) investigates complaints of employment and housing discrimination. The Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC) provides services to Seal Beach to ensure equal access to housing. The Council’s services include outreach and education, homebuyer education, mortgage default counseling, landlord-tenant mediation, and limited low-cost advocacy. The Fair Housing Council investigates claims of housing discrimination and assists with referrals to DFEH. Community Legal Aid SoCal is a legal service provider serving low-income people in Orange County and Southeast Los Angeles County.
The 2020 Orange County AI reports that the FHCOC received 363 allegations of housing discrimination between 2015 and 2019 within the Urban County (which includes Seal Beach). Of those allegations, 179 cases were opened for further investigation and/or action. Also, FHCOC assisted 7,664 households in addressing 24,766 tenant/landlord issues, disputes and/or inquiries.
The Urban County area has an approximate population of 545,000 and around 193,000 households. The number of fair housing cases and tenant/landlord issues addressed by FHCOC represents approximately 0.03 percent of the population and four percent of households in the Urban County area. The FHCOC also conducted a variety of outreach activities in the Urban County between 2015 and 2019. Regionally, the organization conducted or participated in 467 education and/or outreach activities. The FHCOC also held training sessions, seminars and workshops for managers and owners of rental property.
Seal Beach
City staff infrequently receives questions regarding fair housing issues. When needed, the City refers individuals with fair housing questions and/or potential issues to FHCOC. The FHEO 2 Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, Prepared by the Orange County Jurisdictions and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, May 5, 2020.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-5 Inquiries by City (HUD 2013-2021) provided through the HCD AFFH Data Viewer Tool indicated no inquiries were made within the city during this time. The City is proposing Programs 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d (Section 4, Housing Action Plan) to affirmatively further fair housing through FHCOC, providing fair housing and tenant and landlord counseling services. FHCOC would also be contracted to perform fair housing audits and investigate fair housing complaints.
As outlined, Seal Beach has numerous procedures in place to address potential impediments to fair housing choice to persons with disabilities and other special needs populations. The City continues to contract through the County of Orange with the FHCOC to implement the regional Fair Housing Plan (AI) and offer fair housing services and tenant/landlord counseling to residents.
The FHCOC did not identify any housing discrimination cases opened between 2014 and 2020 in Seal Beach.
In addition to housing discrimination cases, the FHCOC has compiled data on landlord/tenant assistance provided in Seal Beach. Between 2014 and 2020, the Fair Housing Council assisted 142 households in addressing a total of 434 issues. The most prevalent issues included tenant notices (18%), rental agreements (18%), repairs/substandard conditions (17%), security deposits (6%) and reimbursements (5%). All of these issues were resolved without referral to other agencies or organizations. Similar to the Urban County, the percentage of households in Seal Beach that had fair housing complaints and landlord tenant issues was low (1% of households). However, it is important to see if certain households experience fair housing issues at a greater rate. The following table provides a breakdown of households assisted by housing type, ethnicity, income levels, age group and female-headed households as well as the percentage of these groups as part of Seal Beach’s total households.
Table F-1: Landlord/Tenant Statistics in Seal Beach 2014-2020 Number of
Households Assisted
by FHCOC
Percent of Total
Households Assisted
Percent of Total Seal
Beach Households
Housing Type
Single Family
Multi-Family
Mobile Homes
Other
51 83
2 6
36%
58%
1%
4%
43%
56%
1%
Income Level
Extremely Low
Very Low
Low
86 13
32 61%
9%
23%
20%
16%
19%
Age Group
Under 65
65 and over
124
18 87%
13%
42%
58%
Race/Ethnicity
White
Hispanic
African American
Asian
Other
108
18 2
2 5
76%
18%
1%
1%
4%
71%
9%
2%
11%
7%
Female Headed HH 5 4% 6%
Sources: Fair Housing Council of Orange County, September 2022; Dept. of Finance 2020 Population and Housing Estimates; HUD PD&R Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data
As can be seen from the table, households in multi-family units and extremely low-income households appear to face housing issues at a greater rate than others in the City. Whites and Hispanics made up a higher percentage of the landlord/tenant complaints compared to their proportion of Seal Beach’s total population. It is interesting to note that while elderly households comprise 58% of households in the City, only 13% of the housing issues were attributed to this group.
HUD’s records showed no fair housing cases in Seal Beach.
As of April 2022, Seal Beach had five (5) Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs). This means that .0003 percent of the City’s housing units are subsidized with vouchers. The Orange County 2020 AI stated that 2,286 HCVs were used for units in the County. This number makes up approximately one percent (1.04%) of the total housing units in the County. Seal Beach has one of the lowest numbers of HCVs in Orange County. The AI also states that HCV households are the most evenly distributed across racial/ethnic groups. In terms of geographic distribution of HCVs, the AI found that “Overall, publicly supported housing in the County is far more likely to be concentrated in the northernmost part, nearer to Los Angeles, than in the southern part.
Developments are concentrated along the main thoroughfare of Highway 5, and are particularly Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-7 prevalent in Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine. It should be noted that there is a particularly high concentration of Housing Choice Voucher use in the Garden Grove-Westminster area, which does not seem to have a particularly high concentration of hard units of publicly supported housing.
These areas correspond with areas of high Hispanic and Asian American or Pacific Islander segregation and concentration” (page 234).
One of the five Seal Beach vouchers assists a disabled household; the other four assist elderly households.
Organizational Capacity: The City of Seal Beach has very limited in-house capacity to investigate complaints and obtain remedies. The City will continue to contract through the County of Orange with the FHCOC for enforcement of fair housing and outreach. However, the City will take a more proactive role in understanding complaints and issues that arise in Seal Beach ; in distributing fair housing materials; and in ensuring landlords and tenants are familiar with fair housing regulations and the ways they can be enforced (Programs 5a and 5b).
City Overview
Much of the fair housing analysis is based on data provided at the census tract level. The jurisdiction includes a total of 10 census tracts. A few census tracts are not solely located within the City of Seal Beach and include portions in other jurisdictions. This includes Census Tracts 1100.07 and 1100.08 in the northern portion of Seal Beach. As a result, demographic information for these tracts also reflects neighboring communities, as well as Seal Beach. Some tracts include more land and households in the adjacent city than in Seal Beach, which therefore distorts and skews characteristics of the portion in Seal Beach. Figure F-1 depicts the census tracts that make up the City of Seal Beach.
Throughout the analysis, few tracts repeatedly stand out with trends of higher levels of segregation and disproportionate need, including potential displacement risk. In the rare instances where census tract data shows concentrations of need, there is often an explanation associated with unique land uses within Seal Beach. An example would be the land uses at the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) Seal Beach (located on Census Tract 995.02) and a 55+ age restricted retirement community called Leisure World (located on Census Tracts 995.09 and 995.10). These specific land uses result in concentrations of specific demographics; data can indicate characteristics about both communities that require contextualization. Additionally, the NWS Seal Beach property on Census Tract 995.02 is significantly larger than most other census tracts in the region. The unusually large size of this area may visually distort how data is expressed without appropriate contextualization.
Figure F-1: Census Tracts
Source: United States Census Bureau, 2020 Census – Census Tract Reference Map.
Leisure World is a Planned Unit Development (PUD), developed in the early 1960s as the first major planned retirement community in the United States. The majority of Leisure World is zoned RHD-PD (Residential High Density-Planned Development), with small parcels zoned as SC (Service Commercial), PO (Professional Office), LM (Light Manufacturing) and RG (Recreation/Golf), all designed to support the residential uses. Leisure World is specifically not an assisted living facility, but units are designed to accommodate aging in place and the community includes other amenities that benefit senior citizens. Units are single-story, majority either one or two bedrooms in size. There are a few multi-story condominium structures (two to three stories) within Leisure World. However, the majority of units are ground level, single-story in the “garden style” with open access to shared greenbelts. Within Leisure World, smaller homeowner association style organizations called “mutuals” are responsible for maintenance and management.
The Golden Rain Foundation (GRF) manages the Leisure World Trust property, which includes many on-site amenities: clubhouses, golf courses, pool, library, and streets. The GRF also is Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-9 responsible for programming. Amenities within Leisure World are limited to residents and their guests only and are not open to the public.12
NWS Seal Beach is a United States Navy installation for weapons and munitions loading, storage and maintenance, approximately 8.2 square miles in size (70% of land within Seal Beach). NWS Seal Beach was commissioned in 1944 at the height of World War II. The property was considered ideal due to the availability of open space and proximity to Navy fleet concentrations in Long Beach and San Diego. Since 1944, NWS Seal Beach has operated continuously and is now the Navy’s primary West Coast ordnance storage, loading and maintenance installation. Cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and medium-sized amphibious assault ships are loaded with missiles, torpedoes, countermeasure devices and conventional ammunition at the facility’s 850-foot long wharf. An average of 40 vessels are loaded or unloaded each year. It is estimated that 300 military and civilian employees work at NWS Seal Beach.3
In addition to the military uses, approximately 900 acres on-site are designated as the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. Habitat types within the refuge include subtidal, intertidal, mudflat, coastal salt marsh and upland habitat. The refuge is key critical habitat for several threatened and endangered species. 4
As NWS Seal Beach is a federally owned military property, the City of Seal Beach does not have land use control or decision-making authority on the base. Additionally, NWS Seal Beach is exempt from land use decision-making from the California Coastal Commission. While the City maintains a positive and cooperative relationship with NWS Seal Beach and strives to maintain harmony in land uses, decisions on NWS Seal Beach remain within the purview of the federal government. As NWS Seal Beach accounts for approximately 70% of the land within the City of Seal Beach, the presence of this military installation is a unique consideration in regard to the Housing Element.
F.3.2 Integration and Segregation
Race and Ethnicity
The racial and ethnic makeup of a jurisdiction is critical in analyzing housing demand and determining fair housing needs, as there is typically a nexus between racial/ethnic composition and other housing characteristics such as household size, mobility, and locational preferences.
Figure F-2 depicts the racial and ethnic majority by census tract in Seal Beach. The entirety of the Seal Beach census tracts have a sizeable to predominant White majority. 13 U.S. Navy, Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach,
https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrsw/installations/nws_seal_beach.html, accessed December 16, 2021. 14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge – California, https://www.fws.gov/refuge/seal_beach/, accessed December 16, 2021.
Figure F-2: Racial and Ethnic Majority
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-11 Figure F-3 and Figure F-4 display the percentage of the non-White population in 2010 and 2018 by census block group. From 2010 to 2018, the percentage of non-White residents in Seal Beach has increased across the city; in 2010 the majority of the City’s racial demographic was at most 40%, and in 2018 the demographic racial demographic was primarily 21-60%. There are higher percentages of non-White residents within Census Tract 995.02, where the NWS Seal Beach is located, and Census Tract 1100.12, which constitutes the eastern area of Seal Beach.
An analysis determined that the HCD AFFH Data Viewer maps for 2010 and 2018 used different definitions of White and non-White populations. The 2010 map is based on the “2010 White Population) from the US Census, which included people who identified as Hispanic White. In contrast, the 2018 map included people who identified as Hispanic White in the total Hispanic and non-White populations. Because of the different data presentation in the 2010 and 2018 map, direct comparisons cannot be drawn. It is likely that the 2010 map shows less diversity than actually existed at the time. The 2018 map would be a more accurate reflection of diversity in the present day.
Figure F-3: Percent of the Population that is non-White, 2010 Figure F-4 Percent of the Population that is non-White, 2018 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-13 According to the United State Census Bureau population estimates for 2019, Seal Beach has notably lower percentages of non-White racial and ethnic demographics when compared to Orange County (refer to Table F-2 and F-3, below). Specifically, Seal Beach has a population that is 9.1% Hispanic or Latino compared to 31.3% of Orange County, and 11.1% Asian population compared to 21.7% of Orange County. Additionally, the White alone, not Hispanic of Latino population of Seal Beach is 70.6% compared to 39.8% for Orange County.5 Table F-2: Race and Ethnicity, Seal Beach and Orange County (2019) Category Seal Beach (2019) Orange County (2019)
Hispanic 9.1% 31.3%
White (Non-Hispanic) 70.6% 39.8%
Asian (Non-Hispanic) 11.1% 21.7%
Black (Non-Hispanic) 2.3% 2.1%
American Indian or
Alaska Native (nonHispanic) 0.3% 1.0%
All Other (Non-Hispanic) 0.3% 0.4%
Two or More Races 4.4% 3.6%
Source: United State Census Bureau, QuickFacts: Seal Beach city, California; Orange County, California,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sealbeachcitycalifornia,orangecountycalifornia/PST0 45219, accessed December 7, 2021.
Table F-3: Race and Ethnicity, Seal Beach and Orange County (2010) Category Seal Beach (2010) Orange County (2010)
Hispanic (any race) 10% 34%
White (Non-Hispanic) 77% 44%
Asian (Non-Hispanic) 9% 18%
Black (Non-Hispanic) 1% 1%
American Indian or
Alaska Native (nonHispanic) 0.2% 0.2%
All Other or 2+ Races
(Non-Hispanic) 3% 3%
Source: City of Seal Beach, 2013 – 2021 Housing Element, October 14, 2013. 15 United State Census Bureau, QuickFacts: Seal Beach city, California; Orange County, California, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sealbeachcitycalifornia,orangecountycalifornia/PST045219, accessed December 7, 2021.
One metric used to quantify segregation is the dissimilarity index. The dissimilarity index measures how evenly two groups are distributed throughout a sub-area (block group) of a larger area (city) using a number between one and one hundred. The index score reflects the percentage of a group’s population that would have to change residence for each neighborhood (block group) to have the same percentage of that group across all neighborhoods in the city. The formula provided in HCD’s AFFH Handbook was used to generate this calculation.
The categories for a dissimilarity index (shown as percentages) as defined by HCD are as follows:
• < 30: Low Segregation
• 30 – 60: Moderate Segregation
• > 60: High Segregation
The indices for the City of Seal Beach are shown in Table F-4, below. They reveal the most significant segregation index value exists between the black/white populations, at 35.72 or defined as moderate segregation. The remainder of index values between the other racial/ethnic groups remain in the low segregation category. Seal Beach shows more integration when compared to Orange County on a regional scale; however, this could be attributed to the racial homogeneity of Seal Beach also affecting low dissimilarity index.
Table F-4: Dissimilarity Index Values
Racial/Ethnic
Dissimilarity Index Seal Beach (2020) Orange County (2020) Non-White/White 10.56 44.71
Black/White 35.72 46.98
Hispanic/White 16.70 52.82
Asian or Pacific
Islander/White 26.08 43.19
Source: Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2020.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-15 Income
Figure F-5 depicts the percentage of people in each census block that are of low to moderate incomes. Six block groups show more than 75% of the population is low to moderate income. This congregation of low to moderate income households are concentrated within Leisure World Seal Beach, a retirement community in the northwestern portion of the city (Census Tracts 995.09 and 995.10). Census Tract 995.04 and block groups 995.11.1, 1100.07.2, 1100.08.2, 1100.12.1, and 1100.12.3 have the lowest percentages of low-moderate income population with less than 25% of the population being low-moderate income.
Figure F-5: Low to Moderate Income Populations
Figure F-6 and Figure F-7 depict the percentage of households with incomes below the federal poverty level from 2010-2014 and 2015-2019, respectively. From 2010-2014, only two census tracts had 10-20% of the populations below the federal poverty level. The remaining tracts show fewer than 10% of the population below the federal poverty level.
By 2015-2019, all census tracts in Seal Beach show fewer than 10% of households below the federal poverty level. The higher percentage of households below the federal poverty level between 2010 and 2014 may be due to residual economic effects of the Great Recession of 2008.
This could explain why the AFFH data viewer does not show concentrations of households below the federal poverty level for data collected between 2015 and 2019.
Figure F-6: Poverty Status, 2010 - 2014
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-17 Figure F-7: Poverty Status, 2015 - 2019
Figure F-8 depicts median income between 2010 and 2014 as greater than $80,000, with the exception of Leisure World, which had a median income less than $40,000. Concentrations of households within central Seal Beach and north of I-405 show households with incomes greater than $100,000.
Household income data was broken into greater detail in the median income map from 2015 to 2019, Figure F-9. The entirety of Leisure World as well as NWS Seal Beach and one coastal block group (where the manufactured/mobile home park is located) shows a median income below the 2020 state median income of $87,100. Similar concentrations of households within central Seal Beach and north of I-405 show high income households.
Median household income was generated from neighboring cities and Orange County, to provide context for a regional income comparison. Median income in Seal Beach is significantly lower than the County, at $68,852 compared to $90,234 respectively. Median income in Seal Beach is more comparable to neighboring cities of Long Beach, Garden Grove and Westminster. Median income in Seal Beach may be lower than the County wide median because of the high concentration of older adults and retirees.
Table F-5: Median Income
Jurisdiction Median Household Income
City of Seal Beach $68,852
County of Orange $90,234
City of Long Beach $63,017
City of Los Alamitos $88,729
City of Garden Grove $69,278
City of Westminster $62,625
City of Huntington Beach $95,046
Source: US Census Bureau, Median Household Income Quickfacts (2019), accessed December 16, 2021.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-19 Figure F-8: Median Income, 2010 - 2014
Figure F-9: Median Income, 2015 - 2019
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-21 The Housing Choice Voucher Program is the federal program for assisting very low-income, elderly, and disabled families and individuals in affording decent housing by subsidizing rent costs and paying landlords directly for a portion of the rent. Eligibility is based on family size and whether income is less than 50% of the area’s median income. Figure F-10 shows no data for housing choice vouchers within Seal Beach. However, further research into the Orange County Housing Choice Voucher Program identified that as of October 2021, Seal Beach has a total of five housing choice vouchers, one for disabled persons and four for elderly persons.6 16It is possible that because the number of housing choice vouchers used in Seal Beach is low, the AFFH Data Viewer did not display these housing choice vouchers on the map below.
Figure F-10: Location of Housing Choice Vouchers
16Orange County Community Resources, Cities Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda & Summary, dated October 27, 2021.
Familial Status
Figure F-11 and Figure F-12 show the percentage of adults living with their spouse and adults living alone, respectively, within each census tract. The most common household type within the city is a single adult, living alone; refer to Section A.3.1. The high share of single-person households is likely due to the concentration of adults living alone within Leisure World, where only 20 to 40% of the population within these census tracts lives with a spouse. The highest concentration of households living with a spouse is located on NWS Seal Beach, likely due to the prevalence of family units for service members stationed on the naval base. Visually, this data is skewed by the unusually large size of Census Tract 995.02. While this area shows a high concentration of adults living with a spouse, a small number of families live on the navy property (approximately 130 rental households).
Figure F-11: Adults Living with Spouse
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-23 Figure F-12: Adults Living Alone
Figure F-13 shows the percentage of children in married-couple households by census tract throughout Seal Beach. There is no data for children in married-couple households for Leisure World because it is an age-restricted 55+ community, where children are not permitted to permanently reside. Aside from Leisure World, the entirety of Seal Beach has a population of children in married-couple households greater than 40% with the majority being greater than 80%.
Figure F-13: Children in Married Couple Households
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-25 Figure F-14 shows the percentage of children in female-headed households by census tract in Seal Beach. Only two tracts in Seal Beach, Census Tracts 995.11 and 995.12, have 20-40% of children in female-headed households. The remainder of the city falls into the lowest category with fewer than 20% of children in female-headed households. It is estimated that female-headed households in Seal Beach make up only 6% of households, and of those only 1.8% are femaleheaded households with children. This is significantly lower than regional statistics; it is estimated that about 16% of households in Orange County are female single parent households.
Approximately 20% of households in Orange County are single-parent households with children.
For more information on female-headed households in Seal Beach refer to Section A.3.3, Special Needs.
Figure F-14: Children in Female-Headed Households
Persons with Disabilities
The US Census considers a person disabled if they are reported as having a hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, or independent living difficulty. Developmental disabilities, as defined by federal law, are not recorded by the US Census. The two census tracts that make up Leisure World, Census Tract 995.09 and 995.10, have the highest percentage of the population with a disability in Seal Beach. In both the 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 data sets, the population with a disability in Leisure World was between 30-40%. From 2010-2014 the majority of the city had populations of individuals with a disability of either 10-20% or less than 10%; from 2014-2019, the entirety of the City’s population excluding Leisure World had less than 10% of the population with a disability. The significantly higher population of individuals with a disability in Leisure World is likely due to the concentration of elderly population as an age-restricted 55+ community.
Compared to Orange County, the high percentage and concentration of persons with disabilities in Seal Beach is regionally unique. Countywide, an estimated 8.5% of the population reports a disability. In Seal Beach, over 17% of the civilian/noninstitutionalized population reports a disability. 717
Disabled persons often have special housing needs due to their disability, which may lead to compounding issues of low income, high health care costs, or dependency on supportive services or special building accommodations. Considering the higher concentration area of disabled persons is a 55+ community, it is clear that housing stock in Leisure World provides certain accommodations to offset the housing burdens of disabled residents. Housing stock within these census tracts primarily include smaller single-story units, usually one to two bedrooms in size.
Amenities associated with this community include bus services, on-site pharmacy, on-site post office, and programming designed for individuals aged 55+. It should be noted that Leisure World is specifically not an assisted living community. For more information on persons with disabilities refer to Section A.3.3, Special Needs.
17American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Seal Beach S1810 Disability Characteristics.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-27 Figure F-15: Percentage of the Population with a Disability, 2010 - 2014 Figure F-16: Percentage of the Population with a Disability, 2015 - 2019 Findings: Integration and Segregation
Overall, there is no concentration of non-White populations within the city. Generally, diverse racial and ethnic populations in Seal Beach are significantly lower when compared to Orange County on the regional scale. While no census tracts show more than 10% of the population below the federal poverty level from 2015-2019, there exist low to moderate income populations mirroring the areas of lowest median income levels, primarily in Leisure World and NWS Seal Beach. The areas of low to moderate income populations in Leisure World also coincide with the highest populations of adults living alone and populations living with a disability. Leisure World being an age-restricted 55+ retirement community explains this concentration of low-income adults living alone with a disability, as those metrics generally reflect an elderly population. Familial trends indicate relatively high populations of married couples with children throughout the city, outside of Leisure World.
These analyses do not indicate significant levels of segregation based on racial, ethnic, familial, or disabled components of the population.
Seal Beach is an older city, incorporated in 1915 with subdivisions in the community dating back to the late 1800s. Despite the fact that there is no evidence of racial or ethnic segregation within the city on a neighborhood or sub-neighborhood basis, Seal Beach remains a predominately white community. It is unknown if exclusionary zoning or real estate practices happened within Seal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-29 Beach. However, Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) created “Residential Security” maps of major American cities, including the neighboring City of Long Beach adjacent to Seal Beach. HOLC maps assigned color-coded grades to residential neighborhoods that reflected “mortgage security”.
Neighborhoods receiving green, or “Best,” were deemed minimal risk for banks and other mortgage lenders. Neighborhoods receiving red were considered “hazardous.” Neighborhoods that were redlined were often lower-income, multi-family units, housing immigrants or persons of color.
Redlining directed public and private capital to native-born white families and away from Black and immigrant families.
Neighborhoods in Naples, Belmont Shore and Belmont Heights were mapped blue, as “Still Desirable.” HOLC described the neighborhoods by: “deed restrictions vary in different subdivisions, but all are said to protect against racial hazards.”8 18 HOLC maps were not prepared for Seal Beach.
However, because of the prevalence of exclusionary zoning prior to the 1960s within the region of Los Angeles and Orange County, it is possible that these historical practices still have lingering effects in the demographics of the City into the present time. Additional affordable units within Seal Beach would likely increase racial and ethnic diversity of the community, along with inviting households of different sizes.
F.3.3 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) A R/ECAP is an area with a non-White population over 50% and with over 40% of the median household incomes below the poverty level. According to the HCD AFFH Mapping Tool, there are only six census tracts identified as R/ECAPS in Orange County, three of which are in Santa Ana and three of which are in Irvine. There are no areas in Seal Beach with over 40% of the median household income below the poverty level (Figures F-6 and F-7), thus there are no R/ECAPs in the City of Seal Beach as depicted in Figure F-17.
18University of Richmond, Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America, https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/, accessed December 11, 2021.
Figure F-17: RECAPs
Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence (RCAA)
According to HCD, an RCAA is an area with a White population over 80% and a median household income level over $125,000. By these metrics and as illustrated in Figure F-18 and Figure F-19, Seal Beach has one RCAA in Census Block Group 995.12.3.
Two Seal Beach census block groups are less than 20% non-White, one in Leisure World and another in Census Block Group 995.12.3. The block group in Leisure World does not have a median income over $125,000, and thus is not considered a RCAA. However, Block Group 995.12.3 had a median income of $161,000 between 2015 and 2019 and is a RCAA. One candidate site for rezoning is located within this identified RCAA (99 Marina); the findings section below discusses this site in further detail.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-31 Figure F-18: Percent Non-White
Figure F-19: Median Income
Findings: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence There are no geographic areas with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations defined as R/ECAPs in Seal Beach. Conversely, there exists one identified Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence (RCAA). Census Block Group 995.12.3 has a White population greater than 80% and the median household income above $125,000. Development in this area that would allow for lower-income housing has substantial barriers including space availability constraints and California Coastal Commission restraints. For more information on development restraints refer to Appendix C.
There is one vacant site located within this census block group at 99 Marina Drive, 4.3 acres in size. 99 Marina Drive is identified as a candidate site for rezoning; the current general plan and zoning is listed as OE (Oil Extraction). Program 1a proposes to rezone 99 Marina Drive to RHD33 (High-Density Residential), which includes a maximum density of 33 dwelling units/acre. The City conservatively assumes that only 3 acres of the site would be built here, at 70 percent of the total maximum capacity, yielding 69 units. While the City identifies this site as affordable to abovemoderate income households in its sites inventory, the increase in allowable density over 30 dwelling units per acre is anticipated to promote affordability. Furthermore, given development trends in the region, particularly in neighboring Long Beach, it is possible that a developer would utilize a density bonus, thereby providing at least some affordable units. This could allow diverse Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-33 households to take advantage of the high opportunity offered by the RCAA in this census block group. While this site is vacant, historical uses included an oil separation and refinery facility; however, oil extraction at this site ceased some time ago, and the current owners (Exxon and Chevron) are actively marketing the property. Based on inquiries received by City staff from potential buyers, as well as the surrounding residential uses, housing development makes the most sense, and is generally expected by the community. Moreover, the Environmental Impact Report for the Housing Element does not identify any significant effect related to environmental contamination or hazardous materials at this site. See Appendix B for more information.
F.3.4 Access to Opportunity
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is a tool that identifies communities in California that are affected by pollutants and polluting factors such as ozone, particulate matter, drinking water contaminants, pesticide use, lead, toxins, diesel particulates, traffic density, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, solid waste, and impaired water bodies. This database also measures population factors such as cardiovascular disease, asthma rates, educational attainment, poverty, linguistic isolation, and more. A higher score indicates a higher effect of pollutants on the indicated area.
The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentiles are shown in Figure F-20. The majority of the city includes low scoring census tracts, indicating no or few environmental burdens on the community. The highest pollution burden is shown on Census Tract 995.02, where the NWS Seal Beach is located.
The CalEnviroScreen percentile score is listed at 67.63. Navy operations (including weapons and munitions loading, storage and maintenance) have been conducted on this property dating back to 1944 and likely contributes to a higher percentile score compared to neighboring census tracts.
While this tract is showing lower environmental scores, it is also home to the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, encompassing 965 acres of coastal wetlands. In addition, Census Tract 995.02 is significantly larger than neighboring census tracts, creating higher exposure and potentially contributing to the higher than usual score.
The remainder of the city census tracts received scores under 45. The second highest scoring census tracts include 995.09 and 995.10 (Leisure World), where housing is limited to individuals aged 55 or older. Lower incomes combined with the proximity to I-405 could be contributing to a higher percentile score. Census tracts north of the I-405 experience similar pollution burden from the freeway but have scores ranging from 26 to 38.
