“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” The Division suggests the City consider relocating or eliminating HO Sites 4 and 5 to minimize potential land use conflicts with ongoing aviation activities and to reduce long-term exposure of residents to aircraft noise, vibration, and potential safety hazards. Consideration of such adjustments may support the City’s efforts to balance housing needs with public health, safety, and welfare consistent with applicable State Aeronautics Act provisions.
These comments reflect the areas of review by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics with respect to airport-related noise, safety, and land use planning issues. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact me by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Vincent Ray
Aviation Planner
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
c: Julie Fitch, Executive Officer, Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, [email protected]
Scott Shelley, Caltrans District 12 Local Development Review, [email protected] CLCaltrans
DOA-3
CLCaltrans
DOA-4
Improving lives and communities through transportation.
DISTRICT 12
1750 East 4th Street, Suite 100 | SANTA ANA, CA 92705
(657) 328-6000 | FAX (657) 328-6522 TTY 711
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-12
June 23, 2025
Ms. Alexa Smittle File: LDR/CEQA
Community Development Director SCH: 2023110425
City of Seal Beach 12-ORA-2025-02821
211 Eighth Street SR-1, SR-22, I-405, I-605
Seal Beach, CA. 90740
Dear Ms. Smittle,
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Update Project. The Project is the City's Housing Element Update and its resulting zoning code update and rezoning program. The Housing Element Update identifies Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the city that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed because the current capacity of these underutilized sites is not sufficient to fully accommodate the RHNA in all income categories. In addition, the sites inventory also identifies the Main Street Program, ADUs, and the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project in its Housing Element Update. The Draft EIR analyzes the potential impacts from implementation of the Housing Element update and zoning code update.
The project site is the City of Seal Beach which includes eight housing opportunity sites, Main Street Program, Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project, and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) throughout the city totaling approximately 259.45 acres, of which 60.05 acres are developable.
The City of Seal Beach is accessed regionally by State Route (SR)1, SR-22, Interstate 405 and Interstate 605.
CLCaltrans-1
City of Seal Beach
June 23, 2025
Improving lives and communities through transportation.
CLCaltrans-2
CLCaltrans-3
City of Seal Beach
June 23, 2025
Improving lives and communities through transportation.
CLCaltrans-4
CLCaltrans-5
CLCaltrans-6
CLCaltrans-7
City of Seal Beach
June 23, 2025
Improving lives and communities through transportation.
CLCaltrans-7
cont.
CLCaltrans8
CLCaltrans
-9
City of Seal Beach
June 23, 2025
Improving lives and communities through transportation.
17.Please submit all applications and associated documents/plans via email to [email protected] until further notice. Caltrans Encroachment Permits will be transitioning to an online web portal base for all applications in Fall 2023. Further details to be announced on the Caltrans Encroachment Permits homepage. Additional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting the Caltrans Permits Office at (657) 328-6246. For specific details on Caltrans Encroachment Permits procedure and any future updates regarding the application process and permit rates, please visit the Caltrans Encroachment Permits homepage at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/trafficoperations/ep. to improve lives and communities through transportation.
Please continue to coordinate with Caltrans for any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Julie Lugaro at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Scott Shelley
Branch Chief,
Local Development Review - Climate Change - Transit Grants Caltrans, District 12
CLCaltrans
-9 cont.
CLCaltrans-10
CLLosAlamit
os-1
CLLosAlami
tos-2
CLLosAlam
itos-2
cont.
CLLosAlam
itos-3
CLLosAlam
itos-4
June 20, 2025
Via Email to [email protected]
Ms. Alexa Smittle
Community Development Director
City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
Dear Ms. Smittle:
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project (Project). I am writing to request that the issue of rising insurance costs due to the increased flooding risk from the Project's additional building be analyzed as part of the EIR.
The Project's addition of buildings, roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces to the landscape will result in more flooding, especially as many areas of Seal Beach are already prone to flooding with rainstorms that have intensified over the last several years. This will result in higher homeowners and flood insurance premiums for all Seal Beach residents, and the cost of insurance may be completely unaffordable to many residents. Many insurance companies already will not provide homeowners insurance coverage in Seal Beach, and the homeowners insurance that can be secured is already very expensive. The lack of insurance availability and affordability results in both decreasing the quality of life for current and future residents and not advancing the provisions of affordable housing in Seal Beach, which are in direct opposition to two of the primary objectives supporting the Project’s purpose, and should be considered under CEQA.
To address this concern, I am requesting that the EIR should:
• Include a realistic economic evaluation of how insurance costs rise with increased flooding.