The City will be preparing an Environmental Justice Element, where communities of focus will be identified and prioritized. Policies will be designed to address higher CalEnviroScreen scores within specific census tracts.
Figure F-20: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-35 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee’s (TCAC) Opportunity Area scores can be used as a tool to analyze disparities in access to opportunities. This tool was prepared by TCAC and HCD to identify areas statewide whose economic, educational, and environmental characteristics support positive outcomes for low-income families. Opportunity maps are updated annually and provide a separate economic score, environmental score, and educational score. Each score is compiled using several indicators, and the composite map combines all three designations to provide a single score for each block group.
The top 20% of overall scores in a county are labeled as highest resource and the next 20% of scores are labeled as high resource. Any areas that are considered segregated and that have at least 30% of the population living below the federal poverty line are labeled as an area of High Segregation and Poverty. Remaining uncategorized areas in the county are evenly divided between moderate resource and low resource areas.
Figure F-21 shows the economic scores for Seal Beach by census tract. The economic indicators used include poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value. The map shows a stark contrast as the entirety of the city is categorized as either above 0.75 (the more positive economic outcome) or below 0.25 (the less positive economic outcome). The areas that have scored below 0.25 include Leisure World and the NWS Seal Beach, which coincide with areas of lower income seen in Figure F-5, Figure F-6, and Figure F-7. The remainder of the city scored among the more positive economic outcomes.
TCAC economic scores for Leisure World and NWS Seal Beach may not be representative of actual conditions, due to the unique populations, demographics, employment, and land uses concentrated within these census tracts. Leisure World residents are aged 55+, and typically consist of retirees who are not currently employed. Median home values in this part of the City are lower than other neighborhoods because of the age restriction. Leisure World does not necessarily represent a community with poor economic outcomes, but the congregation of one specific demographic group with unique needs. Similarly, NWS Seal Beach is a federally owned naval property where there are no owner-occupied housing units. Further, the census tract is considered unusually large for the region. Employment in this census tract is limited to the military uses occurring on-site. The unique circumstances within this census tract do not necessarily reflect a community with poor economic outcomes when the specific land use is considered.
Figure F-21: TCAC Economic Score, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-37 The environmental domain is determined using CalEnviroScreen pollution indicators and values; the TCAC Environmental Scores mirror the environmental concerns depicted in the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 map above, Figure F-21. Figure F-22 shows the TCAC Environmental Score for Seal Beach by census tract. The map indicates stratified environmental scores throughout the city with the more positive environmental scores being along the western coastal area, and the remainder of the city having scored from 0.75 to below 0.25. The areas with the less positive environmental scores include the more inland reaches of the city, Leisure World, and the NWS Seal Beach. Similar to the potential sources of environmental concerns discussed above, naval operations, proximity to the I-405 freeway, and heavy industrial uses along the San Gabriel River, may be responsible for the lower environmental scores in these areas.
Figure F-22: TCAC Environmental Score, 2021
Education indicators include math and reading proficiencies in fourth grade, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. Figure F-23 shows the education scores for the city by census tract. The majority of the City’s education scores are above 0.75, the more positive education outcomes. Census Tract 1100.12 is within the 0.50-0.75 range and some census tracts show no data. There are no public schools in Census Tract 1100.12 which may be negatively impacting the education score compared to the rest of Seal Beach.
Seal Beach is served by one public school district, Los Alamitos Unified, for grades K through 12.
Elementary schools within this district are very highly rated on Great Schools, receiving scores between 8 – 10 out of 10. Both middle schools and the high school are rated 8 – 9 out of 10. As the public school system demonstrates strong outcomes and is highly rated, high access to educational opportunity is available within the city. 919 Figure F-23: TCAC Education Score, 2021
19Great Schools, Los Alamitos Unified School District, https://www.greatschools.org/california/seal-beach/, accessed December 16, 2021.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-39 Figure F-24 displays the TCAC Composite Scores and Resource Category for each census tract in the city. The resource categories across the city range from moderate resource to highest resource, with the highest resource areas being the coastal, western, and northwestern census tracts. The moderate resource category areas include Leisure World and NWS Seal Beach. Table F-6 shows the individual domain scores of each census tract including the economic, environmental, and education scores, as well as the composite index score and resource category.
Based on the individual factors, the economic and environmental outcomes seem to be the most influential in driving down the composite scores of Leisure World and NWS Seal Beach. No areas of the city are categorized as low resource or high segregation and poverty.
Figure F-24: TCAC Composite Score, 2021
Table F-6: Opportunity Map Scores and Categorization
Census Tract
Economic
Domain
Score
Environmental
Domain Score
Education
Domain
Score
Composite
Index Score Final Category
995.02 0.22 0.10 0.89 0.05
Moderate
Resource
995.04 0.97 0.26 0.85 0.54 Highest Resource
995.06 0.95 0.62 0.81 0.60 Highest Resource
995.09 0.01 0.10 - -0.04
Moderate
Resource
995.10 0.02 0.38 0.92 0.01
Moderate
Resource
995.11 0.97 0.80 0.85 0.70 Highest Resource
995.12 0.97 0.74 0.85 0.69 Highest Resource
1100.12 0.92 0.09 0.72 0.30 High Resource
1100.07* 0.75 0.15 - 0.42 Highest Resource
1100.08* 0.95 0.29 - 0.65 Highest Resource
* Census tracts are not solely located within the City of Seal Beach and include portions in other jurisdictions
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas (2021) – Composite Score – Tract.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-41 Access to Opportunities Regional Comparison
Generally, Seal Beach has notably greater access to opportunities when compared to Orange County. Table F-7 displays various indicators that show the opportunities available to Seal Beach citizens compared to those of Orange County. The population below the federal poverty level in the City (5.7%) is significantly less than in the County (9.4%), indicating that economic opportunities are more available in the City than in the surrounding region. Education indicators show that while the city has a lower percent of the population enrolled in K-12 education, which may be attributed to the high percentage of seniors living in the City. However, the number of Seal Beach citizens with a bachelor’s degree or higher is 8% greater than in the County.
Table F-7: Access to Opportunity Indicators – City and County Indicator Seal Beach
Orange
County
Population below Federal Poverty Level 5.7% 9.4%
Education
Bachelor's Degree or Higher 49.0% 41.0%
School Enrolled Population Enrolled in
Kindergarten to 12th Grade 56.4% 60.3%
Unemployment Rate 6.7% 4.7%
Source: 2019 ACS 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles.
Transportation
Access to adequate transportation and a variety of transit options can help lower disparities in access to opportunities. Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) is the provider for the City of Seal Beach and the surrounding communities. The city has three OCTA bus routes: Route 1, Route 42, and Route 60. Additionally, there are two Long Beach Transit Bus Routes that operate within the city, Route 131, and Route 171. Transit routes and transit stops are shown in Figure F-25 below.
The Orange County AI utilized two transportation indicators to help analyze disparities in access to opportunities. The transit trips index measures how often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation and the low transportation cost index measures the cost of transportation and proximity to transportation by neighborhood. The AI found no significant disparities between racial and ethnic groups in the low transportation cost index and found that transit index scores do not vary significantly by race or ethnic group in most areas across Orange County.
Access to public transportation in Seal Beach is similar and comparable to neighboring cities, and the greater Orange County region. Further, Walk Score demonstrates that the Main Beach/Old Town neighborhood in Seal Beach is “very walkable” with a score of 85. This score indicates that most errands can be accomplished on foot.1020
Figure F-25: Transit Routes
Findings: Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Overall, Seal Beach is identified as moderate to highest resource, with no areas of low resource and no areas of high segregation and poverty. The most significant factors impacting TCAC opportunity area scores are economic and environmental, which primarily affect Leisure World and NWS Seal Beach. Environmental issues are most apparent when analyzing CalEnviroScreen 4.0 data. As previously discussed, low environmental scores are likely the result of existing naval operations, proximity to the I-405 freeway, and heavy industrial uses along the San Gabriel River.
The City will be preparing an Environmental Justice Element including goals and policies to address these concerns. Access to transportation does not disproportionately affect racial and ethnic groups within the city and is not a barrier to opportunities in Seal Beach. 20 Walk Score, Main Street/Old Town Seal Beach, https://www.walkscore.com/score/129-main-st-seal-beach-ca-90740, accessed December 16, 2021.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-43 Generally, Seal Beach is a high resource city with access to strong educational and economic outcomes. Affordable housing units would allow more households to enjoy access to high resources found within the city. As the data does not indicate a specific disparity to access within the city, it is assumed the key barrier to opportunity for housing in Seal Beach is affordability.
Increasing affordable units for a variety of household types would allow for high opportunity within the community to be expanded.
F.3.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs are determined by comparing substandard housing or housing problems in relation to tenure, race, household size, or household age. A household is considered substandard or having a housing problem if it has one or more of the following housing problems:
• Housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities
• Housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities
• Housing unit is overcrowded (more than 1 person per room) • Household is cost burdened (greater than 30%)
A household is considered to have a severe housing problem if it has one or more of the following housing problems:
• Housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities
• Housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities
• Housing unit is overcrowded (more than 1 person per room) • Household is cost burdened (greater than 50%)
Table F-8: Substandard Housing in Seal Beach by Tenure
Owner Renter Total
Total Households 9,505 2,995 12,500
Household has at least 1 of 4
Housing Problems 2,075 22% 1,315 44% 3,390 27%
Household has at least 1 of 4
Severe Housing Problems 1,100 12% 605 20% 1,705 14%
Total Households with Cost
Burden 1,985 21% 1,235 41% 3,220 26%
Household Housing Cost
Burden >30% to <=50% 1,005 11% 730 24% 1,735 14%
Household Housing Cost
Burden >50% 980 10% 505 17% 1,485 12%
Source: HUD CHAS Data 2014-2018
Cost burdens and substandard housing significantly affects renters over owners within the city, with 41% of renters experience cost burden and 44% of renters experiencing at least one of four housing problems as defined by HUD. Comparatively, only 21% of owners experience cost burden and 22% of owners experience at least one of four housing problems as defined by HUD.
Across the City, approximately one quarter of households experience cost burden and at least one of the four housing problems. Based on Figure F-26 below, a small percentage of units in the City lack complete plumbing facilities (0.28%) or lack complete kitchen facilities (0.98%). Generally, cost burden affects households more significantly compared to physical deficiencies associated with units.
Figure F-26: Substandard Housing in Seal Beach
Cost burden is shown to be concentrated in Census Tract 995.02, where the NWS Seal Beach is located. Housing units on this property are owned by the federal government, and NWS Seal Beach contracts with Lincoln Military Housing (a private company) for property management. Units range from family housing (including both two-bedroom units and four-bedroom units) and unaccompanied housing (formerly Bachelor Housing, also referred to as the barracks). As units within Census Tract 995.02 are limited to service members, this cost burden is uniquely placed on a specific subgroup of residents in Seal Beach. The ACS 2015 – 2019 data compared to ACS 2010 – 2014 is showing an increased rental burden on this specific census tract.
Census Tract 995.09, 995.10 and 995.04 show the lowest concentration of overpayment for renting.
An increase in rental burden on Census Tract 995.09 has occurred, when comparing ACS 2010 – 2014 data to ACS 2015 – 2019 data. This particular census tract is located within Leisure World, a 55+ community where older retirees live. The change in rental burden in this location may be associated with the unique demographics of the neighborhood. Rental burden has decreased on the census tracts located north of I-405 and has remained about the same on waterfront census tracts in downtown Seal Beach.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-45 Overpayment burden by homeowners is not specifically concentrated in one geographic location and is distributed between the 20% - 40% and 40% - 60% categories throughout Seal Beach. No data is shown on Census Tract 995.02, as there are no owner-occupied units located on the NWS Seal Beach.
Compared to ACS 2010 – 2014, the overpayment burden on Census Tracts 995.09 and 995.10 has decreased significantly. As previously discussed, these census tracts consist of a 55+ community. Overpayment on owner occupied units may have been a result of economic conditions associated with the Great Recession, affecting fixed-income seniors more significantly than other demographic groups.
Figure F-27: Overpayment by Owners, 2010 - 2014
Figure F-28: Overpayment by Owners, 2015 - 2019
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-47 Figure F-29: Overpayment by Renters, 2010 - 2014
Figure F-30: Overpayment by Renters, 2015 - 2019
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-49 Overcrowding
A household is considered overcrowded when there is more than one person per room, including living and dining rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchens. Severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.5 occupants per room.
Approximately 1.1% of owner-occupied units are considered overcrowded, and 2.3% of renteroccupied units are overcrowded. This is low in comparison with surrounding areas, and significantly lower than the state average of 8.2%. Both the state and County experience overcrowding at a higher rate than Seal Beach. Further, no specific neighborhood or census block demonstrates a concentrated area of overcrowding within the city.
Seal Beach has a small Black and Asian American population, both of which experience overcrowding at higher rates compared to White households within the city. While White households have the highest number of overcrowding incidents (143 households), overcrowding only affects 1.3% of White households. In comparison, 2.1% of the 233 Black households and
5.0% of Asian American households in Seal Beach experience overcrowding.
Table F-9: Overcrowded Households by Race
White Black
Native
American
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Asian
American
Some
Other
Race
(alone)
Two or
More
Races
Total 10,411 233 43 61 1,323 181 290
1.0 less per
room 10,268 228 43 61 1,256 181 290
1.01 or more
per room 143 5 0 0 67 0 0
Source: HUD CHA Data Viewer, 2014 – 2018.
Figure F-31: Overcrowded Households
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-51 Homelessness
The homeless population is a group that has disproportionately higher needs than those who are housed. The Orange County Partnership conducted the 2019 Point in Time Count (PITC), which counts the unsheltered homeless population County-wide over two nights in January. Table F-10 below shows the PITC for the Central Service Planning Area, which includes Seal Beach and neighboring jurisdictions. The city had eight unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness.
There is no spatial data as to where specific homeless individuals are located or congregate.
Homeless individuals within Seal Beach tend to be transient in nature, making such spatial analysis difficult to prepare or procure.
Table F-10: Regional Point in Time Count, Central Service Planning Area City Unsheltered Sheltered Total
Costa Mesa 187 6 193
Fountain Valley 28 14 42
Garden Grove 163 62 225
Huntington Beach 289 60 349
Newport Beach 64 0 64
Santa Ana 830 939 1,769
Seal Beach 8 0 8
Tustin 95 264 359
Westminster 159 25 184
County Unincorporated 4 31 35
Domestic Violence Programs N/A 104 104
Central Service Planning Area 1,827 1,505 3,332
Source: Orange County, Everyone Counts 2019 Point in Time Count.
The previous Seal Beach Housing Element estimated approximately ten unsheltered homeless individuals. While homelessness across Orange County has risen since 2012, the total number of individuals experiencing homelessness in Seal Beach has remained the same.
Table F-11: Homelessness Trends and Comparison, 2012 and 2019 Year Seal Beach Orange County
2012 10* 4,251
2019 8 6,760
*estimate from the previous Housing Element
Source: Orange County, Everyone Counts 2012 and 2019 PITC.
Displacement
The Urban Displacement Project at University of California, Berkeley developed a map of communities where residents may be particularly vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and shifts in housing cost; these are known as sensitive communities.
Sensitive communities are defined based on the following set of criteria:
• The share of very low-income residents is above 20%.
The tract must also meet two of the following criteria:
• The share of renters is above 40%.
• The share of people of color is above 50%.
• The share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened is above the county median.
• They or the areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures.
Displacement pressure is defined as:
o The percentage change in rent above county median for rent increases OR o The difference between tract median rent and tract median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap).
Figure F-32 below does not identify any communities within Seal Beach as vulnerable to displacement. While there may be incidents of displacement or vulnerability to displacement on the individual/household level, displacement within Seal Beach is not generally clustered within a specific geographical area.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-53 Figure F-32: Households with Increased Displacement Risk Sea level rise may be a significant driver of displacement in the future. The City of Seal Beach Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Analysis identifies significant portions of the city at risk to a variety of sea level rise scenarios. The science regarding sea level rise modeling continues to evolve; however, it is generally agreed upon that the 1.6-foot SLR scenario has a 66% probability of occurring by 2100. Under this scenario, significant sea level rise and storm flooding is projected to impact the Main Beach/Old Town neighborhood (downtown Seal Beach) and NWS Seal Beach property. Lowlying portions of the city are at the highest risk to inundation. Refer to Figure F-33, below.
Additionally, some properties within Seal Beach are deed restricted from Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit (CDP) conditions of approval. Deed restrictions require property owners to waive their right to future shoreline protective devices, meaning that hardline structures such as sea walls or revetments will not be permitted to protect the property from sea level rise in the future. Because Coastal Commission has limited adaptation methods available to property owners, residential loss and displacement may occur within the coastal communities of Seal Beach.
Sea level rise is a slow-moving natural hazard, and as impacts materialize within Seal Beach, additional adaptation/mitigation actions may become available. It is not anticipated that sea level rise or flooding is a significant displacement risk during this Housing Element cycle but may become a consideration in the future.
Figure F-33: Seal Beach Sea Level Rise Vulnerability
Findings: Disproportionate Housing Needs
The analysis of disproportionate housing needs shows similar trends to the integration and segregation analysis. Generally, overpayment and cost burden are the most significant problem affecting households within Seal Beach. Overpayment disproportionately affects renter households within the city when compared to owner households. The high cost of housing in Seal Beach and other coastal Orange County communities significantly contributes to overpayment.
Policies and programs within Section 4 are designed to assist with expanding affordable housing stock (Programs 1a, 1b, 1c, 1f, 1i, 1j, 1k, 1l, 1p, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5c); refer to Section 4, Housing Action Plan. Additional units for low and moderate incomes would allow for diverse households to take advantage of high economic and educational opportunities within Seal Beach.
Although overcrowding in Seal Beach is below the statewide average, only 1.3% of White households experience overcrowding, compared to 2.1% of Black households and 5.0% of Asian American households. It can be reasonably assumed that overcrowding is associated with housing overpayment and cost burden. Diversity in housing stock is key to alleviating issues of overcrowding, ensuring low to moderate income units are sized to facilitate larger households.
Homelessness and increased displacement risk do not present significant concerns related to disproportionate housing needs in the city within this Housing Element cycle. The upcoming Environmental Justice Element for Seal Beach will include goals and policies to address other disproportionate housing needs. As the Environmental Justice section has not yet been prepared, there are no specific details available to add to the Housing Element. Such information would be included in the next Housing Element update cycle, as appropriate.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-55 F.3.6 Other Relevant Factors
Historic Land Use Practices
As previously mentioned, the racial demographics of Seal Beach are fairly homogenous, and this may be associated with historic land use practices within northern coastal Orange County and Long Beach areas. As Seal Beach incorporated in 1915, with subdivisions dating back to the 1800s and known exclusionary zoning/real estate practices occurred within the neighboring jurisdictions including Long Beach, it is reasonable to believe similar practices occurred in Seal Beach. Because of the prevalence of exclusionary zoning prior to the 1960s within this region of Los Angeles and Orange County, it is possible that these historical practices still have lingering effects in the demographics of the city into the present time. Additional affordable units within Seal Beach would likely increase racial and ethnic diversity, along with inviting households of different sizes.
Mobile/Manufactured Homes
Seal Beach has one mobile home park located within the city, which makes up about 1.1% of the housing stock in the city (155 units). While the community is frequently labeled a mobile home park, a more accurate description would be manufactured housing. The location of the neighborhood is shown on Figure F-34, northwest of 1st Street and adjacent to the San Gabriel River. The Seal Beach Municipal Code considered manufactured housing (but not mobile homes) to be defined as a single unit dwelling. The Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance regulates development projects that propose changing the use of mobile home parks. The previous Housing Element documented the preservation/conservation of these units as affordable; 25 units for low income and 75 units for moderate income households.
Figure F-34: Location of Mobile Home Parks
Community Opposition to Housing
In the past, housing projects have been withdrawn and applicants dissuaded from proceeding through the approval process from the threat of lawsuit. City residents have also expressed opposition to housing at the Shops at Rossmoor and Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd).
The City has no control or influence on whether someone will threaten or bring a lawsuit against a project, or how the applicant will respond to the threat, regardless of if there is a valid legal basis for a challenge. Seal Beach carefully follows the CEQA process to ensure all documentation is compliant, legally sound, and defensible. However, negative community responses to land-use changes may detrimentally affect lower- and moderate-income residents, as new multi-family housing stock is more difficult and expensive to produce.
Restricted Housing Units
Unique land uses within Seal Beach restrict housing opportunities to specific age groups or employment groups, thus limiting housing choices. As previously mentioned, all units within Leisure World are age restricted to individuals aged 55 or older. Additional housing development within this neighborhood would continue to be age restricted, thus limiting housing choice for Seal Beach residents. Housing units on NWS Seal Beach are also limited to active service members Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-57 employed on-site. Additional units on NWS Seal Beach would also be restricted to service members employed on-site, unless a land lease agreement with the US Navy allows for housing to be non-restricted. Such a decision is at the discretion of the federal government and not guaranteed. Both of these land uses limit the availability of housing units within the city.
F.3.7 Summary of Fair Housing Issues
The four most-pressing fair housing issues in Seal Beach are the following:
1. The primary fair housing issue in Seal Beach is disproportionate housing needs, meaning certain groups experience housing challenges (like cost-burden and overpayment) at a greater rate than other groups, because it affects the most residents and protected classes. In Seal Beach, tenants and lower-income households are the most cost-burdened. The contributing factor to this primary issue is the availability of affordable units in a range of sizes. High rates of overpayment and disproportionate rates of overcrowding indicate the need for more affordable housing, which could be provided through smaller unit sizes and a mix of housing types.
2. The second fair housing issue is also disproportionate housing needs due to land use and zoning laws. High parking ratios for smaller units and California Coastal Commission review of residential act as impediments to the development of housing.
3. The third fair housing issue is segregation and integration because of community opposition to building denser, more affordable housing in the City. Public comment received during the Housing Element process included opposition to multi-family housing, and in the past, housing projects have been withdrawn and applicants dissuaded from proceeding through the approval process from the threat of lawsuit.
4. The fourth fair housing issue is also segregation and integration due to the contributing factor of location and type of affordable housing, as clearly demonstrated by public comments throughout the Housing Element process. Comments identified that the availability of affordable housing is a critical issue, and housing affordable to low and moderate-income households and families, is needed. New residential development throughout Seal Beach would provide housing in high and highest resources areas.
Seal Beach is a non-entitlement city, with a population of less than 50,000. Thus, the County of Orange participated on behalf of the City in the 2020 Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). The AI identified impediments for the entire county and for each entitlement city within Orange County. To address the contributing factors to AI, the plan proposes the following goals and actions:
Regional Goals and Strategies
Goal 1: Increase the supply of affordable housing in high opportunity areas.
Strategies from the Regional AI:
1. Explore the creation of a new countywide source of affordable housing.
2. Using best practices from other jurisdictions, explore policies and programs that increase the supply of affordable housing, such as linkage fees, housing bonds, density bonuses, public land set-aside, community land trusts, transit-oriented development, and expedited permitting and review.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-59
3. Explore providing low-interest loans to single-family homeowners and grants to homeowners with household incomes of up to 80% of the Area Median Income to develop accessory dwelling units with affordability restrictions on their property.
4. Review existing zoning policies and explore zoning changes to facilitate the development of affordable housing.
5. Align zoning codes to confirm to recent California affordable housing legislation.
Goal 2: Prevent displacement of low- and moderate-income residents with protected characteristics, including Hispanic residents, Vietnamese residents, other seniors, and people with disabilities.
Strategies:
1. Explore piloting a Right to Counsel to ensure legal representation for tenants in landlordtenant proceedings, including those involving the application of new laws like AB 1482.
Goal 3: Increase community integration for persons with disabilities.
Strategies:
1. Conduct targeted outreach and provide tenant application assistance and support to persons with disabilities, including individuals transitioning from institutional settings and individuals who are at risk of institutionalization. As part of that assistance, maintain a database of housing that is acceptable to persons with disabilities.
2. Consider adopting the accessibility standards adopted by the City of Los Angeles, which require at least 15 percent of all new units in city-supported Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LITHTC) projects to be ADA-accessible with at least 4 percent of total units to be accessible for persons with hearing and/or vision disabilities.
Goal 4: Ensure equal access to housing for persons with protected characteristics, who are disproportionately likely to be lower-income and to experience homelessness.
Strategies:
3. Reduce barriers to accessing rental housing by exploring eliminating application fees for voucher holders and encouraging landlords to follow HUD’s guidance on the use of criminal backgrounds in screening tenants.
4. Consider incorporating a fair housing equity analysis into the review of significant rezoning proposals and specific plans.
Goal 5: Expand access to opportunity for protected classes.
Strategies:
1. Explore the voluntary adoption of Small Area Fair Market Rents or exception payment standards in order to increase access to higher opportunity areas for Housing Choice Voucher holders.
2. Continue implementing a mobility counseling program that informs Housing Choice Voucher holders about their residential options in higher opportunity areas and provides holistic supports to voucher holders seeking to move to higher opportunity areas.
3. Study and make recommendations to improve and expand Orange County’s public transportation to ensure that members of protected classes can access jobs in employment centers in Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Irvine.
4. Increase support for fair housing enforcement, education, and outreach.
Many of these actions need to be implemented by the County and/or at the regional level.
Strategies that may be implemented in Seal Beach have been included in the Housing Action Plan, including actions to expand the supply of affordable housing; code amendments to comply with state laws; expanding outreach efforts regarding housing choice vouchers, including mobility counseling; and enhanced coordination with the OCFHC (Programs 1a, 1b, 3a, 5a and 5c).
Section F.4 Site Inventory
AB 686 requires a jurisdiction’s sites inventory to be consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. This section evaluates the City’s site inventory locations against various measures in the Assessment of Fair Housing that includes income level, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, access to opportunity, and environmental risk to determine any socio-economic patterns or implications.
F.4.1 Potential Effects on Patterns of Segregation
A comparison of the sites inventory locations against the 2024 CTCAC/HCD High-Poverty and Segregated areas can reveal if the City’s accommodation of housing sites is exacerbating or ameliorating segregation and social inequity. Figure F-35 shows the locations of Seal Beach’s sites inventory relative to these areas. The High-Poverty and Segregated map outlines areas that exhibit both high poverty rate with 30% or more of the population below the federal poverty line and racial segregation with an overrepresentation of individual non-white racial/ethnic groups and/or people of color as a whole relative to the county.
Seal Beach does not contain any 2024 CTCAC/HCD High-Poverty and Segregated areas. The closest of these areas are located several miles to the east and west of the City as shown in Figure F-35. The sites inventory therefore will not exacerbate fair housing issues with regard to HighPoverty and Segregated areas.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-61 Figure F-35: Sites Inventory and 2024 CTCAC/HCD High-Poverty and Segregated Areas F.4.2 Potential Effects on Access to Opportunity
A comparison of the sites inventory locations with the 2024 CTCAC/HCD Neighborhood Opportunity map can demonstrate if the City’s accommodation of housing sites is exacerbating or ameliorating access to opportunity. Figure F-36 shows the locations of Seal Beach’s sites inventory on the 2024 CTCAC/HCD Neighborhood Opportunity map. This map identifies areas with characteristics that are associated, through research, with more positive economic, educational, and health outcomes (more opportunity) for low-income families with an emphasis on long-term outcomes for children. Higher resource areas are linked to more opportunity and better overall outcomes, especially for children.
Seal Beach contains Moderate, High, and Highest Resource areas (no Low Resource Areas).
Figure F-36 shows that the sites inventory is located across all three resource areas in southern, central, and northern sections of the City.
As depicted below, the City’s lower-income housing sites inventory (portions of the Shops at Rossmoor and portions of the Old Ranch Town Center), as well as moderate-income sites, is accommodated in the Highest Resource area in the northern portion of the City, thereby improving access to opportunity for lower- and moderate-income households. In addition, the City’s sites inventory includes a moderate-income site at 1780 Pacific Coast Highway, which is also in a Highest Resource area, thereby improving access to opportunity for moderate-income households in desirable areas near the beach. The locations and income levels of the sites inventory locations therefore do not exacerbate fair housing issues regarding access to opportunity, but rather improve access to opportunity for lower- and moderate-income households.
Figure F-36: Sites Inventory and 2024 CTCAC/HCD Neighborhood Opportunity map Section F.5 Contributing Factors and Meaningful
Actions
Table F-12 lists the most prevalent fair housing issues and their corresponding contributing factors for the City of Seal Beach, as prioritized through the findings from the City’s outreach efforts and the above assessment, as outlined in Section F.3.7.
Table F-12: Contributing Factors
Priority Contributing Factor Fair Housing Issue
1 Availability of affordable units in a range of sizes Disproportionate Housing Needs 2 Land use and zoning laws Disproportionate Housing Needs Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing City of Seal Beach | F-63 Table F-12: Contributing Factors
Priority Contributing Factor Fair Housing Issue
3 Community opposition Segregation and Integration
4 Location and type of affordable housing Segregation and Integration Table F-13 consists of proposed housing programs the City will pursue to specifically overcome identified patterns and trends from the above assessment and proactively affirmatively further fair housing in Seal Beach. The programs are detailed metrics and milestones in Section 4 of the Housing Element.
Table F-13: Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions Contributing Factor AFFH Strategy Meaningful Actions
Availability of affordable units in a
range of sizes
Developing multifamily housing
opportunities
Zoning, permit streamlining, and
other approaches to increase
housing choices and affordability
• 1a: Provide Adequate Sites for
Housing through updates to the
General Plan and Zoning Code
• 1c: Promote Available Housing
Incentives and Evaluate
Effectiveness
• 1h: Accessory Dwelling Units
• 1j: Accessory Dwelling Units
Monitoring Program
• 1m: Streamlined Permit
Processing and Transparency
• 1o: Expedited Processing for
Subdivision Maps including
Affordable Units
• 2b: Density Bonus Incentives and
Information
• 2c: Affordable Housing
Resources
• 3a: Housing Choice Voucher
Program Rental Assistance
• 4b: Housing Information and
Referral Services
Land use and zoning laws
Housing mobility strategies
Encouraging the development of
four or more units in a building
• 1e: Ensure No Net Loss of
Housing Capacity
• 1i: Accessory Dwelling Units
Amnesty Program
• Program 1k: Emergency
Shelters, Low Barrier Navigation
Center and
Transitional/Supportive Housing
• 1q: Allow Employee/Farmworker
Housing Consistent with State
Law.
• 3h: Remove Minimum Unit Size
Requirements
• 3i: Update Findings for Housing
Projects to Ensure Objectivity
• 3j: Reduce Parking
Requirements for Studios and 1-
Bedroom Units
• 5e: Reasonable Accommodation
Provisions
• 5k: Affordable Housing
Affirmative Fair Marketing Plan
Community opposition
Affirmative marketing
• 1g: Community Engagement and
Outreach
• 2a: Streamline the Density Bonus
Review Process
Location and type of affordable
housing
New housing choices and
affordability in areas of opportunity
• 1b: Mixed
Commercial/Residential High
Density Zone
• 1l: Provisions of Adequate Public
Facilities and Servies
• 1n: SB 9 Lot Splits
• 1p: Partner with the U.S. Navy
and the Seal Beach Naval
Weapons Station
• 2g: Commercial Density Bonus
• 3c: Local Coastal Program
• 4a: Condominium Conversion
• 5g: Accessible Housing
• 5h: Fair Housing Task Force
Housing Resources City of Seal Beach | G-1
Appendix G: Housing Resources
Contents
Appendix G: Housing Resources ................................................................1 Contents .....................................................................................................................................1 Section G.1 Financial and Administrative Resources ..............................................................2 G.1.1 Local Resources ..................................................................................................2 G.1.2 Regional Resources.............................................................................................3 G.1.3 State Resources ..................................................................................................4 G.1.4 Federal Resources...............................................................................................4 Section G.2 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ................................................................4 G-2 | City of Seal Beach Housing Resources
Section G.1 Financial and Administrative Resources
A variety of resources are available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in Seal Beach. This chapter provides an overview of the land resources and adequate sites to address the City’s RHNA and describes the financial and administrative resources available to support the provision of affordable housing. Additionally, the chapter discusses opportunities for energy conservation which can lower utility costs and increase housing affordability.
G.1.1 Local Resources
On February 1, 2012, the Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency was dissolved as a result of the state legislature’s approval of Assembly Bill (AB) x1-26 (2011) and the California Supreme Court’s action upholding that law. On February 1, 2012, the City became the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, and redevelopment housing assets were transferred to the Orange County Housing Authority as the Housing Successor. At this time, no dedicated funding source for affordable housing is locally generated.
A number of non-profit and governmental organizations are active in the development of affordable housing in the County of Orange. The City could potentially partner with one or more of these organizations for the development of affordable units.
Habitat for Humanity: Habitat is a non-profit, nondenominational Christian organization that builds and repairs homes for very low-income families with the help of volunteers and homeowner/partner families. Habitat homes are sold to partner families at no profit with affordable, no interest loans. Habitat has completed numerous projects throughout Orange County.
Jamboree Housing Corporation (JHC): JHC is a non-profit that has developed numerous affordable housing projects throughout Orange County and the State. Jamboree has also established an in-house social services division, “Housing with a HEART,” that operates at most properties to assist residents in maintaining self-sufficiency.
Affirmed Housing: the Affirmed team seeks to provide affordable housing solutions that also consider community, transportation, and environmental concerns. Headquartered in San Diego, Affirmed has developed more than 60 projects serving families, seniors, and veterans in the greater San Diego, Orange County/Los Angeles, and Bay Area regions.
Irvine Housing Opportunities (IHO): IHO formed in 1976 to address the shortage of affordable housing in Irvine, and has since expanded to several Southern California counties. IHO develops, owns and operates affordable housing for low to moderate income families and individuals, and is also involved in the acquisition and rehabilitation of at-risk projects and preservation as longterm affordable housing.
Housing Resources City of Seal Beach | G-3
National Community Renaissance: National CORE is a nonprofit developer with in-house capacity to construct and renovate large scale developments. The company owns and manages more than 4,500 multifamily units throughout Southern California, including several projects in Orange County. As part of its inclusive approach to improving quality of life, it staffs community resource centers at all its properties. These centers are supported and administered by the Hope Through Housing Foundation.
Neighbor Works Orange County (NHS OC): For 35 years, NHS OC has served Orange County, implementing innovative housing solutions that are accessible to families. NHS OC owns 110 affordable rental housing units that it has developed in targeted neighborhoods, and is actively engaged in the purchase, rehab and re-sale of foreclosed homes. The Agency provides a number of programs that benefit a variety of constituents, including: financial literacy; first-time homebuyer education, counseling and lending services; foreclosure prevention services; and community building programs.
Orange County Community Housing Corporation (OCCHC): OCCHC's mission is to transition extremely low-income families towards greater self-sufficiency by assisting them with housing and education. Since its founding in 1977, OCCHC has developed over 200 units of affordable housing in various cities in Orange County. Most of these apartments are owned and managed by OCCHC.
Orange Housing Development Corporation (OHDC): OHDC is a non-profit housing developer founded in 1990. Located in the City of Orange, the Agency’s start-up costs were originally funded by the Orange Redevelopment Agency. OHDC’s primary focus is within Orange County, but has developed over 3,000 units in communities throughout California.
Southern California Housing Development Corporation: SoCal Housing is a non-profit developer with in-house capacity to construct and renovate large scale developments, with 4,500 units throughout Southern California. Its mission is to create affordable housing communities that contribute to neighborhood vitality. Community resource centers are provided at all SoCal Housing’s properties, administered by the Hope Through Housing Foundation.
G.1.2 Regional Resources
• Section 8 Rental Assistance – The City of Seal Beach works cooperatively with the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA), which administers the Section 8 Voucher Program. The Housing Assistance Payments Program assists low-income, elderly and disabled households by paying the difference between 30% of an eligible household's income and the actual cost of renting a unit. The City facilitates use of the Section 8 program within its jurisdiction by encouraging apartment owners to list available rental units with OCHA for potential occupancy by tenants receiving Section 8 certificates.
G-4 | City of Seal Beach Housing Resources
G.1.3 State Resources1
• Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program - The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to provide an alternate method of funding low- and moderate-income housing. Each state receives a tax credit, based upon population, toward funding housing that meets program guidelines. The tax credits are then used to leverage private capital into new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing. Limitations on projects funded under the Tax Credit programs include minimum requirements that a certain percentage of units remain rent-restricted, based upon median income, for a term of 30 years.
G.1.4 Federal Resources
• Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) - Federal funding for housing programs to benefit lower income residents and neighborhoods is provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The CDBG program is flexible in that funds can be used for a wide range of activities including acquisition and or disposition of real estate, public facilities and improvements, relocation, rehabilitation and construction of housing, home ownership assistance, and clearing activities. The CDBG program provides formula funding to larger cities and counties, while smaller jurisdictions with less than 50,000 population generally compete for funding under the Urban County Consolidated Plan administered by the County of Orange. CDBG funds are limited in geographical use, as project expenditures must be used to benefit lower income areas.
As described in Section II of this document, most Seal Beach households fall in moderate to higher income brackets. Therefore, CDBG expenditures are currently limited to the Leisure World area. In FY 2021-22 the City received a $200,000 grant from the County and $49,000 in Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds from the State, which are being used for bathroom accessibility improvements in the Leisure World community.
This program continued in FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 with continued funding through both CDBG and PLHA.
Section G.2 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
State of California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards are codified in Title 24 of the California Energy Code and are 1 Jurisdictions, such as the City of Seal Beach, are typically not eligible as applicants for these funding sources; affordable housing developers are typically the eligible applicants.
Housing Resources City of Seal Beach | G-5
updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
Title 24 sets forth mandatory energy standards and requires the adoption of an “energy budget” for all new residential buildings and additions to residential buildings. Separate requirements are adopted for “low-rise” residential construction (i.e., no more than 3 stories) and non-residential buildings, which includes hotels, motels, and multi-family residential buildings with four or more habitable stories. The standards specify energy saving design for lighting, walls, ceilings and floor installations, as well as heating and cooling equipment and systems, gas cooling devices, conservation standards and the use of non-depleting energy sources, such as solar energy or wind power. The home building industry must comply with these standards while localities are responsible for enforcing the energy conservation regulations through the plan check and building inspection processes.
Examples of techniques for reducing residential energy use include the following:
• Glazing – Glazing on south facing exterior walls allows for winter sunrays to warm the structure. Reducing glazing and regulating sunlight penetration on the west side of the unit prevents afternoon sunrays from overheating the unit.
• Landscaping – Strategically placed vegetation reduces the amount of direct sunlight on the windows. The incorporation of deciduous trees in the landscaping plans along the southern exposure of units reduces summer sunrays, while allowing penetration of winter sunrays to warm the units.
• Building Design – The implementation of roof overhangs above southerly facing windows shield the structure from solar rays during the summer months. • Cooling/Heating Systems – The use of attic ventilation systems reduces attic temperatures during the summer months. Solar heating systems for swimming pool facilities saves on energy costs. Natural gas is conserved with the use of flow restrictors on all hot water faucets and showerheads.
• Weatherizing Techniques – Weatherization techniques such as insulation, caulking, and weather stripping can reduce energy use for air-conditioning up to 55% and for heating as much as 40%. Weatherization measures seal a dwelling unit to guard against heat gain in the summer and prevent heat loss in the winter.
• Efficient Use of Appliances – Appliances can be used in ways that increase their energy efficiency. Unnecessary appliances can be eliminated. Proper maintenance and use of stove, oven, clothes dryer, washer, dishwasher, and refrigerator can also reduce energy consumption. New appliance purchases can be made on the basis of efficiency ratings. • Solar Installations – On July 13, 2009, the City Council adopted a comprehensive fee schedule (Resolution 5898). The resolution waived all fees for standard residential solar installations.
G-6 | City of Seal Beach Housing Resources
In addition to these techniques for reducing energy use in dwellings, the City supports broader “smart growth” efforts to encourage compact development and public transportation. For example, Programs 1a and 1b in the Housing Action Plan (Chapter V) include a commitment to process a zoning amendment to facilitate new high-density multi-family residential development on underutilized land in proximity to commercial and employment opportunities and bus transit. Such development contributes to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through lower energy use and vehicle trips (see also Programs 6a and 6c). In addition, as part of the City’s program to assist low-income households in Leisure World to upgrade bathrooms to facilitate aging in place, the City will provide applicants with information on use of green materials and energy conserving measures in home improvements (Program 6b).
City of Seal Beach Housing Element and
Zoning Code Updates Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
August 19, 2025
Prepared for:
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
2999 Oak Road, Suite 800
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
i
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................... III
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE EIR .............................................................. 1
1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 2
1.3 CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS.............................................................................. 2
1.3.1 Notice of Preparation .....................................................................................3
1.3.2 Draft EIR ........................................................................................................3
1.3.3 Final EIR ........................................................................................................3
1.4 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION ............................ 3
1.5 INTENDED USE OF THE EIR........................................................................................ 3
1.6 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR.................................................................. 4
2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIR ...................................... 5
2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ............................................................................................... 5
2.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT EIR................. 6
2.3 MASTER RESPONSES ................................................................................................. 7
2.3.1 Master Response No. 1: Program vs. Project EIR/Subsequent Environmental Review....................................................................................7
2.3.2 Master Response No. 2: Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC)............................9
2.3.3 Master Response No. 3: Cumulative Analysis..............................................10
2.3.4 Master Response No. 4: Non-CEQA Related Concerns...............................12
2.4 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS.....................................................................................12
2.4.1 Response to EQCB-Hsu: Board Member Belle Hsu .....................................13
2.4.2 Response to EQCB-Depew: Board Member Michael Depew .......................14
2.4.3 Response to EQCB-Perrell: Board Member Susan Perrell...........................15
2.4.4 Response to EQCB-Horning: Board Member Donald Horning......................18
2.4.5 Response to EQCB-Villanueva: Board Member James Villanueva ..............20
2.4.6 Response to EQCB-Coles: Richard Coles....................................................21
2.4.7 Response to EQCB-Sustarsic: Shelley Sustarsic .........................................23
2.4.8 Response to CL-CaltransDOA: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics – Vincent Ray..................................................................................................25
2.4.9 Response to CL-Caltrans: Caltrans District 12 – Scott Shelley.....................27
2.4.10 Response to CL-LosAlamitos: City of Los Alamitos – Ron Noda ..................32
2.4.11 Response to CL-Hsu: Belle Hsu...................................................................34
2.4.12 Response to CL-Miller: Gary Miller...............................................................35
2.4.13 Response to CL-Perrell1: Susan Perrell.......................................................35
2.4.14 Response to CL-Perrell2: Susan Perrell.......................................................40
2.4.15 Response to CL-Sustarsic: Shelley Sustarsic...............................................41
2.4.16 Response to CL-Lasser: Tom Lasser...........................................................44
3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR...................................................................... 46
3.1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................46
3.2 MINOR CHANGES AND EDITS TO THE DRAFT EIR ..................................................46
4.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 47
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: List of Commenters ................................................................................................... 5 Table 2-2: Master Responses .................................................................................................... 7
APPENDICES
Appendix A: EQCB Meeting Transcript
Appendix B: Written Comments Received on the Draft EIR
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ADU accessory dwelling unit
AELUP Airport Environs Land Use Plan
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
BEA Basin Equity Assessment
BPP Basin Production Percentage
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Dixon
CL- Comment Letter
County Orange County
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EQCB Environmental Quality Control Board
GSWC Golden State Water Company
JFTB Joint Forces Training Base
MET Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County
NOP Notice of Preparation
OCWD Orange County Water District
ORCC Old Ranch Country Club
PRC Public Resources Code
Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning
Code Updates Project
RA Replenishment Assessment
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
ROW right-of-way
SB Senate Bill
SCH State Clearinghouse
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
iv
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WSA Water Supply Assessment
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Seal Beach (City), as the lead agency, has evaluated the comments received on the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2023110425). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review between May 9, 2025, and June 23, 2025. The responses to the comments and other documents, which are included in this document, together with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), comprise the Final EIR for use by the City of Seal Beach, City Council in its review.
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE EIR
CEQA requires a Lead Agency that has prepared a Draft EIR to provide a copy of the Draft EIR to responsible and trustee agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is the mechanism for responding to these comments. This Final EIR has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft EIR, which are reproduced in this document; and to present corrections, revisions, and other clarifications and amplifications to the Draft EIR as a result of the City’s ongoing planning efforts. The Draft EIR and Final EIR will be used to support the City’s decision regarding whether to approve the Project.
This Final EIR can also be used by responsible and trustee agencies to ensure that they have met their requirements under CEQA before deciding whether to approve or permit project elements over which they have jurisdiction. It may also be used by other state, regional, and local agencies that may have an interest in resources that could be affected by the project or that have jurisdiction over portions of the project. The following agencies may serve as responsible and trustee agencies:
• California Department of Transportation, District 12
• Regional Water Quality Control Board #8
• State Water Resources Control Board
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife Region #5
• Native American Heritage Commission
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
• Department of Toxic Substances Control
• Coastal Commission
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
2 1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
The Project is located in the City of Seal Beach in northwestern Orange County (County), California. The Project evaluated in this Program EIR involves implementation of the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update which includes establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements.
The Housing Element, which integrates/updates supporting socioeconomic, demographic, and household data, is specifically intended to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation of 1,243 new dwelling units. The RHNA allocates regional housing needs by income-level among member jurisdictions. This Program EIR evaluates the potentially significant, adverse, and beneficial environmental impacts resulting from the Project, which involves implementation of the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update, including establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites resulting from Project implementation which would result in increased densification of residential uses.
The site inventory included in the City’s Housing Element Update shows how the City will meet its RHNA requirement through housing opportunity sites, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and pipeline projects.
The Housing Opportunity Sites include a total of eight sites that have been identified by the City as having the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The sites are broken into two categories: (1) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. Beyond the site inventory, the City has also identified the Main Street Program in its Housing Element Update. The Housing Element Update’s Main Street Program does not identify specific housing opportunity sites but would modify the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential units to be developed on the second floor of properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area.
The Housing Element Update identified Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC) Pipeline Project as a pipeline project towards meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. The ORCC Pipeline Project is a proposed 155- acre Specific Plan on the existing Old Ranch Country Club and would convert a portion of the existing golf course to a mixed-use development with 167 residential units. The 167 residential units of ORCC Pipeline Project (herein referred to as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project) are programmatically evaluated within the Draft EIR as these 167 residential units are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The other portions of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are not included within RHNA requirements and therefore are not included within this analysis. As such, specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Pipeline Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. This EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Rather, this EIR evaluates the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a basis for implications associated with housing production associated with the ORCC Specific Plan Project, only.
A detailed description of the Project is provided in Section 2.0 Project Description of the Draft EIR.
1.3 CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
The following provides a summary of the environmental review process to date for the Project that has resulted in the preparation of this Final EIR.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
3 1.3.1 Notice of Preparation
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR was submitted for a 30-day public review period on November 16, 2023. The comment period for the NOP closed on December 15, 2023. A Public Scoping Meeting was held on December 6, 2023 to solicit input from interested agencies and the public. The City received oral comments at the scoping meeting and also received several written comment letters during the public review period. The comments received were considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR and are summarized in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.
1.3.2 Draft EIR
The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review between May 9, 2025, and June 23, 2025. The Draft EIR contains a description of the Project, description of the environmental setting, identification of Project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of Project alternatives. The Draft EIR was provided to interested public agencies and the public and was made available for review at City offices and on the City’s website.
1.3.3 Final EIR
The City received comment letters from the SCH and the public regarding the Draft EIR. This document responds to the written comments received as required by CEQA. This document also contains any edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Section 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR. This document constitutes the Final EIR.
1.4 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR/PROJECT CONSIDERATION The City will review and consider the Final EIR. If the City finds that the Final EIR is “adequate and complete,” the City may certify the Final EIR. The rule of adequacy generally holds that the EIR can be certified if it does the following: (1) shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and (2) provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the Project in contemplation of its environmental consequences.
Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City may act to adopt, revise, or reject the Project. A decision to approve the Project would be accompanied by written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 also requires lead agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to describe measures that have been adopted or made a condition of the Project approval to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment.
1.5 INTENDED USE OF THE EIR
The EIR is intended to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project to the greatest extent possible.
This EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, should be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all planning and permitting actions associated with the Project.
Please refer to Section 2.0 Project Description of the Draft EIR for a detailed description of the Project.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
4 1.6 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR
This document is organized into the following sections:
Section 1: Introduction
Section 1 provides an overview of the EIR process to date and the requirements of the Final EIR.
Section 2: Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
Section 2 provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR.
Copies of all the letters received regarding the Draft EIR and responses thereto are included in this section.
Section 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR
Section 3 includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications on the Draft EIR, which have been incorporated as a result of comments or staff-initiated changes.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Measures that have been adopted or made a condition of the project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, provided under separate cover.
Because of its length, the text of the Draft EIR is not included with these written responses; however, it is included by reference in this Final EIR. None of the revisions or clarifications to the Draft EIR identified in this document constitute “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. As a result, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
5 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIR
2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS
Written comments on the Draft EIR received during the public review period and verbal comments received during the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) meeting held on June 5, 2025, are included in this section.
The format of the responses to all the comments is based on a unique letter and number code for each comment. The first set of letters refers to the format the comment was received in (comment letter [CL]; verbal comment at the EQCB meeting held on June 5, 2025 [EQCB]). The second set of letters refers to the individual agency, business, group, organization, or individual member of the public that provided the comment. The number at the end of the code refers to a specific comment within the individual communications. Therefore, each comment has a unique code assignment so that comments can be cross-referenced with the responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response. When similar comments are made by multiple parties, the response is provided the first time the comment is made, and all other similar comments are referred back to that response.
Additionally, a number of comments received on the Draft EIR focused on several main issues and topics associated with the Project and the CEQA analysis of project impacts. As such, the City determined it would be appropriate, and would facilitate public review, to provide master responses to address these comments and provide the necessary context for considering the issues raised.
A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below.
Table 2-1: List of Commenters
Commenter(s) Agency/Organization Comment Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Comment
Format
Commenter Code
Agencies
Vincent Ray California Department
of Transportation
(Caltrans) Division of
Aeronautics
6/19/2025 Comment Letter CL-CaltransDOA
Scott Shelley Caltrans District 12 6/23/2025 Comment Letter CL-Caltrans Ron Noda City of Los Alamitos 6/23/2025 Comment Letter CL-LosAlamitos Individuals
Board Member Hsu City of Seal Beach
EQCB
6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Hsu
Board Member Depew City of Seal Beach
EQCB
6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Depew
Chair Perrell City of Seal Beach
EQCB
6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Perrell
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
6 Commenter(s) Agency/Organization Comment Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Comment
Format
Commenter Code
Board Member
Horning
City of Seal Beach
EQCB
6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Horning
Board Member
Villanueva
City of Seal Beach
EQCB
6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Villanueva
Richard Coles 6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Coles
Councilwoman Patty
Senecal
6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Senecal
Shelley Sustarsic 6/5/2025 EQCB Meeting EQCB-Sustarsic
Belle Hsu City of Seal Beach
EQCB
6/20/2025 Comment Letter CL-Hsu
Gary Miller 6/22/2025 Comment Letter CL-Miller
Susan Perrell City of Seal Beach
EQCB
6/18/2025 Comment Letter CL-Perrell1
Susan Perrell City of Seal Beach
EQCB
6/20/2025 Comment Letter CL-Perrell2
Shelley Sustarsic 6/23/2025 Comment Letter CL-Sustarsic Tom Lasser 6/14/2025 Comment Letter CL-Lasser
Comments received in person at the EQCB Meeting held on June 5, 2025 are provided under Appendix A.
Written comments received on the Draft EIR are provided under Appendix B.
2.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT
EIR
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate all comments on environmental issues received on the Draft EIR and prepare a written response. The written response must address the significant environmental issues raised and must be detailed, especially when specific comments or suggestions (e.g., additional mitigation measures) are not accepted. In addition, there must be a good faith and reasoned analysis in the written response. However, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues associated with the project and do not need to provide all the information requested by commenters, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204).
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commenters provide detailed comments that focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways that the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 also notes that commenters should provide an explanation and evidence supporting their comments. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence supporting such a conclusion.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 also recommends that where a response to comments results in revisions to the Draft EIR, those revisions be incorporated as a revision to the Draft EIR or as a separate section of the Final EIR.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
7 2.3 MASTER RESPONSES
A number of comments received on the Draft EIR focused on several main issues and topics associated with the Project and the CEQA analysis of project impacts. As such, the City determined it would be appropriate, and would facilitate public review, to provide master responses to address these comments and provide the necessary context for considering the issues raised. The main issues and topics warranting master responses are provided in full, below, and include the following:
Table 2-2: Master Responses
Topics Master Response No.
Program vs. Project EIR/Subsequent Environmental Review 1 Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC) 2
Cumulative Analysis 3
Non-CEQA Related Concerns 4
2.3.1 Master Response No. 1: Program vs. Project EIR/Subsequent Environmental Review
Several commenters expressed concerns regarding the level of analysis contained within the Draft EIR and questioned the level of subsequent environmental review that would be required for future development projects developed as a result of the Project. Individual comment letters are summarized below in Section 2.4 Response to Comments. Individual comment letters that included comments pertaining to Master Response No. 1 summarized in Section 2.4 Response to Comments below are directed to this section for a response to their comments.
As stated under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
• Geographically,
• As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, • In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
• As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.
Later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
1. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration. That later analysis may tier from the program EIR as provided in Section 15152.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
8 2. If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR.
3. An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program.
4. Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.
5. A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later activities if it provides a description of planned activities that would implement the program and deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed project description and analysis of the program, many later activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required.
A project-level EIR generally focuses on the environmental changes caused by a development project, including planning, construction, and operation. A program EIR, on the other hand, generally looks at the broad policy of a planning document, i.e., a general plan, and may not address potential site-specific impacts of the individual projects that may fall within the planning document.
As identified in the Draft EIR, the Project does not propose any actual development at this time and certification of the Project and Draft EIR would only change the proposed land use of the identified sites.
As there are no actual developments proposed at this time on the Housing Opportunity Sites (a specific project is proposed on the ORCC pipeline site, see Master Response 2), the potential impacts that could result from actual development are unknown. Therefore, a program EIR approach was used for the Project. When future developments are proposed on Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area and site plans are established, then each future development project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. The level of subsequent environmental review required for the future development project would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City. Unless and until further project-level details are developed, analysis at a project level would be incomplete.
Some commenters expressed concerns that adoption of this program EIR would allow for future developments to be approved without going through its own independent environmental review process.
However, future development projects would be required to undergo their own environmental review process. As outlined by J.W. DeShazer Foundation v. City of Glendale Redevelopment Agency (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 242, the courts rejected agency reliance on a general plan EIR alone to approve a specific development, emphasizing that the project’s unique impacts must be independently assessed. Therefore,
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
9 future development projects would not be allowed to rely solely on the Housing Element Program EIR for approval and would require independent environmental analysis. However, future development projects’ environmental analysis may utilize the Housing Element Program EIR to tier off of to streamline its environmental review. If the future project were to utilize the program EIR for subsequent project-level EIRs or CEQA filings, the project would be required to be consistent with the overarching analysis provided in the EIR.
Though it would be anticipated that future developments located on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area would require subsequent environmental review at the time of the proposed development application, some future developments may not require significant environmental review under CEQA.