• Discuss how insurance costs and availability affect housing affordability. • Provide assurances that the proposed flooding mitigation will be effective, effectively implemented, monitored for performance, and modified if the mitigation is found not to be effective.
• Consider having developers pay into a flood monitoring/mitigation/insurance fund.
Thank you for all your work in preparing the Draft EIR. I appreciate your consideration of my concerns.
Sincerely,
CL-Hsu-1
CL-Hsu-2
CL-Hsu-3
Belle Hsu
CLMiller-1
CL-Miller-1
cont.
Ms. Alexa Smittle
Community Development Director
City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
(sent via email attachment to: [email protected]) June 18, 2025
Dear Ms. Smittle,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project (Project”). Despite this Project’s disparate regulatory drivers, project sites, and competing project objectives, the DEIR is highly readable and well-organized. I want to commend you and the Community Development team for this and all your diligent efforts to effectively comply with the unfunded State housing mandates. The following DEIR comments are not meant to delay or increase the cost of compliance efforts. The intent is to help the Project comply – with both CEQA and housing mandates - in a more holistic and consistent manner, with greater balance between opposing Project objectives, and further mitigation to reduce significant environmental impacts.
Comments on Section 1.1.2 Type of Environmental Impact Report Problem: Due to its unique resources and characteristics, it appears that Opportunity Site 8, 99 Marina Drive, cannot be adequately reviewed under this broad programmatic DEIR, and should instead be reviewed under a separate, site-specific EIR.
The DEIR states that the Old Ranch Country Club (Pipeline site), unlike the other sites, shall be reviewed under a separate, site-specific EIR. The DEIR reasons that, unlike the heavily disturbed nature of the “opportunity sites”, the ORCC is a golf course and therefore is more likely to support biological resources warranting site-specific CEQA review. However, the Opportunity Site #8, “99 Marina Drive”, is less disturbed than a golf course and more likely than ORRC or any of the Opportunity Sites to support important biological resources.
Applying the same logic, the DEIR should then also require that 99 Marina Drive be reviewed under a separate, site-specific EIR.
A golf course is a relatively “sterilized” recreational space: persistently irrigated, groomed, and biologically controlled with herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. Those CLPerrell1-1
CLPerrell1-2
activities significantly reduce biological diversity and habitat quality. The ORCC golf course is private; it provides no public recreation. In contrast to the ORCC and the other Opportunity Sites, the baseline for Opportunity Site # 8, “99 Marina Drive”, is a very rare and unique remaining open space in Seal Beach. Its location, near important coastal recreation and eco systems, adds to this resource value.
99 Marina Drive is a large naturalized open space that supports public recreation, trees, shrubs, grasses, birds, reptiles, insects, and mammals, including special status species.
Its large permeable surface area provides needed stormwater drainage, infiltration, flood mitigation, and groundwater recharge, and may also help to prevent saltwater intrusion into groundwater. The DEIR does not adequately describe these environmental resources and services.
The Project will impact the site’s hydrological features, increase existing flooding risks, and diminish housing insurability/affordability - another Project Objective. These impacts have not been adequately assessed or mitigated in the DEIR.
The Project will impact recreational features. The DEIR states that 99 Marina Drive contains an “abandoned hand ball court”. However, the handball court there has never been abandoned and is used regularly by the public for a variety of play and sports. It is also used as an overflow/practice/warmup/waiting area for the already crowded public tennis and pickleball courts adjacent to it. These and other recreational features have not been adequately described in the DEIR. The Project’s impacts to these recreational features have not been adequately assessed or mitigated in the DEIR.
The Project will impact biological resources at this site. The DEIR documents eleven special status plants and animals on site. However, nearby bird counts and species inventories suggest that the DEIR has not fully documented the protected species and habitat that may be present. The DEIR proposes to mitigate biological impacts with MM Bio-3, but this mitigation measure only seasonally protects certain bird nesting activities and does not mitigate loss of habitat. The DEIR does not adequately describe the site’s biological resources, nor does it adequately assess the biological impacts or mitigation.
The DEIR states that developers and owners are ready to move on development at this site.
As written, the DEIR can entitle them to do so, resulting in the significant impacts documented in the DEIR, as well as other potentially significant impacts that are not adequately assessed or mitigated in the DEIR.
With its unique and important resources, 99 Marina Drive does not resemble any of the opportunity sites that the programmatic DEIR lumps it together with. Unlike 99 Marina Drive, the other opportunity sites are heavily disturbed, support few biological, CLPerrell1-2
cont.
hydrological, or recreational resources, and are not close to important coastal resources.
While inclusion in a programmatic EIR does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of future site-specific studies to better inform permitting decisions, a programmatic EIR significantly reduces the likelihood that a proposed development project will be required to conduct a thorough site-specific study under public review and discretionary approval.
The DEIR proposes to rezone this naturalized open space site with a residential high density RHD-33, which seems inconsistent and inappropriate, as the site borders Bridgeport’s residential low density RLD-15 homes. It is even more inconsistent when considering that half or more of Bridgeport homes are limited to a maximum of one story. It is also inconsistent with the #1 Project Objective, to “improve quality of life for current and future residents”. The proposed high-density zoning for this site is inconsistent and will increase the Project’s already significant environmental impacts.
Suggested Solutions: 99 Marina Drive should be treated as the ORRC site has been, with limited inclusion in the Programmatic DEIR, and the commitment that the site will be studied and publicly reviewed under CEQA through a separate, site-specific EIR.
Any future development at 99 Marina Drive should be zoned under RLD-15 to provide zoning consistency with the adjacent neighborhood and to also avoid and mitigate Project impacts.
Comments on Section 2.8 Project Objectives
Problem: Section 2.8 of the DEIR lists the five Project Objectives. The Project’s first objective, “improve quality of life for current and future residents” is conflicted and opposed by the Project’s third 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 Regional Housing Needs Allocation”.
The DEIR itself highlights how these objectives conflict. According to the DEIR, in meeting the 1243-unit Regional Housing Needs Allocation, the Project will create significant and ‘unavoidable’ impacts in impact categories including transportation, recreation, public services, water quality, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. These Project impacts do not protect and improve the quality of life for the City’s households. Instead, these impacts degrade and diminish the quality of life for the City’s households.
CEQA Guidance informs us that when Project Objectives oppose or conflict, we must balance those objectives by:
a. Evaluating project alternatives that meet some or most objectives and result in less impacts.
CLPerrell1-2
cont.
CLPerrell1-3
b. Finding overriding considerations that help to justify unavoidable significant impacts. c. Insuring that we are mitigating any significant impacts to the extent feasible.
By achieving 100% of the #3 Project Objective, “Amend land use standards and designation … to comply with State laws and RHNA”, the Project fails to achieve any significant portion of its number #1 Project Objective, “Protect and improve quality of life for current and future residents”. The Project, as designed and described in the DEIR, does not come close to balancing these stated Objectives.
Suggested Solutions: The Project should provide greater balance between its opposing objectives. It should achieve this by:
1. Reducing residential density in some or all the proposed development sites.
2. Considering additional types of mitigation to help the Project to achieve its first Project Objective.
3. Mitigating significant impacts to the extent feasible, even if the impacts cannot be reduced below the level of significance.
4. Considering mitigation to reduce significant transportation impacts, such as the construction of dedicated bike paths, walk paths, and pedestrian bridges to safely connect pedestrians with nearby commercial centers.
5. Requiring sites with existing recreational, hydrogeological, and biological resources to protect a significant portion of resource acreage (at minimum, 5 acres/1000 residents as provided in City Code and Quimby Act) from development impacts. Doing so would more fully mitigate the so-called “unavoidable” significant impacts than “in lieu fees” will.
6. Requiring the use of permeable pavement materials and other materials and best practices to mitigate impacts to water quality and hydrology.
7. Designing the Project to meet most or at least some part of each Project Objective, with due consideration of Objectives that protect human health and the environment.
8. Describing in the DEIR how the Project will meet Project Objective 1.
Comments on Section 3.4 Recreation
Problem: Section 3.4 of the DEIR states that “the Project would increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable.” CLPerrell1-3
cont.
CLPerrell1-4
The DEIR further states that due to existing excess development, the City will not be able to ever achieve the statewide recreational land use standards or the local Municipal Code standard of five acres per 1,000 people. The Project’s proposed developments will eliminate some or all the potential future recreational use at those sites, resulting in even greater overuse of our existing sub-standard recreational facilities. The DEIR states that the City Code requires future developments to dedicate 5 recreational acres per 1000 residents or a ‘fee-in-lieu of’ recreational spaces, and the specific mitigation would be determined later, on a site-specific basis. In lieu fees would be used for either acquiring land or developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities.
The problem with “fee in lieu of” mitigation is that there is little or no land with recreational value left to be acquired with such fees. Also, since the loss of recreational value at each proposed development site depends on different unassessed and site-specific attributes, it is highly doubtful that a fee schedule based on commercial property value could equilibrate to environmental property value. 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. The maintenance of any existing recreational resources should be sufficiently funded from existing City revenues. A need for “rehabilitation” would seem to indicate degradation resulting from the negligence of such maintenance. Relying on new developments to fill City budgetary holes creates a vicious cycle of development dependency and overdevelopment.