Assembly Bill (AB) 130 and Senate Bill (SB) 131 were recently signed into state law on June 30, 2025 which contained significant reforms to CEQA relevant to housing projects. AB 130 exempts qualifying "infill" housing-rich projects from CEQA, with no labor or wage standard requirements for projects up to 85 feet tall, unless the project is 100 percent affordable. It also imposes a new 30-day deadline for agencies to act to approve or disapprove qualifying projects, which is a significant change from current law. For housing developments that qualify under the criteria for AB 130’s CEQA exemption, the project would be exempt from preparing a full environmental analysis document.
SB 131 also constrains CEQA review for projects that narrowly fail to qualify for a CEQA exemption (including AB 130's new statutory exemption for infill housing). Under SB 131, if a housing project would qualify for a CEQA exemption "but for a single condition" of that exemption, CEQA review for the housing project is limited to environmental effects caused by that single condition. Therefore, the initial study or environmental impact report for these "near-miss" projects is only required to examine environmental effects that are caused "solely" by the presence of the single condition that precluded qualification.
As many of the Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area identified for the Project are located on infill sites, future developments proposed on these sites could potentially utilize the recently adopted CEQA review laws under AB 130 and SB 131. If a future development project is determined to qualify under AB 130 or SB 131, then the project may not be required to prepare an environmental analysis document or may be limited in the scope of impacts that it may be required to analyze. Each future development project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines by the City to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. The level of subsequent environmental review required for the future development project would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City.
2.3.2 Master Response No. 2: Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC) Several commenters had concerns related to potential future development proposed on the ORCC Specific Plan Project site due to its location within proximity to the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB), land use conflicts, drainage, and increased population and traffic in the area as a result of the project.
As stated in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, housing developments that have already been proposed and are not expected to be issued a certificate of occupancy until July 1, 2021 or after, but are expected to be completed before the end of the planning period (October 15, 2029), can be credited
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
10 toward the RHNA and are considered pipeline projects. Therefore, the Housing Element Update identified ORCC Specific Plan Project as a pipeline project towards meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. The 167 dwelling units proposed through the ORCC Specific Plan Project are programmatically evaluated in the Draft EIR as the units are included within the City's site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. The site is being evaluated in its own EIR as the development application for the site includes the preparation of a specific plan that would redevelop the site with a mix of residential and commercial uses and therefore, cannot be analyzed at a programmatic level in the Housing Element Draft EIR.
This EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Rather, the Draft EIR evaluated the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a basis for implications associated with housing production associated with the ORCC Specific Plan, only. Therefore, the location of the proposed residential developments and its potential safety impacts and associated land use conflicts are being evaluated in a standalone EIR by the City and is not required to be analyzed in this Draft EIR.
2.3.3 Master Response No. 3: Cumulative Analysis
Several commenters questioned what was included in the cumulative impact analysis and stated careful consideration should be taken in the Draft EIR’s cumulative impact analysis due to the Project and other developments in the vicinity of the City’s creation of population growth and that potential impacts that could occur as a result.
As outlined in Section 3.0 Environmental Analysis of the Draft EIR, section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), means that the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over time.
A cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects causing related impacts. In this case, the Housing Element Update itself is a plan-level document which provides for increased residential development within the City across a relatively broad geography, including potential housing development that exceeds the regional forecast included for the City in regional plans.
The nature of the Project does not alter the need to analyze cumulative impacts, and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1), regional growth projections prepared for Connect SoCal 2024 and contained in the County’s transportation model are used for the analysis of VMT and related topics such as air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise.
The geographic area analyzed for cumulative impacts is dependent on the resource being analyzed. The geographic area associated with a Project’s environmental impacts defines the boundaries of the area used for compiling the list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects considered in the
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
11 cumulative impacts analysis. Some analysis including air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and population and housing, relies on much larger geographic areas such as the Southern California region. For analysis that may have more localized or neighborhood implications (biological resources, cultural resources, noise, public services, utilities), the cumulative impact analysis includes development projects that have recently been approved or have a pending application. Additionally, it includes potential future developments and opportunity sites that have been identified in the Housing Element Update for the adjacent cities. A list of cumulative past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding area that has been identified to be included in the cumulative analysis, including cumulative developments such as the Lampson Project, is identified in Table 3.0-3 of the Draft EIR.
The analysis contained in the Draft EIR focuses on the Seal Beach Housing Element and associated Zoning Code Update; however, the Seal Beach Housing Element's larger implications of growth such as to transportation systems utilized by people that reside outside of the City are considered and analyzed in the Draft EIR. Other entity's housing elements and individual projects proposed outside of the City but within the region that could impact Seal Beach are analyzed at a cumulative level. Other entity’s housing elements are considered as part of the cumulative impact analysis as future housing projects proposed on the candidate sites identified in the individual housing element could result in increase growth in the area and contribute to cumulative impacts. However, other General Plan elements are not considered in the cumulative impact analysis as individual General Plan elements by itself would not result in increased growth in a specific area, unlike the housing element. The cumulative impact analysis is provided at the end of each resource section analyzed in the Draft EIR. Though the Draft EIR includes a cumulative analysis of the Project in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area, as the Draft EIR is a program level document and analyzes the land use modifications and increased growth opportunity within the City that could occur as a result of the Project, site specific impacts that could result from the future development of the sites and its potential cumulative contributions are unknown.
Commenters expressed concerns with cumulative impacts related to transportation, circulation, and congestion that may occur as a result of the Project in combination with other individual projects and developments in the area (i.e., development projects located adjacent to and/or in the vicinity of Seal Beach). As the Project does not propose any specific development at this time and would only result in modifications to the proposed land uses for certain sites within the City, the potential impacts that could result on these identified sites are unknown and speculative at this time. Though a specific development application has been submitted for the ORCC Specific Plan Project, specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. The site is being evaluated in its own EIR as the development application for the site includes the preparation of a specific plan that would redevelop the site with a mix of residential and commercial uses and therefore, cannot be analyzed at a programmatic level in the Housing Element Draft EIR. When future developments are proposed on Housing Opportunity Sites and site plans are established, then subsequent analysis of the future development’s contribution to impacts (including cumulative) such as transportation and congestion, air quality, and noise, will be prepared if it is determined to be required for the individual development. As stated above under Master Response 1, each future development project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines by the City to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. The level of
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
12 subsequent environmental review required for the future development project would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City. Additionally, development projects located in and within the vicinity of Seal Beach would have to take into account the Seal Beach Housing Element EIR’s potential impacts within their own CEQA document’s cumulative impact analysis and mitigate any potentially significant cumulative impacts to the extent feasible.
2.3.4 Master Response No. 4: Non-CEQA Related Concerns
Several commenters stated concerns for topics such as availability and affordability of homeowners insurance and financial and economic impacts of the Project.
For the purposes of CEQA, the purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the Project. (South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1604, 1614-1618; City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 905.) While identifying the environmental effects of the Project to an area is consistent with CEQA’s legislative purpose and statutory requirements, identifying the effects on the Project and its users of locating the Project in a particular environmental setting is neither consistent with CEQA’s legislative purpose nor required by the CEQA statutes.
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines is a sample checklist form that is suggested for use in preparing an initial study, and which the City has employed to assist in the preparation of the Draft EIR (see Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (f)). Nevertheless, a few of the questions on the checklist form do concern the exposure of people or structures to environmental hazards and could be construed to refer to not only the Project’s exacerbation of environmental hazards but also the effects on users of the Project and structures in the Project of preexisting environmental hazards. To the extent that such questions may encompass the latter effects, the questions do not relate to environmental impacts under CEQA and cannot support an argument that the effects of the environment on the Project must be analyzed in an EIR. (Ballona Wetlands Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473- 474.). Additionally, potentially fiscal and economic impacts of a Project would not require analysis under CEQA as impacts related to fiscal and economic changes are not considered to be an effect of the Project on the environment.
2.4 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Seal Beach, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR (SCH No. 2023110425) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final EIR for the Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.
The verbal and written individual comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments are provided below. The comment letters and verbal comments made at the EQCB meeting are reproduced in their entirety and are followed by the response(s). All comments are indicated by a line bracket and an identifying number in the margin of the comment letter.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
13 2.4.1 Response to EQCB-Hsu: Board Member Belle Hsu
Response to Comment EQCB-Hsu-1
The commenter raised concerns about the affordability and availability of homeowners insurance, especially for low-income residents. Potential impacts related to homeowners insurance are not a required topic of analysis under CEQA and therefore, is not included in the Draft EIR analysis. However, the forces and resources which could cause implications to affordability and availability of homeowners insurance, such as hydrology and flooding, earthquakes, and wildfire hazards, were evaluated in the Draft EIR. Nevertheless, as it is not a CEQA topic of analysis, the risk and fees associated with insurance are not evaluated in the Draft EIR as CEQA statutes stay out of the market effects and economics related to project implementation. The state's site evaluation guidelines are very specific about the feasibility of proposing sites such as proposing development on sites that are not wholly contained within a floodplain or have risks related to flooding and as such, the state places restrictions on where developments are allowed to be proposed.
For the purposes of CEQA, the purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the Project. Though economic and social effects can be considered in determining the significance of physical changes caused by a proposed project, the comment does not relate to the potential impact significance determination for resources analyzed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the topic of potential concerns related to affordability and availability of homeowners insurance is not a CEQA related issue and does not require discussion in the Project’s Draft EIR. See also Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns.
Response to Comment EQCB-Hsu-2
The commenter stated their concern with drainage issues in the City and questions how drainage issues are going to be handled so that they don't further compound the other drainage issues that exist.
Hydrology and stormwater drainage are analyzed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality and Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR proposes Mitigation Measure HYD-1 which requires future development projects to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development could have on the existing deficiencies to the City's storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City's storm water infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures does not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it would be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. The requirements for contribution to funding improvements and the anticipated cost would be analyzed at the time of project-specific environmental analysis. As identified in the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 was determined to reduce potential impacts related to hydrology, flooding, and storm water drainage to a less than significant level.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
14 2.4.2 Response to EQCB-Depew: Board Member Michael Depew Response to Comment EQCB-Depew-1
The commenter stated their concerns with the mitigation imposing fees on the developers for water supply and questioned the effectiveness of using developer fees to mitigate water supply issues as we can't buy more water if it does not exist. The commenter suggested other methods to utilize the collected fees to mitigate such as recycled water.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 is included in the Draft EIR to reduce potential impacts related to water, sewer, and stormwater facilities by requiring future proposed developments to mitigate their proportionate impacts to utility infrastructure by way of fair-share/in-lieu fee payments or other alternative financing arrangements. This mitigation is proposed to reduce impacts to the infrastructure of utilities, not to mitigate impacts related to water supply. The funds collected through the proposed mitigation measure can be used by the City to improve utility infrastructure within the City to serve its residents, including installing a recycled water system if it was determined to reduce deficiencies that require infrastructure improvements. How the City utilizes the funds collected would be at the discretion of the City.
As identified under Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR under Impact UTIL-2, the Project was determined to have a less than significant impact related to water supply and did not require mitigation to reduce impacts as sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project.
As identified in Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared to determine if sufficient water supplies would be available to serve buildout of the Project. As identified in the WSA, based on the estimated additional water required for the Project, an approximate 8 percent increase in supply is required to meet these demands for the City, and approximately 1 percent increase in supply is required to meet the demands for Golden State Water Company (GSWC).
According to both the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, after 2025, the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) within the OC Basin is assumed to be set at 85 percent for retail water suppliers. This would mean that the portfolio for each retail water supplier that pumps groundwater from the OC Basin would be composed of 85 percent groundwater and 15 percent imported water. As part of the Orange County Water District’s (OCWD’s) Groundwater Reliability Plan, the groundwater levels are managed within a safe operating range to mitigate land subsidence, provide sustainability to the basin, and reduce the risk of overdraft. OCWD assesses the basin annually and sets a BPP uniformly for all producers, which is defined as the percentage of the retail water supplier’s total water demand that comes from groundwater. The BPP is based on estimated demands from all groundwater producers, the amount of imported water available from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET), the estimated basin operating range, basin storage conditions, the amount of recharge water available to OCWD, and other factors. Groundwater producers meet bi-annually with OCWD to establish a Replenishment Assessment (RA) based on demands estimated from the previous year and the amount of groundwater that has been pump during the year. While there is no legal limit as to how much a groundwater producer pumps from this basin, agencies that pump above the established BPP are charged a RA fee plus a Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) fee.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
15 As identified in the Draft EIR, the City’s and GSWC’s projected water supplies identified in their respective 2020 UWMPs would not be adequate to serve the additional demand that would result from maximum buildout of the Project. However, each retail water supplier would be able to meet the projected and additional demand associated with the Project through 2045 with a combination of groundwater production and imported water purchased. Imported MET water purchases through Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and groundwater production within the OC Basin are established annually via agency coordination based on the estimated demands and various other factors in Orange County.
Based on MET’s reliability and sustainable management of the OC Basin by OCWD, the WSA concluded that the additional demand from the Project along with the projected demands from the UWMP can be met as these additional demands would be accounted for during coordination and BPP establishment for the following year. For any demands beyond the annual estimates within the retail water suppliers service area, the retail water supplier may either have to increase groundwater production beyond the BPP established by OCWD, which may result in costs incurred associated with RA and BEA or would need to purchase more imported water from MWDOC to provide adequate supplies to meet the increased demand.
The commenter questioned the effectiveness of using developer fees to mitigate water supply issues as we can't buy more water if it does not exist. As identified in the Draft EIR Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems, there is no legal limit as to how much a groundwater producer pumps from this basin.
Additionally, as identified under Impact UTIL-2 of the Draft EIR, each retail water supplier that serves the City would be able to meet the projected and additional demand associated with the Project through 2045 with a combination of groundwater production and imported water purchased. Therefore, as there would be more water available for use, the City is not anticipated to run into a problem of additional water not existing as outlined in the Draft EIR analysis. Additionally, the developer fees are intended to mitigate impacts related to utility infrastructure and any improvements that could be required as a result of increased growth. The developer fees are not intended to mitigate water supply issues.
2.4.3 Response to EQCB-Perrell: Board Member Susan Perrell Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-1
The commenter agreed with comment EQCB-Hsu-1 related concerns about affordability and availability of homeowners insurance and also stated that insurance costs are part of the first two objectives of the EIR “protect and improve quality of life for current and future residents.” Potential impacts related to homeowners’ insurance are not a required topic of analysis under CEQA and therefore, is not included in the Draft EIR analysis. However, the forces and resources which could cause implications to affordability and availability of homeowners insurance, such as hydrology and flooding (Draft EIR Section 3.9), earthquakes (Draft EIR Appendix A - Initial Study), and wildfire hazards (Draft EIR Appendix A - Initial Study), were evaluated in the Draft EIR. Nevertheless, as insurance is not a CEQA topic of analysis, the risk and fees associated with are not evaluated in the Draft EIR as CEQA statutes stay out of the market effects and economics related to project implementation. The state's site evaluation guidelines related to Housing Element law are very specific about site feasibility such as proposing development on sites that are not wholly contained within a floodplain or have risks related to flooding
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
16 and as such, the state places restrictions on where developments are allowed to be proposed. For the purposes of CEQA, the purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the Project. Though economic and social effects can be considered in determining the significance of physical changes caused by a proposed project, the comment does not relate to the potential impact significance determination for resources analyzed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the topic of potential concerns related to affordability and availability of homeowners insurance is not a CEQA related issue and does not require discussion in the Project’s Draft EIR. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR, does not raise environmental issues, and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. See also Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns.
There are no specific parameters for the quality-of-life objective and the definition of what quality of life constitutes depends on how the reader interprets the objective. Though rising insurance costs could result in diminishing quality of life for existing residents, rising insurance costs is neither an impact of the project on the environment nor is it a topic of analysis under CEQA. Increased housing opportunities in the City could increase quality of life for existing and future residents by providing a more diverse housing stock for the city including a variety and range of residential development types and affordability levels.
Additionally, the purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment under CEQA and identify mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to protect quality of life. The purpose of the CEQA analysis is to identify any potential impacts that could impact a population’s quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts and to mitigate or minimize to the extent feasible those potential impacts. Therefore, the preparation of the Draft EIR for the Project and the analysis and mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR will protect City residents’ quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts by identifying impacts and mitigating those impacts to the extent feasible. The comment is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts.
Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-2
The commenter commended staff and CEQA consultants on the preparation of the document noting its organization, clarity, and addressing comments received on the NOP. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-3
The commenter voiced concerns about conflicting project objectives included in the Draft EIR related to protecting quality of life vs. complying with RHNA mandates. The commenter stated 1,243 new housing units will create significant impacts that would not allow for the project to protect and improve quality of life for the City's residents. The commenter suggested different approaches to reduce impacts and ensure
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
17 objectives do not conflict such as lowering density, reducing flooding by putting in permeable pavement, reducing transportation impacts by requiring bike lanes. The commenter stated that more emphasis needs to be put on the quality-of-life project objective.
The purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment under CEQA and identify mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to protect quality of life. The purpose of the CEQA analysis is to identify any potential impacts that could impact a population’s quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts and to mitigate or minimize to the extent feasible those potential impacts. Therefore, the preparation of the Draft EIR for the Project and the analysis and mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR will protect City residents’ quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts by identifying impacts and mitigating those impacts to the extent feasible. The comment is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-4
The commenter stated their agreement with comment EQCB-Depew-1 related to mitigating water supply impacts.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 is included in the Draft EIR to reduce potential impacts related to water, sewer, and stormwater facilities by requiring future proposed developments to mitigate their proportionate impacts to utility infrastructure by way of fair-share/in-lieu fee payments or other alternative financing arrangements. This mitigation is proposed to reduce impacts to the infrastructure of utilities, not to mitigate impacts related to water supply. As identified under Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR under Impact UTIL-2, the Project was determined to have a less than significant impact related to water supply and did not require mitigation to reduce impacts as sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project. The funds collected through the proposed mitigation measure can be used by the City to improve utility infrastructure within the City to serve its residents, including installing a recycled water system if it was determined to reduce deficiencies that require infrastructure improvements. How the City utilizes the funds collected would be at the discretion of the City.
Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-5
The commenter stated they have the same concerns as EQCB-Hsu-2 related to stormwater flooding and encouraged others to come up with more comments and submit the comments before the deadline.
See response to EQCB-HSU-2 for a response related to stormwater drainage. The comment encouraging submittal of comments is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts.
Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-6
The commenter called for the preparation of a separate EIR for Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive, citing its unique ecological and recreational value.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
18 The comment is noted. As the Draft EIR presented is a programmatic EIR, it looks at each specific site at a broader level than a project level EIR and does not analyze site specific impacts. Site specific impacts would be analyzed in the future as specific development projects are proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites included in the Draft EIR. Each individual project proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area will require its own subsequent entitlement process through the City and its planning division. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. The level of subsequent environmental review required for the future development project would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City. See also Master Response 1 for a discussion of environmental effects analyzed in a programmatic level document and subsequent environmental review.
Response to Comment EQCB-Perrell-7
The commenter asked procedural questions regarding whether certification of the EIR would mean the specific sites are not evaluated during subsequent entitlements process.
The comment is related to the procedure of the CEQA process and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Future development projects subsequently proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area included in the Draft EIR will require their own subsequent entitlement process through the City and its planning division and certification of the Draft EIR would not preclude subsequent environmental review by the City for future projects. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. The level of subsequent environmental review required for the future development project would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City. See also Master Response 1 for a discussion of subsequent environmental review process.
2.4.4 Response to EQCB-Horning: Board Member Donald Horning Response to Comment EQCB-Horning-1
The commenter asked procedural questions related to who would respond to comments from Leisure World. The comment is related to the procedure of how comments received on the Draft EIR are addressed and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary. All comments received on the Draft EIR are addressed by the consultants and the City preparing the Final EIR.
Response to Comment EQCB-Horning-2
The commenter outlined that the Draft EIR includes significant impacts for five topics including air pollution, greenhouse gases, public services, recreation, and transportation and stated the importance of disclosing specific site impacts early such as why a particular site has not been previously developed and when they should be brought up.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
19 As identified in the Draft EIR, the five resource topics that were determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact were air pollution, greenhouse gases, public services, recreation, and transportation.
Impacts related to air pollution are discussed in Section 3.2 Air Quality of the Draft EIR, greenhouse gas impacts are discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.7, public service impacts are discussed in Draft EIR Section
3.13, recreation impacts are discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.14, and transportation impacts are discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.15. The comment is a general comment and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Public comments are valued during the Draft EIR review process as they can reveal specific impacts residents of a project area face that are not formally documented in other readily available environmental documents. Whether the comments received come from a specific agency or board or it comes from a quadrant of a community or representation of a few neighbors or individuals, all comments received are considered and responded to with the same level of weight and consideration.
Response to Comment EQCB-Horning-3
The commenter questioned how nearby entities such as Rossmoor and Los Alamitos that have their own Housing Element studies fit together with the Seal Beach Housing Element Update Draft EIR and questions if the Draft EIR only focuses on the opportunity sites identified for Seal Beach and how cumulative impacts are discussed.
The analysis contained in the Draft EIR focuses on the Seal Beach Housing Element and related Zoning Code Amendments; however, the larger implications of growth in the vicinity of the City are considered and analyzed in the Draft EIR. Other entities’ housing elements and individual projects proposed outside of the City but within the region that could impact Seal Beach are analyzed at a cumulative level. The geographic scope of cumulative impact analysis for each resource section analyzed in the Draft EIR is dependent on the cumulative impact setting for each resource. The geographic scope of cumulative impacts for each resource is outlined in Table 3.0-2 in the Draft EIR. The cumulative impact analysis is provided at the end of each resource section analyzed in the Draft EIR. See also Master Response 3 for a discussion of cumulative impact analysis.
Response to Comment EQCB-Horning-4
The commenter stated the purpose of the meeting is to motivate the community with education and to solicit comments and suggested everyone compile their comments and send it in before the deadline.
The comment is a general statement encouraging the public to provide comments on the Draft EIR and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
Response to Comment EQCB-Horning-5
The commenter states the importance that each individual site is evaluated in depth before being offered as an opportunity site; however, understands they don't have a say in the housing element process and therefore, providing comments is necessary to be their own defense team.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
20 The Housing Opportunity Sites presented in the Seal Beach Housing Element Update were determined using a variety of methods. A Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee was established and held two meetings to assist in identifying and evaluating potential sites for housing development. In addition, City staff contacted several property owners to assess interest in multi-family or mixed-use redevelopment. To ensure sites selected for the site inventory do not have existing uses that are impediments to housing development, an analysis was conducted to select sites that are most likely to develop during the planning period. Development likelihood and feasibility were determined by a number of different variables, including improvement-to-land value ratio, existing lot coverage, lot size, future development potential, and existing uses, and by recent patterns and trends in the region. The identified Housing Opportunity Sites were also reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings, and property owners and other interested stakeholders had the opportunity to provide comments on sites that should be considered for additional residential development. Therefore, each individual Housing Opportunity Site was evaluated in depth related to the feasibility and compatibility of development or redevelopment of the site before being chosen as an opportunity site and opportunities were provided for public input on the Housing Opportunity Sites. Site evaluation and selection was performed in advance of the Draft EIR in order to create a project description for evaluation by the Draft EIR. Additionally, see Master Response 1 for a discussion of the level of analysis provided in a program-level vs. project-level CEQA analysis.
2.4.5 Response to EQCB-Villanueva: Board Member James Villanueva Response to Comment EQCB-Villanueva-1
The commenter stated they agree with EQCB-Perrell-3 regarding the quality-of-life project objective and what impacts would occur but requested people consider a broader definition of quality of life as increasing the amount of residents in the City would allow for property tax revenue to increase and would increase activity on Main Street which would be beneficial and would improve quality of life.
The purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment under CEQA and identify mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to protect quality of life. The purpose of the CEQA analysis is to identify any potential impacts that could impact a population’s quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts and to mitigate or minimize to the extent feasible those potential impacts. Therefore, the preparation of the Draft EIR for the Project and the analysis and mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR will protect City residents’ quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts by identifying impacts and mitigating those impacts to the extent feasible.
The comment is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
Response to Comment EQCB-Villanueva-2
The commenter commended staff and CEQA consultants on the preparation of the document. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
21 relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
Response to Comment EQCB-Villanueva-3
The commenter stated that they think it would be a shame to see the 99 Marina property be developed with a dense development due to its unique value and contemplates whether a portion of the site can be set aside for open space while the remainder is available for development The comment regarding the commenter's feelings about Housing Opportunity Site 8 – 99 Marine Drive and their desire to set aside a portion of the property for open space is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
2.4.6 Response to EQCB-Coles: Richard Coles
Response to Comment EQCB-Coles-1
The commenter stated their relevant experience working with and reviewing EIRs. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
Response to Comment EQCB-Coles-2
The commenter stated they believe there should be separate EIRs for geologically distinct sites. The comment is noted. As the Draft EIR presented is a programmatic EIR, it looks at each specific site at a broader level than a project level EIR and does not analyze site specific impacts. Site specific impacts would be analyzed in the future as specific development projects are proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites included in the Draft EIR. Each individual project proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area will require its own subsequent entitlement process through the City and its planning division. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. The level of subsequent environmental review required for a future development project would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City. See also Master Response 1 for a discussion of analysis contained in a programmatic level document such as the Draft EIR and subsequent environmental review.
Response to Comment EQCB-Coles-3
The commenter highlighted concerns about stormwater, aging infrastructure, traffic, and air quality. The commenter stated concerns related to air quality specifically at the 99 Marina site due to Long Beach passing three new major developments in the vicinity. Additionally, the commenter expressed concerns
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
22 with redeveloping the Main Street area with up to 115 new units diminishing the existing visual character of the area.
Stormwater and utility infrastructure are analyzed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality and Section
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR. Traffic impacts are analyzed in Section 3.15 Transportation and air quality impacts are analyzed in Section 3.2 Air Quality of the Draft EIR.
Additionally, potential cumulative impacts related to the three Long Beach developments referenced by the commenter are included in the cumulative impact analysis for the Project and air quality impacts related to these developments have been evaluated. The cumulative air quality impact analysis is provided at the end of Section 3.2 Air Quality of the Draft EIR. In addition, redevelopment of the Main Street area with up to 115 second-story units is the highest intensity scenario, which was analyzed in the Draft EIR to ensure that potential future impacts from development of residential units within the Main Street area are included and evaluated in the Draft EIR. As identified in the City's Housing Element Update, the City realistically anticipates permitting the construction of two residential units in the Main Street area during the Housing Element Update's planning period. Additionally, the Project’s amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan to allow for second-story residential uses would not result in modifications to the development standards for the area. The development standards such as those related to the height of proposed structures would not change as a result of the Project as two-story structures are already allowed in the area. Therefore, future residential uses within the area would be developed in accordance with the existing development standards and in character with the existing development pattern of the area and would not result in changes to the existing visual character of the area. Response to EQCB-Senecal: Patt Senecal
Response to Comment EQCB-Senecal-1
The commenter criticized the VMT metric and raised concerns about traffic congestion, air quality, particulate pollution, and noise that could result. The commenter questioned whether they can require the South Coast AQMD to put air monitoring on these sites or near the sites on a continual tracking basis for air quality to understand potential impacts.
As identified in the Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR, in accordance with state guidelines, VMT analysis that incorporates the requirements of SB 743 was utilized as one measure of the Project’s potential transportation impacts. SB 743 required OPR to establish guidelines under CEQA for identifying and mitigating VMT transportation impacts. Generally, SB 743 moves away from using delay-based LOS as the metric for identifying a significant impact and instead uses VMT. The City of Seal Beach adopted an SB 743 Implementation Policy and a new Transportation Analysis Guidelines. The methodology and threshold of significance identified in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines were used in the VMT analysis provided in the Draft EIR. The commenter's criticism of the VMT metric is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. Traffic impacts are analyzed in Section 3.15 Transportation and air quality and particulate pollution impacts are analyzed in Section 3.2 Air Quality and Section 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR. Additionally, noise impacts are analyzed in Section 3.11 Noise of the Draft EIR.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
23 The commenter questioned if the City can require the South Coast AQMD to put air monitoring on the sites or near the sites on a continual tracking basis of the air quality so that they can monitor and know what air quality impacts are occurring. The Project was evaluated in the Draft EIR utilizing required standards under the State CEQA Guidelines and the Draft EIR evaluates the Project against the existing conditions which serve as the baseline for potential impacts. As outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, the baseline constitutes the existing physical conditions by which a lead agency determined whether an impact is significant. Though the City could implement air monitoring at these sites to see how future developments impact air quality , such activity would not result in changes to the significance determination included in the Draft EIR as future conditions are unknown. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their review and consideration.