Suggested Solutions: The EIR should ensure that all recreational impacts resulting from this Project will be required to provide mitigation that is real, meaningful, site-specific, localized, and “like for like.” For sites that currently provide recreational value, like 99 Marina Drive, for instance, the site-specific impacts and the site-specific mitigation should be publicly reviewed and decided through a discretionary, not a ministerial process. A loss of public recreational resources due to a development at 99 Marina Drive should be mitigated by providing the same recreational use benefits, in the same or greater amount, to the same recreational users, in the same local area, in the same ecological setting, to the extent feasible. 99 Marina Drive provides naturalized acres, supports appreciation of wildlife and protected flora and fauna, sports, play, family fitness, picnicking, parking, adjacency to a City Park and a City recreation center, close proximity to the River, Beaches and a naturalized wetlands area, and is currently used daily by many people of all ages.
Mitigation should provide the same values, to the extent feasible. An in-lieu fee that could be used to resurface an existing tennis court in another City district cannot mitigate those recreational losses.
CLPerrell1-4
cont.
Comments on Section 3.4 Cultural Resources (for Mainstreet Specific Plan units):
Problem: Allowing second floor housing to be built above existing Main Street single-story buildings may require structural modifications to the buildings. Such building modifications would need to be consistent with Code restrictions, historic preservation guidelines, and reviewed and approved by the City. However, those projects, and the potential impacts to Main Street’s aesthetics and historical building and objects, would not receive the level of public review they would receive under a Project specific EIR. While the DEIR provides Mitigation Measure MM CUL-1, the Development Review Process for Historical Resources, the DEIR does not make adequately clear how impacts to historic character and other historic resources would be adequately avoided or mitigated by MM CUL-1.
Suggested Solutions: It would be helpful to clarify and specifically illustrate how potential aesthetic and historic impacts will be avoided or mitigated by the DEIR’s MM Cul-1. In recent years, many community members feel that Main Street’s historic architectural character has not always been adequately protected by the City’s building permit process.
Considering this concern, the DEIR should make clear how the Project will be protective of aesthetic and historic resources.
Comments on Section 3.9 Water Quality and Hydrology:
Problem: Section 3.9 of the DEIR states that The Project could alter the existing drainage pattern of the sites by substantially increasing the rate or amount of runoff, create or contribute to runoff water, or impede or redirect flood flow. The DEIR identifies the adjacent Bridgeport community as a potential flood area.
Bridgeport has experienced several instances of flooding in recent years. The DEIR states that Project Impact HYD-1 will “substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite; ii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff”. The DEIR states that Mitigation Measure MM HYD-1 will require future development projects to identify site-specific impacts analysis impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure and mitigate them.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1 includes site specific analysis and potential improvements which would reduce impacts to less than significant.
A potential development project at 99 Marina Drive will eliminate a large existing stormwater infiltration basin and add a large additional volume of stormwater runoff to the already overburdened stormwater system.
Suggested Solutions:
CLPerrell1-5
CLPerrell1-6
1. Mitigation Measure MM HYD-1 should also 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”.
2. The DEIR 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.
3. In addition, any new development should be required to accommodate stormwater from a 50 year or 100-year storm, either through on-site avoidance and mitigation measures, or by upgrading the City’s systems to accommodate, or a combination of both.
4. All impacts to water quality and hydrology, along with any proposed mitigation, should be subject to public review, involving the surrounding impacted community.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this DEIR.
Best,
Susan Perrell
CLPerrell1-6
cont.
From: Alexa Smittle
To: Webster, Jennifer
Cc: Shaun Temple; Radonich, Anna
Subject: FW: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project
Date: Friday, June 20, 2025 12:24:26 PM
Alexa Smittle
Community Development Director/
Interim Assistant City Manager
(562) 431-2527 x 1313
From: Susan Perrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 11:08 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexa Smittle <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project
Dear Ms. Smittle,
I would like to add this more specific information regarding the 99 Marina Drive site, to my previously submitted comments on the DEIR. I’m traveling without my laptop; please excuse the informal format of this addendum to my submission. Thank you! Regarding the Project’s flooding risks to 99 Marina Drive: The property lies in between two known low areas ("sumps" on 1st St and Corsair Way) that have experienced severe flooding in the past 10 years. The property’s highly permeable surface currently provides needed stormwater infiltration. This baseline flood prevention feature will be diminished substantially by any development, resulting in significant flood impacts. Therefore, the Project must provide real, specific, effective, and measurable mitigation measures for these impacts. The most feasible and effective mitigation measure would be to do what was done at the recent Ocean Place development at 1st and Marina: the preservation of permeable surface areas and the installation of storm water retention basins to capture up to a 100-year rain event. The
DEIR did not adequately assess or describe the Project’s flooding impacts, and did not propose meaningful mitigation, even when it has proven feasible and successful at the recent nearby development project. These significant Project impacts are not unavoidable and have not been mitigated to the extent feasible. Therefore, the Project EIR cannot be certifiable, even with overriding considerations. 99 Marina should be reviewed under a site specific EIR.
ClPerrell2-1
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Best,
Susan Perrell
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Susan Perrell
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 4:07:21 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Alexa Smittle <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project
Dear Ms. Smittle,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zone Code Updates Project (Project”). Despite this Project’s disparate regulatory drivers, project sites, and competing project objectives, the DEIR is highly readable and well-organized. I want to commend you and the Community Development team for this and all your diligent efforts to effectively comply with the unfunded State housing mandates. The attached DEIR comments are not meant to delay or increase the cost of compliance efforts. The intent is to help the Project comply – with both CEQA and housing mandates - in a more holistic and consistent manner, with greater balance between opposing Project objectives, and further mitigation to reduce significant environmental impacts.
Best,
Susan Perrell
Caution: This email originated from outside of Stantec. Please take extra precaution.
Attention: Ce courriel provient de l'extérieur de Stantec. Veuillez prendre des précautions supplémentaires.
Atención: Este correo electrónico proviene de fuera de Stantec. Por favor, tome precauciones adicionales.
CLSustarsic-1
CLSustarsic-2
CLSustarsic-3
CLSustarsic-3
cont.
CLSustarsic4
CLSustarsic-5
CLSustarsic-5
cont.
CL-Sustarsic-6
CLLasser-1
CLLasser-2
City of Seal Beach Housing
Element and Zone Code Updates
Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
May 9, 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, California 94597
~ Stantec
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
i
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...........................................................................IX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................ES-1 ES.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES.............................................................. ES-1 ES.1.1 EIR Organization.......................................................................... ES-2 ES.1.2 Type and Purpose of this EIR ...................................................... ES-3 ES.2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT........................................................ ES-3 ES.2.1 Project Location ........................................................................... ES-3 ES.2.2 Project Summary.......................................................................... ES-4 ES.2.3 Project Objectives ........................................................................ ES-5 ES.2.4 List of Permits and Other Approvals............................................. ES-5 ES.2.5 List of Agencies............................................................................ ES-6 ES.3 COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION..................................... ES-6 ES.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ......................................................................... ES-6 ES.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................... ES-7 ES.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES........................... ES-7 ES.7 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR..................................................................... ES-37
1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ................................................. 1-1
1.1.1 Purpose of Environmental Impact Report........................................ 1-1
1.1.2 Type of Environmental Impact Report ............................................. 1-2
1.2 SCOPE OF DRAFT EIR ................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.1 Environmental Issues Determined Not to be Significant ................ 1-13
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT EIR........................................................... 1-16
1.4 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR........................................................................ 1-17
1.4.1 Effectively Commenting on an EIR................................................ 1-18
1.4.2 Final EIR ....................................................................................... 1-18
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND HISTORY..................................................... 2-3
2.3 PROJECT SETTING ........................................................................................ 2-6
2.3.1 Population....................................................................................... 2-6
2.3.2 Housing........................................................................................... 2-7
2.3.3 General Plan................................................................................... 2-7
2.3.4 Land Use Categories ...................................................................... 2-7
2.3.5 Zoning Code ................................................................................... 2-8
2.4 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................... 2-10
2.5 HOUSING ELEMENT PROJECT COMPONENTS ......................................... 2-12
2.5.1 Housing Element Update .............................................................. 2-12
2.5.2 Rezoning and Creating of New Zoning Designation ...................... 2-15 IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ii
2.5.3 Main Street Program ..................................................................... 2-15
2.6 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT............................................. 2-16
2.6.1 Existing Site Conditions................................................................. 2-16
2.6.2 Housing Opportunity Sites Categories........................................... 2-17
2.6.3 Housing Opportunity Site Description............................................ 2-22
2.6.4 Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential...... 2-34
2.6.5 Other Sites.................................................................................... 2-37
2.7 PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS AND PROJECTIONS ......................................... 2-39
2.7.1 Maximum Buildout Scenario.......................................................... 2-39
2.7.2 Buildout Projections for Future Site Development ......................... 2-40
2.8 PROJECT OBJECTIVES................................................................................ 2-41
2.9 INTENDED USE OF THE PROGRAM EIR..................................................... 2-42
2.9.1 List of Permits and Other Approvals.............................................. 2-42
2.9.2 List of Agencies............................................................................. 2-42
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS..........................................................................3.0-1
3.1 AESTHETICS................................................................................................3.1-1
3.1.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................3.1-1
3.1.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................3.1-1
3.1.3 Environmental Impacts................................................................. 3.1-3
3.1.4 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................3.1-7
3.1.5 References...................................................................................3.1-8
3.2 AIR QUALITY................................................................................................3.2-1
3.2.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................3.2-1
3.2.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................3.2-9
3.2.3 Environmental Impacts...............................................................3.2-14