2.4.7 Response to EQCB-Sustarsic: Shelley Sustarsic
Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic-1
The commenter stated that there are existing storm drainage and hydrology impacts that exist within the City and expressed their concerns that the Project will exacerbate the existing problem.
Hydrology and stormwater drainage are analyzed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality and Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR proposes Mitigation Measure HYD-1 which requires future development projects to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development could have on the existing deficiencies to the City's storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City's storm water infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures does not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it would be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. The requirements for contribution to funding improvements and the anticipated cost would be analyzed at the time of project-specific environmental analysis. As identified in the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 was determined to reduce potential impacts related to hydrology, flooding, and storm water drainage to a less than significant level. Each future development project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. If subsequent environmental review, such as the preparation of a project-specific EIR, is determined to not be required, that is a result of the individual project meeting CEQA exemption requirements which determines that the level of risk of the individual project resulting in significant impacts are low and therefore does not require a full environmental analysis or mitigation measures to reduce impacts. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of potential subsequent environmental review requirements.
Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic-2
The commenter questioned how tall the subsequent developments would be due to the proposed density (for example for the Shops at Rossmoor) and the potential impacts that could result due to JFTB and Los Alamitos airport related to light and glare, noise, and safety.
As specific development applications have not been submitted for the Housing Opportunity Sites or Main Street Program area, the actual development and structures that would be constructed at these sites are
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
24 currently unknown. However, all future development projects proposed on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area would be required to comply with the City's design standards and guidelines, including those related to the maximum building heights. Potential impacts related to Los Alamitos JFTB are evaluated in Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR under Impact HAZ-1. The evaluation included an analysis of noise, safety, and height restriction impacts and determined that future developments under the Project would comply with the noise, safety, and height standards established in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the Los Alamitos JFTB and impacts would be less than significant.
Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic-3
The commenter expressed concerns with cumulative developments and potential impacts and stated cumulative impacts on traffic, hydrology, sewer, light and glare have to be considered. See Master Response 3 for a response related to the cumulative impact assessment provided in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic-4
The commenter expressed their concerns about increased traffic and stated traffic impacts should be considered on each proposed site as well as cumulative traffic impacts.
Traffic impacts are analyzed in Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR. Section 3.15 Transportation includes an analysis of the Project and the potential effects future development projects on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area may have on the existing transportation network as well as cumulative transportation impacts that could result from a combination of the Project with other various development proposals in the area. As identified in the Draft EIR, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to transportation and the Project would require a Statement of Overriding Consideration from the City. See also Master Response 1 for a discussion of environmental effects analyzed in a programmatic level document and subsequent environmental review, and Master Response 3 for a discussion of cumulative impact analysis contained in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic-5
The commenter expressed their concerns with a finding of no significant impact related to airport hazards due to potential noise and safety impacts from flight paths and states the General Plan has a goal to discourage further encroachment into the Los Alamitos JFTB flight path Potential impacts related to Los Alamitos JFTB are evaluated in Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR under Impact HAZ-1. The evaluation included an analysis of noise, safety, and height restriction impacts and determined that future developments under the Project would comply with the noise, safety, and height standards established in the AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB and impacts would be less than significant. As identified in the Draft EIR, future developments proposed under the Project that are exposed to existing or projected noise, including aircraft noise, that exceeds noise standards identified in Figure N-3 of the General Plan would be required to prepare a project-specific acoustical study and identify mitigation measures to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA.
Following the noise level standards set in the City’s Noise Element and preparing an acoustical study would minimize potential impacts and ensure that future developments would be compatible with the AELUP noise policies. Additionally, based on a review of the AELUP, none of the Housing Opportunity
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
25 Sites nor the Main Street Program area are located within the Clear Zones/ Runway Protection Zones for the Los Alamitos JFTB. As such, the Project was determined to not present a safety hazard for persons in relation to airport-related accidents.
Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic6
The commenter asked a procedural question related to the next housing element cycle and what would happen if the City is required to provide even more housing and questioned if everything will become a tall tower in the City.
The state is currently in its 6th cycle of the housing element which covers the planning period between 2021 to 2029. The RHNA requirement for the City for the 7th housing element cycle is currently unknown.
Once the next housing element cycle commences, the City would be required to update its Housing Element and plan for any additional housing allocation at that time.
The comment is a procedural question, and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
Response to Comment EQCB-Sustarsic-7
The commenter questioned who would bear the cost of infrastructure upgrades if a large development necessitates an upgrade to the City's infrastructure and questions the potential burden it would put on City tax payers.
As identified in Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 is included in the Draft EIR to reduce potential impacts related to water, sewer, and stormwater facilities by requiring future proposed developments to mitigate its proportionate impacts to utility infrastructure by way of fair-share/in-lieu fee payments or other alternative financing arrangements. Therefore, future development projects that are facilitated by the Project would be required to fund infrastructure upgrades that would be required as a result of the proposed development. If a large development is proposed in the City that would necessitate an upgrade to the City's infrastructure, the development would be required to undergo its own environmental review process that would then, if required, analyze its impacts on utility infrastructure and implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts as necessary. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of potential subsequent environmental review requirements and also Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns.
2.4.8 Response to CL-CaltransDOA: Caltrans Division of Aeronautics – Vincent Ray
Response to Comment CL-CaltransDOA-1
The commenter outlined the goal of the Division to assist cities in ensuring compliance with the State Aeronautics Act and outlined the Project and its Housing Opportunity Sites located closest to the Los
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
26 Alamitos JFTB. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
Response to Comment CL-CaltransDOA-2
The commenter outlined that though the AELUP for Los Alamitos JFTB does not depict off-base accident potential zones, safety related exposure is a consideration and a portion of the Housing Opportunity Sites falls within the 65 CNEL contour indicating exposure to aircraft overflight noise. The commenter states that while sound insulation, aviation easements, and disclosure statements may serve as mitigation, the measures do not reduce exterior noise levels or eliminate the potential for noise or vibration annoyances to residents.
Noise and vibrational impacts are discussed in Section 3.11 Noise of the Draft EIR. As outlined in Section
3.11 Noise of the Draft EIR, the City's General Plan requires for where noise-sensitive projects are proposed within areas which exceed standards in Figure N-3 of the General Plan, future developments will be required to prepare a report that performs a project specific analysis of noise and vibration impacts and recommend mitigation measures to reduce noise and vibration levels in the site to comply with standards set in Figure N-3. Therefore, any Housing Opportunity Sites located in areas which exceed standards in Figure N-3 of the General Plan, such as Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5, would be required to prepare an acoustical study and implement mitigation to reduce interior noise levels.
Therefore, future development projects located on Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 would reduce potential impacts resulting from aircraft overflight noise to the extent feasible and would eliminate the potential for noise and vibration annoyances to residents.
The preparation of a project specific analysis of noise and vibration impacts would reduce interior noise levels. However, as stated by the commenter, it would not reduce exterior noise levels or eliminate the potential for noise and vibration annoyances to residents from existing overhead aircraft noise. The purpose of CEQA and the Draft EIR are to identify and mitigate the potential impacts of the Project on the environment, not the impacts of the existing environment on the Project. Therefore, the Project is not required to mitigate potential impacts that could result for future Project residents from existing noise sources in the area. The existing overhead aircraft noise is a matter outside of the City’s control and the City is not required to reduce existing exterior noise levels or eliminate the potential for noise and vibration annoyances to future residents as those potential impacts would not be an impact that would result as a result of the Project onto the environment. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of the level of analysis contained in the Draft EIR and see Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns.
Response to Comment CL-CaltransDOA-3
The commenter suggested the City consider relocating or eliminating Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 to minimize potential land use conflicts with ongoing aviation activities and reduce long-term exposure of residents to aircraft noise, vibration and potential safety hazards.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
27 Aircraft noise and vibration hazards are discussed in Section 3.11 Noise of the Draft EIR and potential safety hazards related to aircraft safety are discussed in Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to aircraft safety and noise hazards. Any Housing Opportunity Sites located in areas which exceed standards in Figure N-3 of the General Plan, such as Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5, would be required to prepare an acoustical study and implement mitigation to reduce interior noise levels and therefore, future development projects located on Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 would reduce potential impacts resulting from aircraft overflight noise to the extent feasible. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of potential subsequent environmental review requirements.
As identified in the Draft EIR, based on a review of the AELUP, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the Clear Zones/Runway Protection Zones for the Los Alamitos JFTB and would not present a safety hazard for persons in relation to airport-related accidents. Additionally, future developments under the Project would comply with the noise, safety, and height standards established in the AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB. With compliance with existing regulations and requirements related to Los Alamitos JFTB, the Project would not result in land use conflicts with ongoing aviation activities.
The Housing Opportunity Sites presented in the Seal Beach Housing Element were determined using a variety of methods in accordance with the statutory requirements outlined in HCD's Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, including ensuring sites selected for the site inventory do not have existing uses that are impediments to housing development and development likelihood and feasibility. Feasibility of sites considered any potential environmental restrictions such as being located in a flood zone, compatibility with existing nearby uses, and any potential known safety hazards. Therefore, each individual Housing Opportunity Site identified for the Project was evaluated in depth related to feasibility and compatibility of development or redevelopment of the site before being chosen as an opportunity site.
Response to Comment CL-CaltransDOA-4
The commenter provided a conclusion statement of their comments and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to review and comment and provided their contact information. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
2.4.9 Response to CL-Caltrans: Caltrans District 12 – Scott Shelley Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-1
The commenter expressed their appreciation for allowing them to provide comments on the Draft EIR and provided a description of the Project and City's location in relation to Caltrans owned highway systems.
The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
28 relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-2
The commenter outlined that they encourage the City to work collaboratively with local agencies to create a safe, functional, interconnected, multi-modal transportation network through use of design of Complete Streets, placement of bicycle parking through the City, use of transit, and addition of high visibility crosswalks and ADA curb ramps on intersections close to future project locations.
As outlined in Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR, as part of the standard development review process, the City would require all future development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites and development within the Main Street Program area to prepare a review of the circulation system to ensure that development does not conflict with existing or planned facilities supporting these travel modes. Any pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities proposed as part of the development of Housing Opportunity Site or within the Main Street Program area would be designed using the appropriate City design standards.
Any request to modify or develop new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be subject to and designed in accordance with all applicable General Plan policies. The comment is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-3
The commenter requested that appropriate detours and safety measures be in place for future construction activities.
As identified in Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR, the Project does not currently include site specific designs and construction activities. However, as individual development applications are received and approved by the City, the City would require each individual project to comply with City construction requirements including preparing a Traffic Control Plan that identifies detours and safety measures for construction activities that would require partial or full roadway closures. The comment is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-4
The commenter states the Draft EIR does not include a discussion of regional freight corridors located near the City and the addition of new residential units through the Project could impact or be impacted by existing freight routes. The commenter requests the Draft EIR identify and map the proximity of Housing Opportunity Sites to regional truck corridors and utilize the Caltrans Freight-Land Use Compatibility Matrix to evaluate potential land use conflicts with potential freight sensitive uses.
Caltrans freight corridors refer to designated routes within California's transportation network that are critical for the movement of goods and freight. Within Seal Beach, those would the 605, 405, 22 Freeways and the Pacific Coast Highway, which are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans; and Westminster Avenue and
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
29 Seal Beach Boulevard, which are under the jurisdiction of the City of Seal Beach. However, the Project itself would not have direct impacts to freight routes as the Project does not propose any actual development at this time and would only lead to modifications to the proposed land use and/or zoning for identified sites within the City. Though subsequent developments located on the identified Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area could lead to increased vehicles on roadways and potential minor changes to the circulation system of the specific sites, future development projects are not anticipated to result in substantial changes to the City's circulation network. Certification of the Project would not result in direct impacts to existing freight routes or result in potential land use conflicts with freight sensitive uses.
The commenter states the Draft EIR lacks an evaluation of potential freight sensitive use conflicts such as exposure to truck noise, emissions, and vibrations and requests the use of Caltrans Freight-Land Use Compatibility Matrix to evaluate potential land use conflicts and apply mitigation strategies. The purpose of CEQA and the Draft EIR are to identify and mitigate the potential impacts of the Project on the environment, not the impacts of the existing environment on the Project. Existing freight corridors are not considered an environmental impact and therefore, the Draft EIR is not required to analyze the impacts of the existing freight corridor conditions on the Project. For these reasons, the Draft EIR does not include an analysis of potential impacts related to freight corridors. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of the level of analysis contained in the Draft EIR and see Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns.
Additionally, as identified in Section 3.11 Noise of the Draft EIR, the City’s Noise Element includes actions to control the development of noise-sensitive land uses in areas exposed to existing or projected noise which exceed the levels specified in Figure N-3 of the General Plan unless the project includes specific and effective mitigation measures to reduce noise levels. Where noise-sensitive projects are proposed within areas which exceed standards in Figure N-3 of the General Plan, future developments will be required to prepare a report that performs a project specific analysis of noise impacts and recommend mitigation measures to reduce noise levels in the site to comply with standards set in Figure N-3 of the General Plan as required by City standards. Therefore, following the noise level standards set in the City’s Noise Element for noise exposure from transportation noise sources would reduce any potential impacts for future residential uses including from potential impacts that could result from the site being located in the vicinity of a freight corridor.
Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-5
The commenter states the Draft EIR omits how increased density may affect truck routes, delivery access, or curbside loading conflicts and requests the EIR include a discussion of how future development will coexist with ongoing truck access needs. As stated in Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR, as part of the standard development review process, the City would require all future development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites and development within the Main Street Program area to prepare a review of the circulation system to ensure that development does not conflict with existing or planned facilities supporting these travel modes. Future developments on the Housing Opportunity Site or within the Main Street Program area would be designed using the appropriate City design standards which would ensure that the future development would not result in conflicts with existing circulation systems including truck routes, delivery access, or curbside loading. Potential impacts related to future development on truck routes, delivery access, and curbside loading would be analyzed at
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
30 the time of individual development application as specific site plans and circulation details are unknown at this time. Due to the programmatic level analysis provided in the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR does not include an analysis of project-specific buildout conditions such as construction or improvements to roadways and circulation systems. Future developments under the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with City requirements and standards. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of the type of analysis included in a programmatic level document.
Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-6
The commenter requests the Draft EIR add a freight resilience section to the Draft EIR to consider how emergency goods movement or freight continuity would be affected in the context of climate adaptation.
The commenter requests that the Draft EIR include a section on how emergency goods movement and freight continuity would be affected in the context of climate adaptation as the City is located in a coastal zone. See Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns. For the purposes of CEQA, the purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the Project. (South Orange County Wastewater Authority v. City of Dana Point (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1604, 1614-1618; City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 905.) While identifying the environmental effects of the Project to an area is consistent with CEQA’s legislative purpose and statutory requirements, identifying the effects on the Project and its users of locating the Project in a particular environmental setting is neither consistent with CEQA’s legislative purpose nor required by the CEQA statutes. Additionally, the Project is not a transportation project and therefore, would not result in impacts to emergency goods movement and freight continuity. Sea level rise and climate adaptation may affect emergency goods movement and freight continuity within the City gradually in the future if the City is impacted by climate change; however, this potential effect is not relevant to the Project and is not an impact on the environment caused by the Project. Therefore, an analysis of climate adaptation and related impacts to freight service is not a required topic under CEQA and does not require analysis in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-7
The commenter requests the Draft EIR include a policy consistency review with the regional freight goals in SCAG's Connect Socal 2024 or Caltrans Freight Mobility Plan 2020.
The commenter requests the EIR address freight-supportive and freight-compatible development for consistency with regional freight goals in SCAG's Connect Socal 2024 or Caltrans Freight Mobility Plan 2020. As stated in the Draft EIR, the Project identifies specific sites within the City for potential development with residential uses in the future and does not propose any actual development at this time.
The Project identifies sites for potential future development with residential uses on sites that are already developed with existing uses or are located in an extremely urbanized environment surrounded by existing developments. The Project is not a transportation project and future developments facilitated by the Project would not be anticipated to result in significant changes to the surrounding environment and existing circulation system. Additionally, the purpose of CEQA and the Draft EIR are to identify and mitigate the potential impacts of the Project on the environment, not the impacts of the existing environment on the Project. Impacts related to regional freight corridors are not considered an environmental impact under CEQA. As potential conflicts with freight corridors is not a required topic of
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
31 analysis under CEQA, an analysis of regional freight goals and policies is not required for the EIR. See Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns.
Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-8
The commenter notes if future projects disrupt or impede traffic circulation or the local state highway system, Caltrans will request a Traffic Impact Analysis be prepared and would require analysis of potential short-term and long-term traffic impacts with respect to VMT. Additionally, the commenter requests if impact analysis leads to a findings of significance on state facilities, coordination with Caltrans on development of a Traffic Mitigation Agreement be completed.
As identified in Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR, as required by Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, at the time of application for development, each site would be responsible for providing a quantitative VMT analysis consistent with the methodology in the City of Seal Beach Transportation Analysis Guidelines and would be responsible for identifying appropriate TDM measures to reduce VMT. Future development projects would be required to go through the appropriate environmental review process for the respective project and would be required to comply with City and other agency requirements such as coordinating with Caltrans on preparation of traffic mitigation measures to be implemented. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. If subsequent environmental review, such as the preparation of a project-specific EIR, is determined to not be required, that is a result of the individual project meeting CEQA exemption requirements which determines that the level of risk of the individual project resulting in significant impacts are low and therefore does not require a full environmental analysis or mitigation measures to reduce impacts. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of potential subsequent environmental review requirements.
Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-9
The commenter states any work performed within Caltrans right-of-way (ROW) require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit prior to construction. The commenter outlines specific steps to be taken such as submitting a permit application, payment of deposit, review of project plans and traffic control plans, and required documentation for application submittal.
Future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with City and other agency requirements for construction of the Project. If the individual development project is anticipated to require construction within Caltrans ROW, the Project would be required to comply with applicable Caltrans requirements including obtaining an encroachment permit prior to construction. The specific requirements for the individual development project would be determined at the time of application submittal. This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. This comment will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their review and consideration. No further response is necessary.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
32 Response to Comment CL-Caltrans-10
The commenter outlined Caltrans' mission and provided contact information. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
2.4.10 Response to CL-LosAlamitos: City of Los Alamitos – Ron Noda Response to Comment CL-LosAlamitos-1
The commenter expressed their appreciation for allowing them to provide comments on the Draft EIR and provided a description of the Project. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
Response to Comment CL-LosAlamitos-2
The commenter expressed their concerns with the Housing Opportunity Sites identified to provide the highest lower-income units being located adjacent to the City of Los Alamitos and as a result, the potential impacts that would result from placing higher density units near Los Alamitos leading to a concentration of noise, air quality, and transportation impacts through increased volume of traffic that would travel the northbound 605 interstate. The commenter also stated the proximity of these units would also add cumulative rush hour inconvenience and health issues for Los Alamitos residents.
Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 are identified to be located closest to Los Alamitos and are the two sites that are identified to provide the most units out of the 8 Housing Opportunity Sites. However, this is a result of the quantity of developable acres that these sites provide compared to the remaining Housing Opportunity Sites. Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 are both identified to provide the largest developable area compared to the remaining sites and therefore, would be able to be developed with more units compared to the remaining sites. Additionally, the City’s Housing Element Appendix B Site Inventory and Methodology outlines the reason for selection of each Housing Opportunity Site. As outlined in the Housing Element’s Appendix B, Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 were selected due to the reasons provided below.
Housing Opportunity Site 4 – the Shops at Rossmoor was selected due to “An abundance of underutilized parking accompanied by owner interest in development of housing units. The site’s ratio of improvement value to land value is less than 1.0 (0.85), meaning the site is economically underutilized, despite being a generally successful retail center. However, with a number of “big box” type tenants subject to changes in the retail landscape, this center is vulnerable to store closures that could result in significant vacant space. A new mixed-use zone would allow for greater flexibility to utilize the land, and by adding housing units, increase the viability of the retail that remains. Additionally, high density residential already exists along the western edge of the retail center, increasing compatibility of the use.” (City of Seal Beach 2024)
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
33 Housing Opportunity Site 5 – Old Ranch Town Center was selected due to “Having a significant amount of underutilized parking, and primarily big box uses. Currently, the former Bed Bath and Beyond store is vacant. The addition of housing to this site is feasible as it is immediately adjacent to goods and services, has excellent access along a major thoroughfare, and can integrate well with the scale of the existing development, bolstering retail uses with onsite residents. The improvement to land value ranges by parcel, with the largest parcel at 0.95 and the second largest parcel at 0.07, demonstrating ripeness for additional development.” (City of Seal Beach 2024)
Therefore, these sites were selected due to their availability for redevelopment, current underutilization of land, access to major roadway networks, and existence of high density residential developments in the adjacent areas.
As identified in the City's Housing Element Update, state law establishes a “default density” of 30 units per acre that is suitable for lower-income housing in communities with a population over 25,000, including Seal Beach. All lower-income sites in the City's sites inventory are consistent with this general affordability assumption. However, state law provides that sites smaller than 0.5 acre, or larger than 10 acres, are not deemed adequate to accommodate lower-income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the locality provides other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing. All sites smaller than 0.5 acre in the City's sites inventory have been allocated to the moderate or above moderate income categories. Therefore, as many of the sites identified in the City's site inventory were determined to not be suitable for lower income housing, the majority of the City's lower income housing was allocated to Housing Opportunity Sites 4 and 5 as these sites would be the most suitable for development with lower density housing under state requirements. These Housing Opportunity Sites are consistent with state requirements for affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Potential impacts related to noise are analyzed in Section 3.11 Noise of the Draft EIR. Impacts related to air quality are analyzed in Section 3.1 Air Quality and transportation impacts are analyzed in Section 3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR. These sections also provide a cumulative impact analysis.
Response to Comment CL-LosAlamitos-3
The commenter stated they urge the City to request that Orange County Transportation Authority increase bus connections and frequent bus routes throughout high-traffic periods and providing additional bike lane connections through planning as a City policy with links to the Los Alamitos' existing and future bike lanes.
This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR, does not raise environmental issues, and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. This comment will be forwarded to City decision-makers for their review and consideration. No further response is necessary.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
34 Response to Comment CL-LosAlamitos-4
The commenter provided their contact information. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
2.4.11 Response to CL-Hsu: Belle Hsu
Response to Comment CL-Hsu-1
The commenter stated their appreciation for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
Response to Comment CL-Hsu-2
The commenter requested the Project include an analysis of rising insurance costs due to the increased flooding risk from the additional buildings that would be developed as part of the Project. The commenter requested the EIR include an economic evaluation of insurance costs, discuss how insurance costs and availability affect housing affordability, provide assurances that the proposed flooding mitigation will be effective, and consider having developers pay into a flood monitoring/mitigation/insurance fund.
Flooding impacts are analyzed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR proposes Mitigation Measure HYD-1 which requires future development projects to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development could have on the existing deficiencies to the City's storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City's storm water infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures does not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it would be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. The requirements for contribution to funding improvements and the anticipated cost would be analyzed at the time of project-specific environmental review. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of potential subsequent environmental review requirements.
As identified in the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 was determined to reduce potential impacts related to hydrology, flooding, and storm water drainage to a less than significant level.
The MMRP for the Project would specify how the mitigation measure would be implemented, who would monitor the mitigation, and specify the monitoring frequency. Potential impacts related to homeowners insurance are not a required topic of analysis under CEQA and therefore, is not included in the Draft EIR analysis. However, the forces and resources which could cause implications to affordability and availability of homeowners insurance, such as hydrology and flooding (Draft EIR Section 3.9),
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
35 earthquakes (Draft EIR Appendix A - Initial Study), and wildfire hazards (Draft EIR Appendix A - Initial Study), were evaluated in the Draft EIR. As it is not a CEQA topic of analysis, the risk and fees associated with insurance are not evaluated in the Draft EIR as CEQA statues stay out of the market effects and economics related to project implementation. However, the state's site evaluation guidelines are very specific about the feasibility of proposing sites such as proposing development on sites that are not wholly contained within a floodplain or have risks related to flooding and as such, the state places restrictions on where developments are allowed to be proposed. The Draft EIR analyzes the Project's impacts on the environment and as the cost and availability of insurance is not an environmental topic, it does not require analysis in the EIR. See also Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns.
Response to Comment CL-Hsu-3
The commenter expressed their appreciation for preparation of the Draft EIR and consideration of comment provided. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
2.4.12 Response to CL-Miller: Gary Miller
Response to Comment CL-Miller-1
The commenter stated that the proposed housing projects on Old Ranch Country Club violate the City's Housing Element that is developed for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risk. The commenter states that the proposed location of the Old Ranch Country Club residential development is risky as it sits at the end of the main runway for the Los Alamitos JFTB just outside of the former crash zone. Additionally, the commenter states a portion of the residential development would remove the general recreational golf driving range and is also under the traffic flight path for aircraft that take off and bank over the area. The commenter states the proposed residential developments were found inconsistent by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), citing a letter from Caltrans DOA from 2022 and noted the residential developments would encroach onto the Los Alamitos JFTB flight path and would pose significant risks to residents living there. See Master Response 2 for a discussion environmental analysis prepared for the ORCC Specific Plan Project.
2.4.13 Response to CL-Perrell1: Susan Perrell
Response to Comment CL-Perrell1-1
The commenter expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR and commended City staff on the preparation of the document. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
36 Response to Comment CL-Perrell1-2
The commenter states 99 Marina Drive should be evaluated in its own site-specific EIR, similar to the ORCC Specific Plan Project due to its undisturbed nature of the site and the likelihood of the site to support biological resources. The commenter also notes the 99 Marina Drive site provides a large naturalized open space that supports public recreation, biological resources, and large permeable surface area that provides stormwater drainage, infiltration, flood mitigation, and groundwater recharge. The commenter states the Project would impact the site's hydrological features which would increase flooding risk and diminish housing insurability/affordability. The commenter notes the site's recreational features and biological resources have not been adequately described in the Draft EIR. Additionally, the commenter states the site should be zoned at a lower density to be consistent with the adjacent residential uses. The commenter also states that the Draft EIR states that developers/owners are ready to move on development at this site and states that the Draft EIR can entitle them to do so as written.
The commenter stated that the Draft EIR states that the ORCC site, unlike other sites, will be reviewed under a separate site specific EIR as the ORCC is a golf course and therefore, is more likely to support biological resources warranting site-specific CEQA review. This statement is incorrect. As identified in the Draft EIR, the ORCC site is being evaluated under its own site-specific EIR as there was already a development application submitted to the City at the time of preparation of the Housing Element Update.
The site is not being evaluated in a separate EIR due to its potential biological resources that exist onsite.
The site is being evaluated in its own EIR as the development application for the site includes the preparation of a Specific Plan that would redevelop the site with a mix of residential and commercial uses and therefore, City staff made a determination to require an EIR be prepared under CEQA as a part of the entitlement process for the proposed activity. See Master Response 2 for an explanation of the ORCC environmental analysis.
Stormwater drainage and groundwater recharge is discussed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR. As identified in the section, sources of groundwater recharge for the Basin include Santa Ana River base flow, storm flow, imported water, recycled water, incidental recharge, and in-lieu programs. As identified in the Draft EIR, though the Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive site is undeveloped and contains pervious surfaces and therefore, provides some potential for the site to provide opportunities for groundwater recharge, the OCWD’s Groundwater Management Plan identifies the Santa Ana River base flow and recycled water as the largest sources of groundwater recharge for the basin.