3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................3.2-28
3.2.5 References.................................................................................3.2-31
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .........................................................................3.3-1
3.3.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................3.3-2
3.3.2 Regulatory Setting......................................................................3.3-30
3.3.3 Environmental Impacts...............................................................3.3-43
3.3.4 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................3.3-53
3.3.5 References.................................................................................3.3-57
3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................3.4-1
3.4.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................3.4-1
3.4.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................3.4-4
3.4.3 Environmental Impacts................................................................. 3.4-9
3.4.4 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................3.4-15
3.4.5 References.................................................................................3.4-16
3.5 ENERGY.......................................................................................................3.5-1
3.5.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................3.5-1
3.5.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................3.5-1
3.5.3 Environmental Impacts................................................................. 3.5-6
3.5.4 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................3.5-11
3.5.5 References.................................................................................3.5-15 IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
iii
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................3.6-1
3.6.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................3.6-1
3.6.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................3.6-2
3.6.3 Environmental Impacts................................................................. 3.6-4
3.6.4 Cumulative Impacts......................................................................3.6-7
3.6.5 References...................................................................................3.6-8
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS................................................................3.7-1
3.7.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................3.7-1
3.7.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................3.7-5
3.7.3 Environmental Impacts...............................................................3.7-10
3.7.4 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................3.7-19
3.7.5 References.................................................................................3.7-22
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.................................................3.8-1
3.8.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................3.8-1
3.8.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................3.8-2
3.8.3 Environmental Impacts................................................................. 3.8-8
3.8.4 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................3.8-12
3.8.5 References.................................................................................3.8-13
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .........................................................3.9-1
3.9.1 Environmental Setting ..................................................................3.9-1
3.9.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................3.9-4
3.9.3 Environmental Impacts................................................................. 3.9-7
3.9.4 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................3.9-18
3.9.5 References.................................................................................3.9-21
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING.......................................................................3.10-1
3.10.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................3.10-1
3.10.2 Regulatory Setting......................................................................3.10-4
3.10.3 Environmental Impacts...............................................................3.10-7
3.10.4 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................. 3.10-13
3.10.5 References...............................................................................3.10-16
3.11 NOISE.........................................................................................................3.11-1
3.11.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................3.11-1
3.11.2 Regulatory Setting......................................................................3.11-8
3.11.3 Environmental Impacts............................................................. 3.11-17
3.11.4 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................. 3.11-26
3.11.5 References...............................................................................3.11-28
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................3.12-1
3.12.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................3.12-1
3.12.2 Regulatory Setting......................................................................3.12-4
3.12.3 Environmental Impacts............................................................. 3.12-10
3.12.4 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................. 3.12-13
3.12.5 References...............................................................................3.12-17
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................3.13-1
3.13.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................3.13-1
3.13.2 Regulatory Setting......................................................................3.13-3
3.13.3 Environmental Impacts...............................................................3.13-7
3.13.4 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................. 3.13-12 IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
iv
3.13.5 References...............................................................................3.13-16
3.14 RECREATION.............................................................................................3.14-1
3.14.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................3.14-1
3.14.2 Regulatory Setting......................................................................3.14-2
3.14.3 Environmental Impacts...............................................................3.14-3
3.14.4 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................3.14-6
3.14.5 References...............................................................................3.14-10
3.15 TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................3.15-1
3.15.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................3.15-1
3.15.2 Regulatory Setting......................................................................3.15-4
3.15.3 Environmental Impacts............................................................. 3.15-11
3.15.4 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................. 3.15-17
3.15.5 References...............................................................................3.15-20
3.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.............................................................3.16-1
3.16.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................3.16-1
3.16.2 Regulatory Setting......................................................................3.16-3
3.16.3 Environmental Impacts...............................................................3.16-5