Therefore, as this site is an extremely small site area compared to the OC Basin and not within the basin recharge areas, the site would not result in a significant decrease in groundwater recharge potential.
The commenter states the Project will impact the sites hydrological features which would in turn increase flooding risk and diminish housing insurability/affordability and states these impacts have not been addressed in the EIR. Potential impacts related to homeowners insurance are not a required topic of analysis under CEQA and therefore, is not included in the Draft EIR analysis. See Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related issues. However, the forces and resources which could cause implications to affordability and availability of homeowners insurance, such as hydrology and flooding (Draft EIR Section 3.9), were evaluated in the Draft EIR. See Draft EIR Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality for an analysis of how the Project would impact hydrological features.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
37 The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not adequately describe the recreational features on the 99 Marina Drive site nor does it adequately assess or mitigate the impacts to these features. Recreation impacts are analyzed in Section 3.14 Recreation of the Draft EIR.
The commenter states the Draft EIR does not fully document the protected species and habitats that may be present on the 99 Marina Drive site and its proposed mitigation measures do not adequately mitigate the loss of habitat. Biological resources are analyzed in Section 3.4 Biological Resources of the Draft EIR.
As identified in the Draft EIR and the Biological Resources Technical Report provided as an appendix to the Draft EIR, two special status plants, one special status reptile, three special status birds, and birds protected under the MBTA were determined to have potential to occur on the Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive site. However, with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, impacts were reduced to a less than significant level.
The commenter incorrectly stated that the Draft EIR states that developers and owners are ready to move on development at this site. There is no known or pending development application for this site. See Master Response 1 for a description of the purpose of a programmatic level document such as the Draft EIR and the subsequent environmental review process.
Response to Comment CL-Perrell1-3
The commenter states that the Draft EIR's first project objective "improve quality of life for current and future residents" conflicts with the third project objective" amend land use standards and designations in the City's Zoning Code, Specific Plans, and General Plan as needed to comply with state law and meet the required RHNA." The commenter states the Draft EIR's significant and unavoidable impacts do not protect and improve quality of life for city residents and would actually diminish quality of life. The commenter provided some suggested solutions such as reducing residential density for sites, mitigating significant impacts to the extent feasible, requiring protection of recreational, hydrological and biological resources, considering construction of bike paths and pedestrian bridges to reduce transportation impacts.
The purpose of the Draft EIR is to identify the significant effects of the Project on the environment under CEQA and identify mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to protect quality of life. The purpose of the CEQA analysis is to identify any potential impacts that could impact a population’s quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts and to mitigate or minimize to the extent feasible those potential impacts. Therefore, the preparation of the Draft EIR for the Project and the analysis and mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR will protect City residents’ quality of life in terms of potential environmental impacts by identifying impacts and mitigating those impacts to the extent feasible.
The comment is a general statement and does not raise specific environmental concerns regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft EIR's coverage of physical environmental impacts. Therefore, no further response to these comments is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. The Draft EIR has already mitigated any potential impacts to the extent feasible with the mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR. The commenter's suggestions are noted and will be considered by the City.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
38 Response to Comment CL-Perrell1-4
The commenter states that mitigating recreation impacts by requiring dedication of land or payment of inlieu fees is not effective mitigation as there is little or no land with recreational value left to be acquired by these fees. The commenter states the proposed use of fees for “rehabilitating” existing recreational resources cannot adequately mitigate for the further loss of the little remaining potential recreational space, nor will it mitigate the impacts of adding more recreational users to existing overburdened recreational acres. Therefore, the commenter suggests that the EIR should ensure that all recreational impacts resulting from the Project will be required to provide mitigation that is real, meaningful, sitespecific, localized, and “like for like.” For sites that currently provide recreational value, like 99 Marina Drive, the site-specific impacts and the site-specific mitigation should be publicly reviewed and decided through a discretionary process.
As stated in Section 3.14 Recreation of the Draft EIR, the City does not currently meet the desired acreage requirements as a significant portion of the City has been developed prior to the time the Quimby Act was passed and excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future residents. As the City does not currently meet its parks standard requirements and there is little land available in the City for development with a park, the Draft EIR identified that the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to parks and recreation. The Draft EIR identified mitigation measure PUB-1 which requires subsequent environmental review at a project specific level for individual development projects which will include an analysis of the Project’s contribution to potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities. The proposed mitigation requires that individual development projects mitigate any potential impacts to the extent feasible. Even with preservation of portions of Housing Opportunity Sites with parks space, the Project would continue to have a significant and unavoidable impact related to parks and recreation as the City does not have enough available land to offset the existing and future deficit of park space.
Additionally, the Draft EIR’s discussion of alternatives included an alternative that proposed dedication of portions of Housing Opportunity Sites for parkland. As identified in Section 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project of the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR identified alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected from further consideration. As identified under Section 4.4.2 Dedication of Land for Parkland of the Draft EIR, the City considered an alternative to reduce the significant impact to parks determination to less than significant by providing more parkland while keeping the amount of housing needed to satisfy the RHNA was considered. Under this alternative, future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to dedicate a portion of the project site for development of onsite parkland. This alternative would require developing the sites at a higher density than was envisioned in the Housing Element Update to accommodate the allocation of a portion of the project site for parkland uses and would require an increase in vertical development to accommodate the higher density required on the same size parcels. As identified in the Draft EIR, the resulting population growth from future developments facilitated by the Project would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland within the City. The eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area was determined to have a total land area of 104.45-acres; however, only 56.05-acres of the total land area was developable.
Therefore, the Draft EIR determined that there would not be enough land available within the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area to accommodate the additional parkland required while also providing enough dwelling units to meet the City’s RHNA requirements. As such, this
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
39 alternative was determined to not be feasible and was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the potential impacts of the Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible. See Master Response 1 for a discussion on the level of analysis provided in a programmatic level document such as the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment CL-Perrell1-5
The commenter states while the Draft EIR provides Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Development Review Process for Historical Resources, the Draft EIR does not make adequately clear how impacts to historic character and other historic resources would be adequately avoided or mitigated by MM CUL-1.
As identified in Section 3.4 Cultural Resources of the Draft EIR, the Project would not have any direct impacts on historic resources as the Project’s actions would not directly cause a substantial adverse change to historical resources due to demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration resulting in a loss of integrity. However, the Project was determined to potentially have indirect impacts on historical resources as it may facilitate future development activities that would directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change to historical resources located in the within or in the vicinity of the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program. Therefore, the Draft EIR identified Mitigation Measure CUL-1 to reduce potential indirect impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to historical resources by requiring a process for the identification of historical resources and the analysis of potential impacts on historical resources resulting from future development activities. As identified in the mitigation measure, a qualified consultant would analyze potential project impacts and provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise mitigating potentially significant impacts to historical resources, which would be enforced as conditions of approval for the project.
Response to Comment CL-Perrell1-6
The commenter states development of the 99 Marina Drive site would eliminate a large existing stormwater infiltration basin. The commenter states Mitigation Measure HYD-1 should require future development projects to identify and fully mitigate, the extent feasible, site-specific impacts to adjacent streets, parks, and neighborhoods, not just to the “City’s storm drain infrastructure”. The commenter suggests the Draft EIR should more clearly require that any reduction of existing stormwater infiltration capacity and any addition to stormwater runoff volume will need to be completely mitigated by upgrading the City’s already overburdened stormwater system to effectively accommodate those volumes with new development required to accommodate stormwater from a 50-year or 100-year storm, either through onsite avoidance and mitigation measures, or by upgrading the City’s systems to accommodate, or a combination of both. Additionally, the commenter suggests all impacts to water quality and hydrology, along with any proposed mitigation, should be subject to public review, involving the surrounding impacted community
Though the Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive site does provide some opportunity for stormwater infiltration for the City due to its undeveloped nature, the site is not an identified infiltration basin and does not provide significant infiltration opportunities. As identified in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 requires future development projects to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
40 measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures does not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it would be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. As the potential future impacts resulting from future development projects to the City's stormwater infrastructure are unknown at this time, the mitigation provides a reduction in the potential impacts to the extent feasible at this time.
2.4.14 Response to CL-Perrell2: Susan Perrell
Response to Comment CL-Perrell2-1
The commenter provided additional comments in addition to the comment letter previously provided identified as CL-Perrell. The commenter states the 99 Marina Drive site is located in between two areas that have experienced severe flooding in the past and the permeable surface at the site provides stormwater infiltration. The commenter states the loss of this stormwater infiltration area will result in significant flood impacts and therefore, the Project must provide specific, effective, and measurable mitigation for these impacts. The commenter suggests preservation of permeable surface area and installation of stormwater retention basins to mitigate impacts and states the Draft EIR did not adequately describe or mitigate flood related impacts in the Draft EIR and the 99 Marina Drive site should be reviewed under a site specific EIR.
Though the Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive site does provide some opportunity for stormwater infiltration for the City due to its undeveloped nature, the site is not an identified infiltration basin and does not provide significant infiltration opportunities. As identified in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 requires future development projects to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures does not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it would be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. As the potential future impacts resulting from future development projects to the City's stormwater infrastructure are unknown at this time, the mitigation provides a reduction in the potential impacts to the extent feasible at this time.
As the Draft EIR presented is a programmatic EIR, it looks at each specific site at a broader level than a project level EIR and does not analyze site specific impacts. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of the level of impacts addressed in a programmatic analysis and subsequent analysis. Site specific impacts would be analyzed in the future as specific development projects are proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites or Main Street Program area. Each individual project proposed at the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area will require its own subsequent entitlement process through the City and its planning division. The level of subsequent environmental review required for the future development project, such as one that would take place on the Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive site, would be evaluated at the time of application review and would be determined by the City pursuant to CEQA laws and guidelines. As there is no specific development application submitted to the City for the Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive site at this time and implementation of the Project would not result in actual development, only entitlements, the site does not warrant a site specific
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
41 EIR at this time as the proposed development and resulting impacts are unknown. See also Master Response 1 for a discussion of environmental effects analyzed in a programmatic level document and subsequent environmental review.
2.4.15 Response to CL-Sustarsic: Shelley Sustarsic
Response to Comment CL-Sustarsic-1
The commenter states the Draft EIR should require site specific hydrological studies for any project in or near the areas of the City subject to flooding including Old Town, Bridgeport and College Park East. The commenter states there are already significant deficits to the drainage system and cumulative hydrological impacts from nearby developments such as the Lampson Project would intensify impacts.
The commenter states the Draft EIR only considers aspects of the ORCC project but the EIR for the ORCC project indicates that there is an intent to change the drainage flow on the ORCC site which could affect College Park East's ability to get stormwater into the retention basin if not designed with proper consideration for College Park East's stormwater flows.
As identified in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 requires future development projects to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures does not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it would be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. As the potential future impacts resulting from future development projects to the City's stormwater infrastructure are unknown at this time, the mitigation provides a reduction in the potential impacts to the extent feasible at this time.
Cumulative hydrological impacts are also discussed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR. The effects of the Lampson Project and ORCC Specific Plan Project are both analyzed in their own site specific environmental analyses. The commenter states that the EIR for the ORCC Specific Plan Project may be changing the drainage flow on the ORCC site which could affect College Park East's ability to get stormwater into the retention basin. See Master Response 2 for a discussion related to the ORCC site. As the Project only considers the number of residential units the ORCC Specific Plan Project would contribute and analyzes the units at a programmatic level, the potential impacts that could result from implementation of the ORCC Specific Plan Project and any associated stormwater infrastructure and hydrological changes are being analyzed in its own specific EIR. Therefore, the Project's Draft EIR does not require an analysis of the potential impacts that could result from implementation of the ORCC Specific Plan Project and any associated stormwater infrastructure and hydrological changes and considers any changes at a cumulative impact level.
Response to Comment CL-Sustarsic-2
The commenter stated placing housing on the current ORCC driving range would result in a loss of recreational opportunity and would result in additional impacts to the already significant and unavoidable impact to recreation.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
42 As outlined in Section 3.14 Recreation of the Draft EIR, the City does not currently meet the desired acreage requirements as a significant portion of the City has been developed prior to the time the Quimby Act was passed and excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future residents. As the City does not currently meet its parks standard requirements and there is little land available in the City for development with a park, the Draft EIR identified that the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to parks and recreation. The Draft EIR identified Mitigation Measure PUB-1 which requires subsequent environmental review at a project specific level for individual development projects which will include an analysis of the Project’s contribution to potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities. The mitigation requires that individual development projects mitigate any potential impacts to the extent feasible. Even with preservation of portions of Housing Opportunity Sites with parks space, the Project would continue to have a significant and unavoidable impact related to parks and recreation as the City does not have enough available land to offset the existing and future deficit of park space. Therefore, the potential impacts of the Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible. The driving range at the ORCC site is not identified by the City as one of its recreational amenities that count towards the parks standards ratio, however, it does provide recreational opportunities to city residents on a fee basis. Additionally, the ORCC Specific Plan Project as currently proposed is not removing the driving range, but is rather reconfiguring it and therefore would not result in a lost amenity. See Master Response 2 for a discussion related to the ORCC Specific Plan Project’s environmental analysis. The impacts that would result from the loss of the driving range are being analyzed in the site specific EIR that is being prepared for the ORCC Specific Plan Project.
Response to Comment CL-Sustarsic-3
The commenter states cumulative impacts of development north of I-405 need to be studied carefully as the Lampson Project and ORCC would add traffic in the area which is also utilized by College Park East residents. The commenter states site plan for traffic needs to be completed for each project proposed at the sites for site circulation and cumulative impacts to local congestion.
Cumulative transportation impacts, including those from cumulative developments such as the Lampson Project and other cumulative developments listed in Table 3.0-3 of the Draft EIR, are discussed in Section
3.15 Transportation of the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR, future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City or projects that may utilize City roads, like the Lampson Project, would increase housing development in previously developed areas and could result in transportation impacts. OPR’s Technical Advisory states that “a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa” (OPR 2018 page 6).
Therefore, since the Project was found to have a significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation related to transportation, the Draft EIR identified that the Project would also have a cumulative significant and unavoidable transportation impact. As the specific development of Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area is unknown at this time, there is no site circulation studies that can be completed until a specific development application has been submitted for those sites. Each project will be reviewed for consistency with applicable CEQA laws and guidelines to determine the level of subsequent environmental review required. Once specific development applications are submitted for the site, the City would determine the level of subsequent environmental review required for the individual project and if required, future developments would require a project level assessment of potential
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
43 impacts, including impacts to transportation and circulation. See Master Response 1 for a discussion of potential subsequent environmental review requirements and Master Response 3 for a discussion of the cumulative impact analysis contained in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment CL-Sustarsic-4
The commenter states the addition of housing units would have an impact on the current utility infrastructure and though developers would be required to pay their fair share of required improvements, the City and its taxpayers would bear the cost to perform capital improvements and would result in a financial impact to the City.
The Project's impacts to utility infrastructure are provided in Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR. As identified in the Draft EIR, implementation of the Project could require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facility, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, impacts were determined to be less than significant. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 requires the preparation of supplemental evaluation related to determining if the proposed site would require improvements to the water, sewer, and stormwater facilities to meet the state, County, and local standards and requirements to serve the specific site location. The mitigation requires that if improvements are required due to deficiencies to meet state, County, and local standards and requirements at the specific site location, the proposed development may be required to mitigate its proportionate impacts by way of fair share/in-lieu fee payments, or other alternative financing arrangements that would mitigate its impacts. Though this may in turn require the City to complete capital improvements, funds collected from impact fees would fund the construction of capital improvements. The Draft EIR analyzes the Project's impacts on the environment and does not require an analysis of potential fiscal impacts a project may have. See Master Response 4 for a discussion of non-CEQA related concerns.
This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR, does not raise environmental issues, and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
Response to Comment CL-Sustarsic-5
The commenter states placing housing on the ORCC golf course would result in safety impacts from the Los Alamitos JFTB. Additionally, the commenter states in 2022, Caltrans Aeronautics showed concern about the Shops at Rossmoor and Old Ranch Town Center which is located near the military runways of JFTB at the time of the City's overrule decision of inconsistency with the AELUP for JFTB (the letter from Caltrans Aeronautics is provided as an attachment to the comment letter). The review was completed when a 35 foot height limit for the City was in place and the commenter states that developments with the new zoning are anticipated to be 2 to 5 stories high, which is an increase in height from what was reviewed in 2022 by the ALUC. The commenter states future projects proposed at the ORTC and Shops at Rossmoor could result in tall residential towers and will need to be reviewed by the ALUC for potential light and glare issues, as well as aircraft safety and noise. Therefore, the commenter states the Draft EIR
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
44 cannot guarantee that there are no significant impacts related to airport safety for people living and working in the area of the airport.
As identified in the Draft EIR, the Project does not propose any actual development on Housing Opportunity Site 4 - Shops at Rossmoor or Housing Opportunity Site 5 - Old Ranch Town Center sites at this time and certification of the Project and Draft EIR would only change the proposed land use of the identified sites. As there are no actual developments proposed at this time on the sites, the potential impacts that could result from actual development is unknown. As a General Plan amendment, the Housing Element must be submitted to ALUC for review, as does the associated Zoning Code Ordinance update. Further, as identified in Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, future developments proposed under the Project that are located within the airport planning area for the Los Alamitos JFTB that require any amendment to a General Plan or Specific Plan and any proposed changes to a zoning ordinance or building regulation are subject to review by the ALUC. See Master Response 2 for a discussion of the ORCC Specific Plan Project's environmental analysis Response to Comment CL-Sustarsic-6
The commenter expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to provide comments. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
2.4.16 Response to CL-Lasser: Tom Lasser
Response to Comment CL-Lasser-1
The commenter provided information on their background. The comment is a general statement and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR; does not raise environmental issues; and does not request the incorporation of additional information relevant to environmental issues. Such comments do not require a response pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. No further response is necessary.
Response to Comment CL-Lasser-2
The commenter stated the two developments proposed adjacent to the Los Alamitos JFTB airfield on the end of the main runway and on Lampson would be a hazard and encroaches on flight operations at Los Alamitos. The commenter suggests direct communication with the aviation subject matter experts on the airfield staff to learn about the impacts of encroachment on flight operations. The commenter requests these developments be reconsidered and the airfield be taken into consideration.
The two developments the commenter references are assumed to be the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project. As stated in Section 2.0 Project Description of the Draft EIR, housing developments that have already been proposed and are not expected to be issued a certificate of occupancy until July 1, 2021 or after, but are expected to be completed before the end of the planning period (October 15, 2029), can be credited toward the RHNA and are considered pipeline projects.
Therefore, the Housing Element Update identified ORCC Specific Plan Project as a pipeline project
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR
45 towards meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. The 167 dwelling units proposed through the ORCC Specific Plan Project are programmatically evaluated in the Draft EIR. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. This Project’s Draft EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Specific Plan Project and there is no nexus. Rather, the Project’s Draft EIR evaluated the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a basis for implications associated with housing production associated with the ORCC Specific Plan Project, only. Therefore, the location of the proposed residential developments and its potential safety impacts related to location near the JFTB and associated land use conflicts are being evaluated in a standalone EIR by the City and is not required to be analyzed in this Draft EIR.
Additionally, the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be subject to review by ALUC. See Master Response 2 for a discussion of ORCC Specific Plan Project's impact analysis as it relates to the Draft EIR.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
Revisions to the Draft EIR
46 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section includes minor edits to the Draft EIR. These modifications resulted from minor clarifications and staff-initiated changes.
Revisions herein do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information, and do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis. Changes are provided in revision marks (underline for new text and strikeout for deleted text).
3.2 MINOR CHANGES AND EDITS TO THE DRAFT EIR
There were no minor changes or edits required to the Draft EIR as a result of comments received during the public comment period for the Draft EIR.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report
References
47 4.0 REFERENCES
City of Seal Beach. 2024. City of Seal Beach 6th Cycle Housing Element 2021-2029, Adopted February 2022, Revised August 2024.
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Users/027/27/27/Seal%20Beach_HEU%20MainBody_Cle an-compressed.pdf?ver=2024-08-20-083139-120. Accessed July 2025.
City of Seal Beach. 2025. City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH 2023110425. PDF.
Appendix A
EQCB Meeting Transcript
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
Chair Perrell: Good evening everyone and welcome to the June 5th special environmental quality control board meeting. Um before we start, we should probably introduce our our new board member, Belle Hsu, and she's from District 4. And welcome. Thank you. And I'll now call the meeting to order. Could we have a pledge of allegiance? Don, would you like to lead that? Horning: Yeah, I'm happy to. Hand over heart. Begin.
All: Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Perrell: Director Smittle, will you please call the roll? Director Smittle: Thank you board member Villanueva is currently absent. Hopefully on his way. Board Member Depew?
Depew: here.
Director Smittle: Chair Perell?
Chair Perrell: I’m Here.
Director Smittle: Board member Hsu?
Showalter: Here.
Director Smittle: And Vice Chair Horning?
Horning: Here.
Director Smittle: Thank you.
Chair Perrell: At this time, members of the public may address the environmental quality control board regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. Pursuant to the Brown Act, the board cannot discuss or take action on any items that are not on the agenda unless authorized by law.
These members of the public wishing to speak are asked to come forward to the microphone and state their name for the record. All speakers will be limited to a period of five minutes. Any comments specific to tonight's EIR for the housing element zoning code update may be reserved until after the presentation has been provided later tonight. We'll offer public comment then as well. Um so you can speak now or wait till we um get through the presentation. Is there anyone that would like to speak now in general? Okay. Has staff received any written comments for tonight? Director Smittle: Thank you, chair. There have been no written comments so far.
Chair Perrell: Does anyone before we leave this um part of the agenda, does anyone want to speak? No.
Okay. All right. Let's go to the agenda approval by motion of the Environmental Quality Control Board. This is the time to notify the public of any changes to our agenda, rearrange the order of the agenda, and provide an opportunity for any member of the board or staff to request an item to be removed from the consent calendar for separate action. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? Horning: I would like to make that motion.
Chair Perrel: Great, could I get a second, please.
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
Depew: I second.
Chair Perrell: Thank you, Director Smittle will you please call the roll? Director Smittle: Yes, thank you. Board Member Villanueva Villanueva: I
Director Smittle: Board Member Depew:
Depew: Here
Director Smittle: Chair Perrell
Chair Perrell: I
Director Smittle: Board Member Hsu
Hsu: I
Director Smittle: and Vice Chair Horning
Horning: Yes
Director Smittle: All votes Yes, passed unanimously. Thank you.
Chair Perrell: Item A is the approval of the March 19, 2025 environmental quality control board minutes on the consent calendar. That is item B is the approval of the April 16th, 2025 Environmental Quality Control Board and Recreation, Parks, and Commission minutes. May I have a motion in a second to approve those items on the consent calendar?
Horning: Yes, I would like to make the motion to approve them.
Chair Perrell: And a second please.
Depew: I will second them.
Chair Perrell: Thank you, Director Smittle, will you please call the roll.
Director Smittle: Thank you. Board Member Villanueva
Villanueva: yes
Director Smittle: Board Member Depew:
Depew: Here
Director Smittle: Chair Perrell
Chair Perrell: yes
Director Smittle: Board Member Hsu
Hsu: yes
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
Director Smittle: and Vice Chair Horning
Horning: Yes
Director Smittle: Thank you, unanimously approved.
Chair Perrell: There are no continued items, so we'll go to scheduled matters. Item C is to solicit comments regarding the content of the environmental impact report for the housing element and zoning code updates. Director Smittle is there a presentation this evening? Director Smittle: Thank you very much, chair, and environmental quality control board members. And I apologize. I'm hoping the uh projector is going to wake up here a little bit, but if all else fails, the the TV there looks fairly clear. And I would like to let um the audience and anyone watching know that this presentation will be available on our website after this evening. Just Yeah, perfect. Thank you. We're going to start with just a quick reminder of um why we're here this evening. So, we are looking at an environmental document that relates to our housing element and zoning code update. The housing element is a chapter within our general plan and it identifies our local housing needs and provides a work plan for us to strategize to achieve um reaching those housing goals and housing needs that that are in part assigned to us. It's required under state law and we go through this process every eight years.
This is the sixth cycle. So this is the sixth time we have been through a housing element cycle. We do this for a number of reasons. First of all, the law says that we have to. It's not optional. It's required to be within our general plan and we are required to update it. Having a certified housing element, which is the end goal, does provide us access to funding um particularly as it relates to state grants for transportation or even um in some cases federal grants that come to us through the county such as our CDBG program that takes place in Leisure World for the bathroom renovation programs. There are local benefits because we are able to um supply housing as it is needed. And then of course if we don't comply, we do put ourselves at a legal risk for lawsuits for for non-compliance. And there are different ways that that the state can carry forward um those actions if we remain out of compliance. There are also private remedies if we do not have an approved certified housing element for builders to come in and build projects that have a streamlined process regardless of what our existing zoning is. The RHNA is a big part of why we're here tonight. So, the regional housing needs allocation is a pretty lengthy process that is initiated in advance of the housing element cycle. This has been going since 1980 and each year it's it's a little bit different. The allocation process is different. The formulas they use are different. But the end result is that every community, every jurisdiction is is assigned RHNA target. It's the number of housing units that we need to be able to accommodate within our housing element and within our community. This process, as I mentioned, is a little bit different every year. And this last cycle was significantly different than it had been in previous cycles. And there are a couple big parts of that. The first is that this time the state not only looked forward for future housing need but included existing demand. Previously it was a forward-looking projection. This time it was the compilation of both existing pentup demand for housing as well as a forecast of the future. So a much larger number was the starting point of the RHNA allocation. It then filters down through our um regional transportation planning agency which is SCAG and SCAG um determines the formula by which each jurisdiction within SCAG is allocated a number. So you can see in those historical look there the starting number for SCAG was much bigger this time around and as a result our allocation was much bigger. Last time we were assigned to find room for two units and this time it was almost 1300 1,243 units. That allocation does come in tiers Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
based on affordability for the housing. So this is um our assigned allocation for very low, low, moderate and above moderate housing units.
Anna Radonich: Hi everybody. My name is Anna Radnich. I'm with Stantech. We're the environmental consultant for preparation of this EIR. So your housing element in the housing element update includes five kind of buckets. the updated housing goals, policies, and programs, your site inventory. So for Seal Beach, the site inventory is comprised of eight housing opportunity sites, ADUs, and any pipeline projects. And these are all identified units that the city has identified to meet the 1243 RHNA allocation.
Of the eight sites, six would require rezoning. And of those six, five would be rezoned to the new designation mixeduse residential high density. Additionally, the housing element includes policies related to AFFH or affirmatively furthering fair housing. So these are policies to ensure that there's no discrimination in housing. Here's a list of the eight housing opportunity sites that are identified in your housing element update currently. I'll just let you read through these, but these are the eights that are evaluated throughout our document. Here's a figure showing those eight. So, this figure, I know it's a little hard to see. The numbers, you could kind of see it. The numbers one through eight correlate to the previous slide. Sites one through eight. The blue portion in the bottom of the figure is the main street program which is a program identified in your housing element. And up in the upper right is purple and that's the residential portion of the old ranch country club pipeline project.
Director Smittle: If I could interject real quick just just so we're clear with these sites. So um our our sites kind of fall into these different buckets. We have the traditional housing opportunity sites. Those are in the red. Our main street um program that is not a um housing opportunity site, but we do agree in the housing element to rezone for or to amend the specific plan to allow for residential uses above the ground floor. So, the second story. And then finally, the Old Ranch Country Club. It is on its own path. It does have its own EIR and it is a pipeline site within our housing element. So we have kind of these different buckets but at the end of the day these sites do represent where we are essentially making room for housing as a part of this housing element process.
Anna Radonich: Great. And so to follow up on what Alexa just said, this is what is evaluated in the EIR and it's exactly what she just outlined. The EIR evaluates the housing opportunity sites, Main Street program, and the Old Ranch Country Club residential portion of that pipeline project. And here are the buildout assumptions. So, you can see in the first column, it's the type housing opportunity, ADUs, Main Street. What's been, I'll use identified in the site inventory in your housing element is the next column. In the third column is the buildout assumptions for the dwelling units that we're assuming for the EIR purposes, which Trevor will get into in the next couple slides. And then the areas, so the parcel versus the developable portion of the parcel. So that's what this is outlining.
Trevor Macenski: Yeah. One thing I just uh Hi everybody, my name is Trevor Minsky. I'm also with Stantech. thing I want to point out is that as you'll notice the total number of units is actually greater than the regional housing need allocation. Right? And the purpose for doing that is to make sure that we provide the city with flexibility in the event that there's certain applications that come forward on one of these eight sites because again this is a higher level evaluation. So we don't necessarily know hey site one is going to absolutely guarantee generate x number of units. So we provide a larger buffer to provide the city with flexibility and we do that because there's certain laws called no net loss in California which Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
make it incredibly hard for the city to kind of retroactively go back and identify new opportunity sites after this process.
Anna Radonich: And it's a larger buffer in the CEQA analysis not in us identifying more more units for you. So Trevor.
Trevor Macenski: so uh for those that haven't ever participated in an environmental review process or a CEQA process, there's basically four primary objectives, right? The the whole intent of CEQA is it's a disclosure statute. We want to make sure that all the discretionary boards and bodies that are involved in a particular action fill in form. They understand the implications related to what the potential impacts are going to be. The second and almost most importantly is to engage with the community at large that the boards and bodies represent to make sure that they feel informed related to the potential environmental impacts and disclose those potential impacts so that there is no uh you know behind closed doors conversation about what the implications are going to be and that this is a transparent process for the city as the lead agency. And lastly, it's to make sure that you can either avoid or reduce potential impacts that you identify through this analysis. The objective of the statute is to try to reduce impacts and impacts on the environment. So if there's a mechanism to mitigate them or come up with alternatives, that's what happens through CEQA. Um this is an important flowchart for uh the public. Um if you remember quite some time ago back in uh November and December of 23, we actually issued something called a notice of preparation. That notice of preparation is a notice to the community saying, "Hey, we're starting the race of this environmental impact report. Uh, and that NOP establishes the baseline or the regulatory framework for which this document will be prepared." Uh, in which case we worked with the city staff and our team to put together the draft environmental impact report and it is now released for the public for a 45-day review period. Um, just to be clear, the draft has all the information. for the community that's watching, make sure that if you are interested that you don't just click on the final that might be coming up in the future. Please review the draft. It's where all the details are. Um our 45-day public comment period, we're in the middle of that now and it ends in on June 23rd.
And so one of the reasons we are here this evening is to make sure that we can solicit feedback and comments from the public to make sure that their comments are taken into consideration before we put together the final the project final EIR is an amalgamation of comments in which we receive from the public as well as responses to those comments. We are statutorily required to uh respond to comments in which we receive related to the merits of the environmental analysis. So there is a few slides at the end which we'll try to give you some guidance on what's the best way to try to comment in this process. um after we respond to those comments and if there's any other editorial or um minor changes that need to be made that all goes into the final EIR and that entire package is what is the environmental review record which is presented to the discretionary body for consideration. Um one thing to make note of is the type of environmental review document. In this case this is a policy consideration. Policy considerations often undergo programmatic environmental review. If you have seen project level environmental review, it's probably a little bit more tangible. It is like, hey, on site A, we're going to build 10 units. And you evaluate all the unique nuances and impacts associated with that particular project location, its construction impacts, its operational impacts. When you do a programmatic environmental review, you're actually coming up with a set of assumptions which we talked about earlier related to the ultimate buildout and identifying kind of larger inconsistencies or uh programmatic impacts which would result to the community from this decision. Here's just a simple high overview of the comparison of the Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
two. Um, one thing that I will uh mention on this slide is that the intent of preparing a programmatic environmental review is actually to ensure the city greater flexibility moving forward after the housing element so that there is an opportunity for the city to utilize this document for uh as a starting off point for future environmental reviews for subsequent entitlement applications. When you prepare a CEQA document, we all have to play by the same rules. The rules are established in our California public resources code under appendix G. The appendix G checklist is a resource consideration which identifies I think it's 22 in total resource categories of which there are individual questions are in each resource category and we have to answer every single one of those. So, um, that's one of the reasons why our documents a thousand pages, but, uh, in doing so, we identified potential issues that were scoped out as part of the notice of preparation process. And so, we want to point those out to you here this evening.
So, if you try to go look for forestry resources chapters within the ER, it's not going to be there because as part of the NOP, we scoped it out because of the lack of a and forestry resources within the city, right? So it is a scoping process which the statute encourages to ensure that you can focus on what's important. Okay. So this is the ITEST chart. Uh the itest chart identifies uh the resources where we've identified impacts where we've identified impacts that require mitigation and where we've identified impacts that have required mitigation but we couldn't get them to a less than significant level thus resulting in something called a significant and unavoidable impact. As you'll know, there are five significant and unavoidable impacts that are identified in the EIR. Three of which actually started with what I'll use the phrase a compromised baseline in the sense that the city had already previously identified that that was an issue for that resource. A good and easy tangible example to kind of wrap your head around is related to recreation resources. So, the city has a threshold related to recreational space per populace and currently this Yeah. And currently the city didn't meet that and the city didn't meet it before we started. So for uh us to make a determination that would have a less than significant impact would uh be disingenuous. So as a result there's impacts that are in the document that started with a compromised baseline and thus the document reflects that.
Anna Radonich: And just so these tables that we're including on these slides are all in the executive summary portion of the EIR. So you don't need to worry about quickly. And that's I know it's small.
Trevor Macenski: Yeah, that's actually a great point for the community that's watching as well as the commission here is that the executive summary is kind of like the cliff's notes. Yeah. So, if you ever want to have a conversation about or somebody approaches you with a question related to hey, is this going to have impacts on X? That's where you go and look, it identifies each of the resource areas and questions and you can identify just like this which impact will result in a mitigation and then subsequently it'll provide a reference to where you can go read in detail how we got to that information.
Um, one thing that's incredibly important related to this particular decision in the environmental review is cumulative impacts. Because this is a multifaceted project which has multiple sites in different geographies, the potential for cumulative impacts to result in an additive impact are very important.
Cumulative impacts underneath the CEQA statute uh for all intents and purposes are you might have project A, B and C, but you have to additively evaluate them in a holistic manner to determine if the cumulative nature of those individual minuscule actions would result in an impact which is greater than the individual project. If you can imagine that really comes into play when it comes to like resource consideration. Think of like water supply or think of like uh endangered species habitats, right? You might have a individual projects which take a little bit of the pie but overall you might have a larger Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
impact on that particular habitat or your long-term water supply etc. So we have a full cumulative analysis which is identified and identifies all the projects which we evaluated as well as those within the city and the surrounding area. As I had mentioned these are your five significant unavoidable impact areas that are identified in your EIR. Um, it is okay to have significant unavoidable impacts, but you can't give up on the analysis is what the statute says. You have to functionally try to mitigate all impacts to a less than significant level. So, in each of those resource considerations, you will see a proposed mitigation and if it worked, it would go to less than significant. If that mitigation didn't get below the significance threshold, that's when you have a significant unavoidable impact. Um, for the city as the lead agency to move forward, you have to then adopt something called overriding considerations. Those overriding considerations are a series of specific statute questions that you have to answer to ensure that the city has done their best to mitigate all potential environmental effects. Alternatives, so beyond mitigation in an EIR the other method in which we try to uh reduce impacts is through the development of alternatives. Um, beyond the no project alternative, there was actually two other alternatives which we considered prior to even moving forward with the analysis to ensure that we had the ability to try to reduce impacts. Um, at the end of the day through the alternatives analysis, we determined that the no project alternative is the only feasible alternative and it also is the environmentally superior alternative.
There's a unique thing here related to the statute in which you have an EIR evaluation which identifies the no project is the environmentally superior you automatically default to the proposed project.
Anna Radonich: And can I just add so uh when Trevor just said that we identified two alternatives that were considered and rejected before moving forward with the analysis is before moving forward with the project alternative analysis because you don't your alternatives and your project alternatives are derived based on the impacts that are identified in the analysis of the main portion of your report.
They're not.
Trevor Macenski: just good ideas.
Anna Radonich: Yeah, they're not ideas that we just think of ahead of time so we can scratch them off the list. They're derived to try to reduce impacts that we identified. So those five significant unavoidable impacts. That's what drove the alternatives for this project.
Trevor Macenski: Great point. Thank you. We had talked about the environmentally superior alternative and the nuance related to the fact that when it is a no project alternative, it basically defaults to the proposed action. Um that's all that this slide identifies. And the big thing here is because when you evaluate alternatives, they have to be consistent with your project objectives. Your project objectives are the intent or the motivating reason for considering this action.
Anna Radonich: So now that we know what the CEQA document is covering, we're here at tonight's meeting. And then how do we move forward from here? How do you as members of the EQCB, how do members of the public stay informed on this entire process? So, the draft EIR is posted on the city's website. The link is provided on the slide deck and the slide deck will be available made available to the public after this meeting. The best way to provide comment because we want to receive your comment.
We want to know what you might know about this project that we may be missed in the analysis or you feel isn't quite robust. The best way to do that is to send an electronic email basically to Alexa. She will gather everything, send it to us. We are required to provide responses as Trevor had said earlier and should you choose to send written snail mail comments that address is here to city hall as well. Effective Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
commenting really is ideal. Um there's definitely going to be members of the public who maybe don't like the idea of more housing in Seal Beach. We definitely welcome those comments. But in terms of CEQA our responsibility is to respond on the merits of our analysis. So we will note a comment, but what's helpful for us is if you could identify, like I said, did we maybe miss something? Um maybe focus on the completeness. Was there editorial comments are great really, but you know, is there something maybe we missed? Um maybe and so here's an example of you know I think the EIR is not complete because you know X Y and Z. Maybe you drive a certain route regularly and you've identified a traffic impact that maybe we didn't include or you feel it wasn't quite robust enough or maybe you know there's flooding in a certain area of the city that wasn't called out in our document. Those are the comments that are helpful because we are required, as Trevor said, as part of the process in preparation of the final EIR. We are required to respond to those comments and either point the reader to where that is included in our analysis or to include supplemental analysis. So, our recommendation tonight is that we're receiving public comment um during this meeting here, this community meeting tonight. No action is being taken on the draft EIR tonight or on the project. This is simply an opportunity to provide comment to encourage the public to provide comment.
Trevor Macenski: And the only other thing that I would offer to the folks that are watching and the folks in the room here is that the intent is not for us to try to rebut any of the comments which are presented here this evening. We're here to provide clarity of where you might be able to find that information. uh but we are going to be more actively listening to make sure that we're documenting the comments that for those that have had the opportunity to review and read it and then there'll be a formal response in that final EIR. So with that I'll hand it back over to Alexa to see if there's anything else.
Director Smittle: Thank you Anna and Trevor. That concludes our presentation for this evening. So chair I'll turn the floor back over to you. Thank you.
Chair Perrell: Thank you very much. It was very very helpful presentation. Um before we um dive in, I'd just like to make one more comment about public comments. Is that okay? Um so a good comment. I'm not an attorney, but um as far as I understand, the CEQA process kind of um focuses down over time through all these steps, it it kind of narrows the opportunity for your comment to matter. In other words, if we get through all the process of the NOP, the comments on that, the draft, the comments on that, the final, the comments on that, the project gets approved, and then you go to court to sue the city because they they messed up this one of the studies and they forgot to the sewer is broken or whatever, the judge doesn't really have to listen to you. And the further the longer you wait to to submit your comments, the less it counts, the less it's going to be addressed in general. So now is the time in the draft EIR if you have concerns and you have comments, now is the time to get them in the record because you will most influence the final draft and you will get yourself into the process. And if anyone says, well, where was where were you three years ago when we started this, you could have brought that up then. So it's just really helpful and really important that you do it now by June 23rd.
Trevor Macenski: That is correct, yup.
Chair Perrell: Okay. Thank you. Um so now um is the time for the board to discuss. Um I think that some of us have comments that we want to discuss, but this thing is such a beast. It's a nice beast, a friendly beast, but anyone has been through this document. It's thousands of pages and it's kind of complicated.
So I thought I would like to ask y'all, the board uh members to make some suggestions about how best Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
tonight we can review this. Um, I'm thinking maybe we take turns and we discuss each item brought up.
Um, you know, one district at a time. Um, I'm thinking maybe if we have a general concern about the the overall EIR, we might address that first and get down to any specific sites or any specific issues after and just go around and maybe we'll have time and energy to address your one number one, number two, or number three concern. But I'd like to hear other is it okay? I'd like to hear other suggestions on on a process for tonight to for us to kind of share our concerns, our questions, and our comments.
Trevor Macenski: Chair, if it's helpful, I have a recommendation. Yes. Having done this at least once before. No, I'm just kidding. Um usually, you're on the right path. If you can uh kind of structure your comments in a sense of like clarifying remarks about maybe what the project is and is not, right, the project description. um additional questions about maybe resource considerations. Maybe you have something about air or traffic and then overall maybe uh analysis to where you might have a connection from one section to another or you want uh to understand about cumulates or alternatives, but making sure that and it's inevitable that you're going to hear something that one of your commissioners is going to say. You're going to be like, "Oh, well, you know, let's talk about water." And then water talks about wetlands and wetlands talks about drainage and you know they're covered in a lot of different topics but the bucket methodology is probably the most effective and then that way you can kind of move on.
Yeah.
Chair Perrell: Yeah. Okay. I that makes sense. Does that make sense to everyone? I'm seeing some nodding here. Um, I still think it might be nice to talk about general before we get into site specific just general how the document's structured and um overall. Thank you. So, um, if you all agree, let's start and we'll just go around since we're in order of district. Oh, That's five. I guess doesn't matter. We could start with with board member. Okay, we'll start with board member.
Horning: I'd be happy to start. Um, my concern is that we have um some focused comments for particular districts and of course I'm included with Leisure World. So um and Leisure World's kind of a city unto itself. So I was just wondering the mechanics of actually who needs to respond if the response is going to be needed. Is that the Golden Rain Foundation or is it the individual HOAs? It's just like a procedural kind of question or is it individual people you know shareholders of that and um we talked about the merits of analysis and I also wanted to talk about the limits of the analysis in that um the things that we have knowledge of that was in this report had to do with the uh the significant impact areas those five air pollution greenhouse gases public services recreation and transportation well there's also also um the observation that there have been doing the no on-site testing to verify if there's not anything else and I understand that that's a later part of this particular process but if we know about something right now say one of our sites opportunity site that we should reveal that now or is that something that's going to be done automatically in the future by some developer.
Trevor Macenski: yeah that is a perfect example of where all commoners can add additional value because this is the community that you live in every single day, and if you understand oh hey there is a particular we'll use Anna's analogy related to like storm water you know in heavy rain events the southeast corner of this particular site always gets more than enough amount of flooding that takes place or something or if there's a historic condition which might not be well documented but people are aware of all that type of information is incredibly important to get into the analysis.
EQCBHorning1
EQCBHorning
-2
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
Horning: Yeah, one of the other things is the the determination of if rezoning is going to be needed or no rezoning and uh leisure world at that particular site there is no rezoning is needed. So that's a target for somebody some developer at least that's what I would assume. So if we have information that leads us to believe that this was a site that we didn't develop for a particular reason and I have no actual documented knowledge of that but I've heard people say that. So um that would be a part that need to be consideration in the future. So I just wanted to uh identify as to what entity in leisure world as an example how that how those comments should be formed and presented.
Trevor Macenski: I'll offer the technical response and then I'll look to Alexa for maybe some clarifying community input is that the answer is yes. Whether it comes from a certain level or a board or even just a quadrant of the community or representation of five or six neighbors or an individual at the end of the day we have we treat those comments with the same level of weight and actually the statute's very clear and that the public has a vested interest. So public comments are actually valued even more than like agency comments in certain instances.
Horning: So yeah, and then my final comment has to do with there's three other entities um cities uh Rossmoor, Los Alamitos, and Seal Beach, and they're act each having their own um housing element studies. So um how does these all fit together or does does this particular study just focus on these opportunity sites?
Trevor Macenski: Um this particular environmental review focuses on the opportunity sites for the city of Seal Beach. The regional blueprint model or the sustainable community strategy which is prepared by the regional no looks at kind of the larger implications of growth across the region and that's the process which identifies how they come up with the regional housing need allocation for each of the communities and the in theory in theory the investment related to infrastructure funding and growth and population should align such that the state and the federal level are providing dollars and in and support to communities that are uh planning to grow and accommodate additional population, when you and I say that in theory because it's
Horning: so when you talk about cumulative impact that is only within Seal Beach and the various projects rather than all three of the
Trevor Macenski: um your intuition is uh very common but not incredibly accurate. Uh in our in our uh cumulative impact section there's actually a table which provides the analysis footprint related to each of the resources. So a good example would be uh for air quality it's actually the air quality basin which is encapsulate greater than the city's geographic footprint right but for noise for example the city has a very specific noise ordinance and that applies to the city's jurisdiction Horning: that's all the comments I have at this moment .
Anna Radonich: would it be okay can I add a couple things Trevor I think it might be helpful if we um maybe explain we do the programmatic EIR are what happens if a project comes in and the type of CEQA excuse me environmental review that would need to happen and then also the baseline for cumulative or future projects maybe in a nearby city if they change. Yeah.
EQCBHorning2 cont.
EQCBHorning-3
EQCBHorning-3
cont.
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
Trevor Macenski: So if you um if it's okay by the chair to cover you okay the um the idea around this is that we had talked about the issuance of the NOP kind of starting this race and once the NOP is issued it actually sets the regulatory framework in which the EIR is prepared. So if you could think about it you could constantly always be trying to catch up with changes and modifications that take place within a particular municipality but at the time and the NOP is actually released is a time and when kind of the book ends get fixed for everything that we have to consider. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't projects going on in neighboring communities at that particular point in time that we might have already identified in our cumulative analysis list. But if those other projects in another jurisdiction decide that we get bigger or get smaller, their own individual environmental review would have to be supplemented to account for those changes. Um, but as far as our cumulative analysis, you'll see in that list that we document all the projects that were contemplated and we did we developed that in consultation with the surrounding communities and staff and everyone's understanding. Yeah.
Chair Perrell: That answer your question for now. Okay. Belle.
Hsu: So, since I'm new here, I'm really like I basically reviewed the best I could. Um, tried to understand what the scope of, you know, this project is, what we're trying to accomplish. Um, I have some preliminary questions. Um, I guess what struck me is, um, something I thought about because just as a homeowner here, I've had trouble getting um, new home insurance when I'm shopping around for home insurance. Um, so is insurance something that's being considered when we talk about all these different sites? Um, I saw that flood insurance was not supposed to be within the scope of CEQA. Um, but just overall homeowners insurance is such a issue these days and its affordability. Um, the reason why I'm shopping around for insurance is because it's it I found it uh my current insurance to have shot up a lot.
So, um, I was very limited though in what I could get. So, I it's just something that I am concerned about when it comes to future housing care. Um, especially, you know, low income housing. It's very important that people can get insurance. So I that's something that um I thought about Perrell: I would like to just suggest um that insurance is part of the first two objectives in the EIR. Protect and improve quality of life for current future residents. You're uninsured and you have and your house floods, you have no quality of life. Um and encourage new housing for households at all income levels.
Well, people that aren't rich can't afford expensive insurance, so I think that's totally in scope. I But I'll ask Alexa what she thinks.
Director Smittle: Thank you, chair. Um, I'll I'll ask Trevor to speak to the um specifics of the CEQA guidelines as they relate to insurance, but your point is well taken.Um, there have been insurance companies picking up and leaving California entirely, and it is very challenging. There have been attempts at the state level to address some of these challenges, but as it um as it is looked at through CEQA, it is not included as a part of the analysis.
Trevor Macenski: Yeah. And I do want to provide you because I think you're you're again your intuition spot on, right? You're wanting to know like, hey, did we account for these forces which could cause implications with this decision? and the forces and the resources are accounted for and that comes related to hydrology and flooding and the implications that hydrology and flooding would have on these particular locations or earthquakes or wildfire hazards. All those evaluations have been completed related to these sites. Now to speak to the risk and fees associated with insurance as Alexa had mentioned we are silent on that. The statute kind of stays out of the market effects and al also the EQCBHsu-1
EQCBPerrell-1
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
economics of that. However, what I will speak to is that before these sites were even getting to this level, the state's site evaluation guidelines is very specific about uh the feasibility of proposing sites that are wholly contained or have risk related to flooding. Uh so the state actually doesn't allow you to do those things anymore. Uh previously it was not as strenuous and um diligent in evaluating them. So you might have had a site that was like, "Oh yeah, it's 25 acres, but it really can only be developed with two acres because the rest is in a flood zone or something like that." So the state has gotten a lot more uh restrictive and even allowing those to consider through the process. But your comments are incredibly valid. It is a force in the market which every community is dealing with.
Hsu: Yeah, I think that's all I have at this time.
Chair Perrell: Okay, my turn. Um, first of all, just quickly, I do want to commend staff and Stantech. Um, you guys built a pretty sturdy document um that should withstand a lot of of scrutiny. Um, very thorough, well organized, very a lot of clarity and uh it was it was clear you tried to address the comments you received after the NOP. So, so thank you for that. Um I do have a general comment and then later I hope we'll have another round here to address a more um specific comment. Is that okay with everyone? Um so our project objectives which we were just talking about um and you know insurance would be a way of saying affordability I think you know you could phrase it under that but um so the objectives that we have while they're all good objectives um two of them seem to be in direct conflict with each other and that is the first the first project objective to protect and improve quality of life for households and then the third objective to amend land use standards and designations in the city code specific plans general plans to comply with the state laws and the RHNA. So why are these conflicting? Well, because according to the draft environmental impact report, complying, you know, building that, 1243 new housing units, meeting that RHNA will create many significant and supposedly unavoidable impacts in several impact categories. So, we're going to result in a project that will not protect and improve the quality of life for the city's households. So, those two objectives are really in in somewhat conflict and somewhat opposition with each other. So, what do we do about that? You know, well CEQA guidance tells us that when that happens, when objectives oppose or conflict, we must balance them as best we can. And so we evaluate project alternatives that meet some of those objectives um and have less impacts or we find overriding cons considerations to convince ourselves to justify ourselves that you know we're combashing some of the objectives in order to achieve some of the others and and we have to ensure that we're mitigating those impacts to the extent feasible. So we have this balanced meeting of the objectives. So, you know, if we had a project objective to make our air cleaner and then we had another project objective to increase air pollution emission sources, how would we balance those, right? Um, and it would be hard, but you know, we would we would try to do that with alternatives and and mitigation and considerations, but which one would we try the hardest to meet? Would we try and meet the the cleaner air or the more polluted air? Right? Would we and and that's the question I ask us here to to think about would we go for the quality of life in Seal Beach for the residents or adherence to a policy political driven policy. So if we have to balance gosh and we have to air a little bit on one side I I hope we will think about airing on the side of quality of life for Sil Beach residents. So, so I just this general concern that the draft environmental impact report, it fails to meet that number one objective, it fails a lot. It fails pretty hard. It falls on its face for meeting that first objective to protect and improve the quality of life for households in Seal Beach. I ask us to consider a little bit more balancing. How can we do that? we can mitigate more. Um we can consider a slightly EQCBPurrell-2
EQCBPurrell-3
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
lower density or we consider um reducing flooding by putting in um permeable pavement or consider reducing transportation by requiring bike lanes to go more bike lanes or whatever we do. I'm sure it's all very creative. There's a lot of things that haven't been proposed yet in the draft that we could maybe think to mitigate. So we we put the weight a little bit more weight on quality of life project objective, you know, because I just I think it's got the short end of the stick right now here. I think we have a little a little tiny bit more work to do. Okay. And I I would like to hear from from y'all on that. Um the other board members if you have any thoughts on that.
Villanueva: I did have a comment and I very much appreciate your comment about quality of life and the potential impact that you know some of these rezoning allocations would have on the quality of life of existing residents. Um and I think that's very true. I would also ask that you know everybody consider you know maybe a broader definition of quality of life. If we have if we were to increase the amount of folks residing in Seal Beach we would have more you know our property tax revenue would go up. You know as an impact for perhaps just District 1. We would have more activity on Main Street. if you walked up and down Main Street, it's, you know, there's some vacant shops here and there. So, you know, I just I think we need to take a very holistic view and a very broad view of what, you know, what we define as quality of life. Um, and just making sure that, you know, we're taking into account that, you know, quality of life doesn't necessarily mean, you know, I have, you know, room on, you know, every side of my property to agree plant a few trees or, you know, what have you, Chair Perrell: right? And and yet, you know, significant and unavoidable impacts or significant impacts, you know, that does reduce the quality of life and we have a lot of those in here. So, yeah, a balance. We need to balance and be holistic. And I just think it's worth considering if we've done the best job we can on that. And so that's just my general comment and your comments.
Depew: My turn. Huh?
Chair Perrell: Yes, Mike. On your comment or just mine? No. Oh, no. On on your comments. Okay. Unless you have a comment on my comment.
Depew: I'm I have a concern on how on the mitigating factors uh specifically water is a big issue with me always and we've identified it as less than significant and the mitigating factor there is uh to impose fees on the developers uh which I assume is with the idea that that money can go for buying more water.
Well, you can't buy more water when it doesn't exist. So, I think we should concentrate on what to do with those fees to actually mitigate the issue of the population growth impacting the supply of water.
Uh, and with that, I would say, you know, what are we going to do with those funds once we collect them? They don't necessarily buy more water if all of a sudden the sources tell us, "Sorry, you've gotten your maximum allocation. So, can we divert that to something else to help mitigate it, like recycling or other avenues other than just buying more water?"
Chair Perrell: Okay. Yeah, that's a great comment. I totally agree and we're seeing more and more fighting over Colorado River water which we use in part here. So when you look at all the cumulative impacts of all these other projects, there's a lot more demand for water and a lot more demand for um storm water um runoff too. So yeah, great great comment.
EQCBPurrell-3
cont.
EQCBVillanue
va-1
EQCBPurrell-3
cont.
EQCBDepew1
EQCBPerrell-4
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
Depew: Well, that that's it for me.
Chair Perrell: And board member Villanova.
Villanueva: Actually, I don't have a laundry list this time. I just want to commend staff and the consultant team. I think uh the sites that were identified, at least as it relates to district one, you know, this was done with a lot of consideration, a lot of care. You know, I appreciate the level of detail here. So, I just want to thank you guys and commend you on a job well done. We like to take notes on those.
Anna Radonich: Yes. Thank you.
Horning: The only follow any other the only other follow-up comment I have is the purpose for tonight's meeting is to is to motivate the community with more education, which is what this presentation is about to see if there's any particular areas that they feel strongly enough that they need to comment on.
And I think that we've identified I I didn't really focus on the quality of life but that's a very important consideration and then all these other things as to the the insurance which I'd never thought about that specifically but that impacts all of us so you know if you tie all these things and compile them all and you know I think we do have enough information that we can have suggest comments are we supposed to suggest comments that would be coming from the council or just um Alexa.
Director Smittle: comments from you um or if you've had you know conversations with neighbors or you know things that you would want to share now is now is the time for you to just speak for yourself or for things that you've heard anything that's of a concern.
Horning: Yeah. So one of the things I would intend to do when I get back is Leisure World has a newspaper. So write a little column suggesting as to here's the information that's available. here's some of my thoughts and y'all decide what you want to do and either you know as to the foundation or for individual HOA mutuals they can have their own comments as well as individuals. So it's a motivation tool and I think you've done a nice job with that and we've had some great comments that um I'd not thought about particularly but um it all kind of ties together so yeah thank you.