3.16.4 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................3.16-8
3.16.5 References.................................................................................3.16-9
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.........................................................3.17-1
3.17.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................3.17-1
3.17.2 Regulatory Setting......................................................................3.17-5
3.17.3 Environmental Impacts...............................................................3.17-7
3.17.4 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................. 3.17-20
3.17.5 References...............................................................................3.17-22
4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT............................................... 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES ............ 4-1
4.2.1 No Project Alternative ..................................................................... 4-2
4.2.2 Consistency with Project Objectives................................................ 4-2
4.2.3 Feasibility........................................................................................ 4-2
4.3 METHODOLOGY AND SCREENING CRITERIA ............................................. 4-3
4.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED FROM FURTHER
CONSIDERATION............................................................................................ 4-4
4.4.1 Reduce Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and VMT Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-4
4.4.2 Dedication of Land for Parkland ...................................................... 4-5
4.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED...................................................................... 4-5
4.5.1 No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative ............................................ 4-5
4.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE........................................ 4-12
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 5-1
5.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS...................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Remove Obstacles to Growth.......................................................... 5-2
5.1.2 Expansion of Public Services .......................................................... 5-3 IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
v
5.1.3 Encourage or Facilitate Economic Effects ....................................... 5-3
5.1.4 Encourage or Facilitate Environmental Effects of Growth................ 5-3
5.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ............................................... 5-4
5.2.1 Air Quality ....................................................................................... 5-4
5.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................ 5-4
5.2.3 Public Services ............................................................................... 5-4
5.2.4 Recreation....................................................................................... 5-5
5.2.5 Transportation................................................................................. 5-5
5.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ...................... 5-5
6.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ..................................................... 6-1
6.1 AESTHETICS................................................................................................... 6-2
6.1.1 Scenic Vistas .................................................................................. 6-2
6.1.2 Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway........................... 6-2
6.1.3 Light and Glare ............................................................................... 6-2
6.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES............................................ 6-2
6.2.1 Prime Farmland............................................................................... 6-2
6.2.2 Agricultural Zoning .......................................................................... 6-3
6.2.3 Forest Land and Timberland Zoning................................................ 6-3
6.2.4 Loss or Conversion of Forest Land.................................................. 6-3
6.2.5 Change to Existing Environment ..................................................... 6-3
6.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ 6-3
6.3.1 Local Policies or Ordinances........................................................... 6-3
6.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................... 6-4
6.4.1 Burial Sites...................................................................................... 6-4
6.5 ENERGY.......................................................................................................... 6-4
6.5.1 Energy Plan .................................................................................... 6-4
6.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................... 6-5
6.6.1 Seismic Hazard............................................................................... 6-5
6.6.2 Erosion............................................................................................ 6-6
6.6.3 Unstable Geologic Unit or Soil......................................................... 6-6
6.6.4 Expansive Soil ................................................................................ 6-6
6.6.5 Septic Tanks ................................................................................... 6-7
6.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.................................................... 6-7
6.7.1 Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials .......... 6-7
6.7.2 Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials .................................... 6-7
6.7.3 Emission of Hazardous Materials Near a School............................. 6-7
6.7.4 Hazardous Materials Sites .............................................................. 6-8
6.7.5 Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan ...................................... 6-9
6.7.6 Wildland Fires ................................................................................. 6-9
6.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ............................................................ 6-9
6.8.1 Water Quality Standards ................................................................. 6-9
6.8.2 Erosion or Siltation........................................................................ 6-10
6.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING.......................................................................... 6-11
6.9.1 Established Community................................................................. 6-11
6.10 MINERAL RESOURCES................................................................................ 6-11 IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
vi
6.10.1 Loss of Resource .......................................................................... 6-11
6.10.2 Resource Recovery Site................................................................ 6-12
6.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................... 6-12
6.11.1 Displace Existing People or Housing............................................. 6-12
6.12 PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................... 6-13
6.12.1 Schools ......................................................................................... 6-13
6.12.2 Other Facilities .............................................................................. 6-13
6.13 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION .............................................................. 6-13
6.13.1 Geometric Design Features or Incompatible Uses ........................ 6-13