Chair Perrell: Great. Board member Hsu.
Hsu: Um I just thought of something which is that um something that's of I think chief concern well in my district because um I see it happen is that we have drainage issues right throughout various places in Seal Beach. Um I guess in terms of these particular housing elements um I'm trying to understand better how the drainage issue is going to be handled um so that we don't further compound the other drainage issues that we have um which are outstanding and seem to get worse every time we have a major rain storm. So um that's just something I'm concerned about.
Chair Perrell: Yeah, my in my district as well, same concerns. Okay. Well, I have I have my site my specific concern. Uh, and by the way, I'm going to write up all of my questions, concerns and issues and suggestions and I'm going to submit them in writing and I and I encourage everyone else to do because there'll be things we think about. You know, I'm sure I'm getting stimulated in my thoughts by hearing you and um and things will come up when you talk to neighbors more and all that and you go for your second or third or fourth reading of the draft. You'll come with up with more. So, I encourage everyone to give it some more thought um and and submit your comments before the deadline. And I'm going to but this is one I I'm really grateful to share tonight because I really feel strongly about this site um right EQCBVillanueva
-2
EQCBHorning
-4
EQCBHorning-4
cont.
EQCBHsu-2
EQCBPerrell5
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
now. Um so this is really um okay I'll just pick one of the two. Right. Okay. This is this is really about site number eight which is the 99 Marina Drive. And um 99 Marina Drive is really quite different from any other sites. Um most of the other sites are heavily disturbed pieces of land, often paved over parking lots in the middle of a commercial um or industrial facility and and uh and opportunity site 8 is really quite different. So, one of the reasons that the draft environmental impact report gave for for having Old Ranch Country Club that pipeline site to be reviewed in a separate project specific EIR rather than in this programmatic EIR. One of those reasons was because unlike those paved parking lots and uh those heavily disturbed opportunity sites, the Old Ranch Country Club is a golf course and therefore it's the DEIR state is more more likely to contain protected biological resources and and those might warrant a specific detailed assessment more than any of the other sites and and we have gone that way with that we will do a separate doing we are the city is doing a separate um environmental impact report for Old Ranch Country Club. But this opportunity site number eight, 99 Marina Drive, that's even less disturbed than a golf course. So, a golf course is is really kind of a sterilized open space. It's persistently irrigated and groomed and fertilized and insect controlled with pesticides and sometimes herbicides. It's not really a natural space and it's not a public recreation space. It's private. It's a very tough place for um protected plants and species to um to survive and do well. On the other hand, the baseline condition for Opportunity Site 8, the 99 Marina Drive is it's a naturalized open space. It's a public recreation space.
That's its baseline uh land use at the current time. It has been for many years. It's full of trees and shrubs and grasses and birds and reptiles, insects and mammals and people and kids and families. So the draft environmental impact report says it contains an abandoned handball court, but in reality the handball court is not abandoned and it's often used by families, athletes, and others for a whole bunch of different sports and play. And that's just one part of this site. The site is unique and it's a rare, very rare open space left in our city that's somewhat naturalized. It's proximal to our river and and our coastal recreation and those ecosystems. So, it it's kind of special. When I look at the draft environmental report, it documents 11 special status plants and animals at 99 Marina Drive. But it seems it seems clear to me from looking at um published nearby bird counts and other studies that the draft environmental impact report didn't fully document the protected species and habitat in that are present on that site. Um I I'm concerned that without an accurate baseline assessment of recreational and biological resources, we really won't know the impacts and we really don't know how to mitigate them. So, I'm just I'm just rather concerned about this. The city doesn't always doesn't even yet meet its recreation um requirements.
We're we're way underboard underwater on recreation space in in Sil Beach and um we had have hardly any naturalized space. So, I think this site um relatively undisturbed, open space, historical baseline, recreational use, special status species, protected species. We're gonna we're the the draft is proposing to rezone this space with residential high density RHD33 even when directly adjacent to that Bridgeport um were low density RLD15 and there just appears to be no mitigation for loss of habitat or recreation value. So I can think of quite a lot of mitigation. If you need help thinking up mitigation, I got some great ideas. I think this this site deserves its own its own EIR. I don't think it's going to be taken care of properly. I don't think it's going to be assessed or mitigated properly or even assigned proper zoning under this programmatic EIR. I think more much more so than than Old Ranch Country Club. This this project needs a project specific EIR and I'd like to recommend that we consider that and I hope some of you board members might consider um supporting me on that. And of course when we do that sight specific EIR the developer will pay for it not the city of course. So thank you. Any any thoughts on that from my board members?
EQCBPerrell-6
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
Horning: I think you're right. is important that each individual especially like Leisure World site in that it's the 5.1 acres um that um it needs to be evaluated in depth before it is even offered as an opportunity site and I think you know perhaps that's part of the process that we have to deal with and you know we don't have any say in whether this housing element rule is fitting for us or not so we have to be our own defense team and say okay this reasons why we don't think it's appropriate nor should it be considered a site. So that's for the comments to uh focus on if they would like to do that. So that that would be my my sort of comment on that. Okay.
Trevor Macenski: And uh just for uh the discussion and remarks and comments, the only thing that I'd offer is that um there is no guaranteed path after you know implementation of the housing element or certification. Each potential site should somebody bring forward an application will be reviewed individually on its merits to determine the appropriate level of environmental review. Um there is very specific case law about the type of documents which are required depending upon what is proposed.
And so I will just leave it at that. uh there are specific uh pathways that are now in our state laws related to CEQA streamlining depending upon if you um propose certain types of housing and avoid certain types of resource considerations which might be located at a site. So just know that uh this is not a green light for all development to happen on these sites. There is a subsequent environmental review consideration when an application if an application is ever to be received on one of these and so I just offer that for context.
Chair Perrell: Thank you. I just have a question to follow up with that. Um but once this site would be certified for development and high say high density development under this programmatic EIR um I I don't think the chances would be very good for sight specific EIR after that and tell me if I'm wrong about that. Um, and also I I just don't think that whatever environmental review was required um it wouldn't it wouldn't have the public input and the public review that the CEQA process provides.
Trevor Macenski: Yeah. So I can respond to that for sure. Um if the if the sight specific conditions which you identified in your remarks are present um there any project which has the potential to have a significant effect past a threshold would have to prepare specific evaluations. So you'd spoken earlier about uh species and natural resource evaluations. So in a normal circumstance on any type of development application, the city would say, "Hey, we would like a study to uh document that baseline and identify whether those special status species are present or not." And based on that study and its evaluation that could determine, hey, look, there's a protected species here and if you're going to be impacting it and it's significant, then you have to do an EIR to disclose it. So that's what I mean in the nuance of it really depends upon the context of what's being proposed. But the part I do want to make sure that the community and the commission is aware of is that it's not just a uh an opportunity to move forward with development. There is a specific process for the city and its planning department to review subsequent entitlements.
Chair Perrell: Yeah, it is a big feather and a cap though for a developer to have gone through a programmatic EIR.
Trevor Macenski: Correct. You're yes, you're absolutely correct. And it is a uh it is um the zoning, right? If you were to take land that is open space and all of a sudden you put residential zoning over it, it and increases its value in its um instantaneously. So I mean it is a step forward in the development process.
So acknowledged.
EQCBHorning5
EQCBPurrell-7
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
Chair Perrell: Yes. Thank you. Any other comments? Oh, we need to go down the line.
Villanueva: Actually, I wanted to to comment on your specific comments about the 99 Marina property because I do agree that it would be a shame to see that property developed into a very dense kind of we'll call it eaves like property, but we are talking about three acres in an area where housing is very difficult to come by. So, I'm wondering if we could maybe kind of split the difference like we've seen with the old uh I think it was the LAWDP site on First Street, you know, and we set up, you know, a a portion of it for open space and allowed development, you know, maybe we set aside an acre for open space and we allowed the development on two acres, you know.
Chair Perrell: brilliant, and I think coastal commission was had a lot to do with that and they may step in here as well but we can't really rely on that but thank you I totally I think that's that's great idea.
Director Smittle: Chair if I may also just um provide a little bit of comment all sites all the housing element sites do take into account that they cannot be 100% developed to the buildout of their zoning assignment So, and that includes 99 marina. So, there's, you know, the 33 * 4 acres or whatever. That's not the number that's assigned to it as a part of this process. It is a lower number because there were assumptions made in the analysis as the housing element was being developed to account for these different things. And it may be um it may be sight specific um due to uses are being located in the coastal zone. It may have to do with development standards, setbacks and things like that apply to projects. So, as a part of developing the housing element itself, we did take into consideration um drawing some of those numbers back from a full buildout number. Now, what's analyzed in the EIR is a higher number again to provide that that flexibility.
Chair Perrell: Okay. Thank you for that. And flexibility doesn't mean entitlement.
Director Smittle: Correct.
Trevor Macenski: Correct. Yeah. And actually that uh to take your point just for the because it's some something that's not very often covered. Um the community's ability to meet your regional housing need allocation can come from sites far beyond these eight. So if there is a project that comes forward and you develop other units to meet that goal, it doesn't necessarily need to be at these locations. And I only say that because um somebody could come in and want to rezone a site as part of an application or something like that.
Chair Perrell: Yeah. Sure. Okay. Board member Depew, do you have any other um sight specific concerns?
Depew: No other no other comments for me right now anyway.
Chair Perrell: Okay. Board member Hsu Good. Thank you. Well, if we have no more comments we want to share tonight, could we open this up for public comment? Finally, and thank you for the public for uh listening to us. Opine
Richard Coles: Good evening. Um, nice to see everybody. My name is Richard Coles. Um, uh, I live at 154 Electric Avenue. I'm a planning commissioner here in town. Prior to that, I spent 10 years on this board and, uh, professionally, I've reviewed scores of programmatic EIRS. For example, the Owens Lake projects with LA Department of Water and Power. I was the overall program manager for eight years. And I do EQCBVillanueva-3
EQCBColes-1
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
believe that because of the diversity and geological difference in our locations, we really need to have separate EIRS because programmatically it took us 10 years to build that project. So what was analyzed in the programmatic EIR you fast forward 10 years when you actually do something could have many years subsequent to that. We found the same thing. I testified against the um the programmatic EIR in Long Beach for the significant development that is will occur on our border here. Um very high density.
We can barely travel through Second Street now. I think that we should have had a road going through, done something a little more creative with transportation. But nevertheless, here in town, I uh I reviewed your portions of the EIR. I think it needs some help. uh in those key areas uh that I'd like to talk about. We talk often about quality of life. Um for the last 41 years, I've been a water engineer, an environmental civil engineer. And it seems to me that as I reviewed over the years, our storm water condition, typically when we design storm water, we designed it for a hundred-year flood event. Well, I wasn't here all those years ago, and they designed it for a 50-year event. Well, when they actually built it, they built it for a 25-year event. So, flooding on Main Street and throughout Old Town is rampant. And I think further analysis of storm water conditions are absolutely essential to any criteria that you develop. Furthermore, I think the infrastructure, some of the original piping that was put in Old Town was done in 1915. So any type of vertical construction that you're going to do needs absolute analysis.
This affects our quality of life on water. You know, we have frequent blackouts here in town. And you're going to increase usage. Uh you say you're going to use fees. That never happens. Developers never pay up. They don't do the infrastructure work. I've been doing this for 40 years. So I think we need to really rethink how we fix the infrastructure to allow our quality of life to become something that we can all live with. And I would like to address briefly what's happening with the hydraulics in College Park East. Well, I've looked at it many times. I see the thrusting slabs. Uh I had looked at the geotechnical aspects, the hydraulic aspects. They're huge problems. And so when we do that EIR I'll come back to that. I haven't forgotten about it. So um now that I'm retired I can do a few things but I u I would share with you I am concerned deeply about the marina site air quality. Long Beach just passed uh three new major developments there. Okay. None of us will be able to drive up Second Street enough. And I I like your idea about mixed use, maybe having some recreation. And I was I did review the design, RBF's design on the old DWP property, and we took that from 142 to 68 for that very reason. So, yeah, I think people were willing to accommodate that, but I think particularly in Old Town on Main Street, that's a nonstarter. You should rethink that because of some of those buildings are in excess of a hundred years old.
Um, I think that if you say, "Okay, we're going to tear it all apart and the rest of us have to deal with that for five years," you know, I could be dead by then. So, I would prefer you rethink that from an infrastructure, storm water, water use, conveyance, okay, and electrical usage before we say that this is a place that we're going to redevelop. Furthermore, people in this community cherish the way it looks as it is. Okay? And I've been on the planning commission for a few years. I know many of us have heard this before, but I think if you're going to mitigate something, 115 units in downtown, I don't think so. But I I think that needs to be carefully and I understand the policy, all of you. But I I share with Chairwoman Purrell her thoughts on whether it's policy or quality. I moved here 32 years ago because it was a quaint town. Our kids grew up here. This is what we did and I would like to leave it that way for future generations. Thank you.
EQCBColes-2
EQCBColes-3
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
Patty Senecal: Good evening. Um, Councilwoman Patty Senecal wanted to make a couple comments and first of all, sorry for the appearance was in a golf thing all day. So, charity tournament. Um, I want to bring up the point of traffic and I know the Sacramento has given us a new way to do this and it's about VMT, vehicle miles traveled. And if I'm understanding correctly, um, the vehicle miles traveled, if they're less, but you're idling longer, it's okay is what I'm hearing out of the new policy from Sacramento. And so, my point is, I don't think that's okay. Okay. And when you come back to quality of life, um all this development, a lot of it's proposed up on um kind of over the bridge side of town and we have already significant traffic issues in the morning. You know, getting we're backed up now trying to get kids to school. Same thing in the afternoon and it's now backed up from um Seal Beach Boulevard even past um the driving range and so forth through Old Ranch. I mean, that's how far back our cars are. And so when I look at all this development, it um in my opinion, it is not okay to be idling our cars. And so this whole VMT thing, again, I know it's the new thing from Sacramento, but I think it is um it's not good for us. And on top of that, I want to make the point again. I think I think I did to you guys already. The studies now on road dust, in train road dust, whether it's brake dust or tire dust, the particulates are very dangerous.
And the studies, even the California Resource Board has a study on their website. UCI has a big study.
I've looked at four studies on this. And so all of a sudden now, you know, we're going to add all this traffic. let it move slower because it's going less and somehow that's better. It's still the tire and the brake dust and our cars on these streets. We've got bike paths now or bike lanes right next to the cars.
And so again, what kind of, you know, Susan, I'm sure you can um look, but it's so the concern is again we're when we talk about this balance of quality of life and trying to have more housing stock. Um it seems disproportional that we're putting a lot of people at risk and adding more risk into the system.
And I and I get it. Sacramento is telling us what to do. But so I would like to know in the EIR, can we require the South Coast AQMD to put air monitoring on these sites or near these sites on a continual tracking basis of the air quality so we know what's going on. And then secondly, the sound meter from I don't know if that's Caltrans or whomever, but can we look at the decibel of the sound that's going to come off these projects? And I would like to see us do it before because then we have a baseline and we can tell what is going on once things if they get developed. So I don't know if that's a requirement we can put into the EIRS or um and then um again I think we really need to take the road dust very seriously.
And I just want to comment where we are um up in College Park East. We have the 405 freeway which is what the busiest freeway in the United States happens to be on our backside. Okay. And then we have the training base flying planes all the time. And then we have Lampson which is kind of a little country road at times and all of a sudden now you know that's becoming a thoroughfare as well. And so you're taking a community and you are boxing us in. you are bubbling us in with an enormous amount of air quality issues, sound issues, and again this road dust issue. So I think um again I know we have we're being overridden by Sacramento on a lot of stuff, but I just would like it to be in the record. This is concerning and this is not balanced and um not sure what we can do about it but um deeply troubling for you know my community and the marina project as well would have the same impacts. Yeah. So thank you.
Chair Perrell: Any other public comments this evening?
Schelly Sustarsic: Hello, Schelly Sustarsic, College Park East. Uh, 35-year resident. Um, I did submit some questions to or some comments to the NOP.
EQCBSenecal
-1
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
Chair Perrell: I don't I don't know if I saw your comments, but Alexa may to the notice of preparation.
Director Smittle: Yes. Um, and I believe they are addressed.
Schelly Sustarsic: I think they were listed, but I went back and read my uh read my letter and said, "Okay, most of that is still what my thoughts are, but I decided to address the process, the document, and uh I started with uh changing. I'm going to read these just to make sure I get through them, but changing conditions in the future. There's a lot changing. My letter was a year and a half old and some things have changed. I uh I started with uh climate change just more extreme conditions and that's what we're noticing in College Park East especially because flooding has been something that's gone on for forever.
But those 100-year storms are becoming more common and we're getting you know people can't leave their homes. It's just it's just you know cars are being you know there's been little intrusion into homes. there has been some intrusion into homes. Uh but cars are destroyed, people can't get out. Uh just the quality of life is not good. So the thought that it's going to be increasing and getting worse maybe on a regular basis. I'm also concerned with hydrology because of all this. Uh part of it is the old ranch project which we're not talking about, but that is where our water in College Park East goes. So, anything else that comes in there, whether it's the Lamson project or one of my questions at the end was does Old Ranch Town Center, does it go directly into the federal channel or does it go to the golf course somehow? So, anything that anyway anything that adds to that that situation because we're going to have a problem with water competition or competition for space to put to put water or we're going to be in trouble. So, uh I think hydrology is important down here too because the same thing you got issues down here. I totally recognize that and so I think hydrology overall is a big problem but I think it's one that says it's a slight not a significant impact but it does say you should have a study and so if study is the result of what I recommend for this then um I recommend that um also Surfside now is flooding uh let's see hydrologic um but Okay, let me put my glasses back on. Um, I attended uh Alexa's new housing laws and that also freaked me out because the uh the EIR um the housing element EIR that was approved not EIR the housing development uh up housing element update that was present I'll get it that was presented to the city council um when it was approved I and then it went to the airport land use. It was supposed to go there first. It didn't. It went there after the city council approved it. But at that time, I think the housing or the commercial limit that was given was about 35 ft. Well, now, oh my gosh, you know, I look at specifically I was had in mind the the shops at Rossmore, which have 441, maybe up to 500 and whatever when it's maxed out. um how many stories does you know will that be and that's not counting density bonus. So if density bonus is thrown in there that could be like a tower. Okay. Um we're not looking at the this document says also that there's no significant impacts in regard to the uh JFTB airport uh the the the Los Alamitos airport there. Um, if the plan is different than what was presented to the airport, then it's a different situation because that could be an obstacle. It could be glare and light issues to the to the base. Um, and that, you know, different than maybe what was analyzed. I know it was overruled, but I think if things change that there should be a new analysis. The airport land use uh should look at that again and it shouldn't be that it doesn't affect anybody. In the document, it looks primarily at uh noise contours which are not exactly the same as flight paths. Uh, so when I um I I'm taken to watching um flight tracker 24, I can hear those little planes every day take off.
There's multiple Cessnas, there's multiple beach Cessnas transport, you know, like the helicopters in DC, they transport uh personnel from from places where they're going. So there's several Cessnas a day.
There's several a beach that they take med flies, sterile med flies up and down all over the place to it's an EQCBSustarsic1
EQCBSustarsic2
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
important California project that's based there. So there are fixed wings, there's helicopters, they don't have the same flight path necessarily. Uh there are some published flight paths. That's not what was presented to our city council. Um but um there there's a lot going on there. When the development from the previous development from Bixby went on, they took we had a lot of open space up there and they took it and just about used it all up except for the um golf course there now. And um and that pretty much encroached on what they have. They have uh a little, you know, an area of departure now. And the base is our uh our environmental no not environmental emergency operations center only one in LA and Orange County. And there's different kinds of planes that come. Right now it's primarily the small jets or small planes and uh and um helicopters but there's a potential in CA in times of earthquake in times of riot uh state or federal you know deployments anything going on that base can convert to something at any time and uh immigration who knows uh and things can change. So anyway, those are those are all things that um that I'm probably getting out of my out of my thing now. Um okay. Um the old ranch town center was built practically backs right up to the JFDB runways and the crash zone. I have personally seen large aircraft her aircraft overflow overfly straight out of the runways. Uh, I've been in the building of the Ralph's Market and had a cargo jet go overhead and it is incredibly loud even with all that stone concrete building. Um, uh, glare and lighting could definitely be an issue with this site when developed. I think I'm talking about the old ranch town center here. Uh, should be reviewed. Uh, as well as the Rossmoor project also cumulative up there. I you know I read the I did read the table where we talked about you know the Lampson project the long beach projects and uh orange county of orange also has has things so I see that they're cumulative when you look at uh north of the freeway though there are those three sites the shops at Rossmoor the old ranch town center and the old ranch country club sites uh compose 918 housing sites out of the 1339 or 69% of the housing sites. If you take the buildout table, the three sites total 1111 housing sites uh for a total of or a percentage of 63% of the total housing element sites. So I think whether or not you see them potentially being developed right away, you still have to consider all those cumulative uh impacts on traffic, hydrology, sewer, light, and glare. Uh you know, I can't imagine if everything was built out what the Seal Beach just has so few through streets. I mean, there's Seal Beach Boulevard and there's, you know, Lampson isn't even really counted, but there's Westminster and PCH. there's just not much way for traffic to get around and circulation is so important also to your quality of life. Um, okay. Traffic should also be considered on each proposed site. And I think they do propose a track I I have to admit I've only threw three or 4 hundred pages. I'm working my way, but I'm you know I'm getting there. So, um, Seal Beach is not uniform. We have the coast. We have the airport airport areas. It shouldn't be all painted with a broad brush. Traffic circulations at each site. I agree with um Mr. Cole. Yeah, Mr. uh Rich. Um more sites need more traffic. Um bus service in Orange County has been on the decline for years, even before COVID, possibly due to Uber and Lift as well. uh maybe Door Dash, Amazon, who knows who or work from home options. OCTA has pulled back from roots on the periphery of the county to focus on central county roots such as Harbor and Beach. So, the idea that we can have uh it's not it's not going to happen. It's you know, so um noise impacts on noise. How about the uh impacts of noise on a project? 45 decibels depends on closed windows with air conditioning and I had the same thought about low-income people.
They can move in under the air traffic pattern but they have to keep their pay for air condition and keep their windows closed. So construction heights are also are listed as being 200 feet tall. the FAA uh does reduce height during construction due to the presence of cranes. So that I don't think is is true either.
Um I I have an issue with a finding of no significant impact regards to airport hazards. This must be EQCBSustarsic-2
cont.
EQCBSustarsic-3
EQCBSustarsic5
EQCBSustarsic
-4
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
evaluated at sites near the airport. The city has provided a flight path that is extremely limited when published flight paths and lives apps such as flight radar 24 show a much varied set of flight path both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. Um fixed wing planes for which this is the only depart departure route is out over the golf course flying daily out of JFTB. Uh these planes transport uh let's see I already did that. Flights have increased since the safety zones were realigned in the 80s to follow Air Force standards. It is my understanding that each service branch is now required to have its airports follow its own branches standards I believe since 2018. the JFD the uh JFTV's a loop was uh updated not really updated but looked at again in 2017 and they didn't do anything I think out of lack of funding but uh thing things may have changed uh in the general plan land use uh page 43 planning area 4 in uh had has a goal to discourage further encroachment into the Los Alamitos JFTV flight path. Uh this was written after the Bixby project when so much encroachment had happened and it was pretty much viewed as Bixby's final plan but that the plan the goal of no further encroachment was put into the general plan 2003 to say enough you know so what I see is what's going to happen is trying to encircle the departure path and keep you know and our goal is to not negatively impact the operations of the airport. Also protect people underneath the flight path of the airport and that should be viewed in any site that's near the airport. The JFTB flight path published data said that pilots are told to not fly over any residential areas. This is for safety as well as noise due to the potential for accidents, especially on takeoffs and landings. Uh it's the the golf course is mostly for departure, but 8% of the time reverse conditions or Santa Anas. It's approach and those planes fly in low on approach. Uh large weighted cargo planes cannot make the turn that that's in the flight path, the turn down towards the um naval weapons station. They are also incredibly loud and I have seen them pass very low over the eucalyptus trees as they fly west onto um pass over Seal Beach Boulevard. Um okay, so I had a had a couple questions. One is what about the next housing element cycle? What do we do if we have even more? Do we just is everything become a tall tower? I mean, I'm just I'm just I just don't know. We've had so much trouble getting this, you know, getting this done. I just don't know what. But it looks like in just a couple years we'll be maybe finding out. Um let's see. I asked those questions already. Um okay. So if a large development necessitates an upgrade of our city's utilities such as water, sewer or storm water, the document says that they would pay their fair share. So if a big project comes in, whether it's on Lampson, Seal Beach, Boulder, I mean, I'm focused kind of north just because I'm more familiar with it, not because I don't care about down here because the same the same questions down here. If uh if we say okay we're going to need you to hook into the sewer or supply water and it's inadequate now they'll pay their fair share and it could even be in loo money which you don't know where that ever whether that ever helps but does that then mean the Seal beach taxpayer or rate payers have to step up and say we have to do this CIB project because this development is is forcing that I don't know and I I'm just uh so that one bothered me a lot because every time I thought about an issue somewhere I'm like oh well who's going to who's going to pay for that you know partly because we have issues in in College Park East but you know so anyway those are my those are my comments and I will try to keep working and maybe submit some written comments by the 23rd but uh anyway thank you Chair Perrell: Yeah, we're not going to do this in another two years, are we? Any other comments from the public tonight? I'm so pleased that we got the comments we did. Very helpful. Okay, back to my cheat sheet then. Um, I think we're getting to the end. Any other staff concerns, comments? EQCBSustarsic
-5 cont.
EQCBSustarsic
-6
EQCBSustarsic7
Environmental Quality Control Board Special Meeting – Thursday, June 5, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzvMD7jF-fs
Director Smittle: No, no staff concerns. Thank you, chair.
Chair Perrell: Any other board concerns? I will now adjourn this meeting of the Environmental Quality Control Board. Thank you very much, everyone. It's good meeting I think. Thank you.
Appendix B
Written Comments
Received on the Draft EIR
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS - M.S. #40
1120 N STREET
P. O. BOX 942874
SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001
PHONE (916) 654-4959
FAX (916) 653-9531
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
June 19, 2025
Ms. Alexa Smittle Electronically Sent [email protected] Community Development Director
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Re: SCH #2023110425- City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Dear Ms. Smittle:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project). One of the goals of the Division is to assist cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) or their equivalent, to understand and comply with the State Aeronautics Act pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code (PUC), Section 21001 et seq. Caltrans encourages collaboration with our partners in the planning process and thanks you for including the Division of Aeronautics in the review of the DEIR.
The proposed Project regards updating the City of Seal Beach (City) Housing Element, where Housing Opportunity (HO) Sites are identified, resulting in a potential rezone concurrent with residential uses. HO Sites 4 (The Shops at Rossmoor) and 5 (Old Ranch Town Center) identified in the DEIR are located approximately 0.3 miles of the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) and aligned close to the end of the runway path.
The Division notes that while the adopted Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Los Alamitos JFTB does not depict off-base accident potential zones, the potential for aircraft overflight and safety-related exposure remains a consideration due to the nature and frequency of operations at the facility. Additionally, a portion of these sites falls within the 65 CNEL contour as shown in the AELUP, indicating elevated exposure to aircraft overflight noise. In accordance with California Code Public Resources Code - PRC § 21096, the City is encouraged to evaluate potential noise-related compatibility concerns, particularly for noise-sensitive land uses such as residential development. While sound insulation, avigation easements, and disclosure statements may serve as mitigation, these measures do not reduce exterior noise levels or eliminate the potential for noise or vibration annoyances to residents from military aircraft activity.
CLCaltrans
DOA-1
CLCaltrans
DOA-2
Ms. Smittle, Community Development Director
June 19, 2025