6.13.2 Emergency Access ....................................................................... 6-14
6.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS............................................................ 6-14
6.14.1 Solid Waste................................................................................... 6-14
6.14.2 Solid Waste Statutes and Regulations .......................................... 6-15
6.15 WILDFIRE...................................................................................................... 6-15
6.15.1 Emergency Response................................................................... 6-15
6.15.2 Exacerbate Wildfire Risk ............................................................... 6-15
6.15.3 Associated Infrastructure............................................................... 6-15
6.15.4 Expose People or Structures......................................................... 6-16
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 7-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1: Summary of Impact for Each Resource ................................................. ES-8 Table ES-2: Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................... ES-9 Table 1.2-1: NOP Comment Summary......................................................................... 1-3 Table 1.2-2: Issues Determined Not to be Significant................................................. 1-14 Table 2.1-1: Housing Element Update Buildout Assumption ........................................ 2-3 Table 2.3-1: City of Seal Beach Land Use Designations .............................................. 2-8 Table 2.3-2: City of Seal Beach Zoning Code .............................................................. 2-9 Table 2.6-1: Current Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations ..................... 2-16 Table 2.6-2: Housing Opportunity Sites Numbering ................................................... 2-18 Table 2.6-3: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required).......................... 2-19 Table 2.6-4: Proposed Rezone Sites.......................................................................... 2-20 Table 2.6-5: Housing Element Update Residential Development Potential Assumption ................................................................................................................. 2-36 Table 2.7-1: Buildout Conditions Utilized in CEQA Analysis....................................... 2-39 Table 3.0-1: Environmental Resource Abbreviations.................................................3.0-5 Table 3.0-2: Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact and Method Evaluation ......... 3.0-7 Table 3.0-3: Cumulative Past, Present, and Probable Future Residential projects in the City and Surrounding Area.......................................................................3.0-9 Table 3.1-1: Cumulative Projects Related to Aesthetics ............................................3.1-7 Table 3.2-1: California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards..........................3.2-3 Table 3.2-2: Attainment Status of the South Coast Air Basin.....................................3.2-5 Table 3.2-3: Anaheim Monitoring Station Data (2021-2023)......................................3.2-6 Table 3.2-4: SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Threshold ...................................... 3.2-15 Table 3.2-5: Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 – Criteria Pollutant Emissions ..............................................................................................................3.2-20 IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
vii
Table 3.2-6: Project Operations – Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) ......... 3.2-21 Table 3.2-7: Project Operations – Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated).............. 3.2-22 Table 3.2-8: Cumulative Project Related to Air Quality............................................ 3.2-28 Table 3.3-1: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential Occurrence......... 3.3-8 Table 3.3-2: Special-Status Plant Species and Potential for Occurrence on Each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program............................... 3.3-13 Table 3.3-3: Special-Status Animal Species Evaluated for Potential Occurrence.... 3.3-17 Table 3.3-4: Special-Status Animal Species and Potential for Occurrence on Each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program............................... 3.3-24 Table 3.3-5: Cumulative Projects Related to Biological Resources ......................... 3.3-54 Table 3.4-1: Previously Recorded BERD Resources .............................................. 3.4-11 Table 3.5-1: Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 – On-Road Vehicle Fuel Consumption ...........................................................................................3.5-8 Table 3.5-2: Project Operations – On-Road Vehicle Fuel Consumption .................. 3.5-10 Table 3.5-3: Cumulative Projects Related to Energy ............................................... 3.5-12 Table 3.7-1: Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions ................................. 3.7-12 Table 3.7-2: Project Operations – Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Unmitigated)......... 3.7-12 Table 3.7-3: Project Operations – Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mitigated)............. 3.7-13 Table 3.7-4: Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies ..............................................................................................3.7-17 Table 3.7-5: Project Consistency with Connect SoCal 2024 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies ..............................................................................................3.7-18 Table 3.7-6: Cumulative Projects Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............. 3.7-19 Table 3.9-1: Cumulative Projects Related to Hydrology and Water Quality ............. 3.9-19 Table 3.10-1: City of Seal Beach Land Use Type Acreage 2003............................. 3.10-1 Table 3.10-2: Summary of City of Seal Beach Zoning Code.................................... 3.10-2 Table 3.10-3: City of Seal Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis................... 3.10-10 Table 3.10-4: Connect SoCal Consistency Analysis.............................................. 3.10-11 Table 3.10-5: Cumulative Projects Related to Land Use and Planning.................. 3.10-14 Table 3.11-1: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels.....................................................3.11-2 Table 3.11-2: Definition of Sound Measurements....................................................3.11-2 Table 3.11-3: Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria .............................. 3.11-5 Table 3.11-4: Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Criteria................................... 3.11-5 Table 3.11-5: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment......................... 3.11-6 Table 3.11-6: Reference Construction Equipment Noise Levels............................ 3.11-18 Table 3.11-7: Cumulative Projects Related to Noise ............................................. 3.11-27 Table 3.12-1: Seal Beach Historic Population Growth............................................. 3.12-1 Table 3.12-2: Seal Beach Historic Dwelling Units Growth ....................................... 3.12-2 Table 3.12-3: Housing Needs Allocation ................................................................. 3.12-3 Table 3.12-4: Maximum Unit Buildout ................................................................... 3.12-12 Table 3.12-5: Realistic Unit Buildout Growth......................................................... 3.12-12 Table 3.12-6: Cumulative Projects Related to Population and Housing................. 3.12-13 Table 3.13-1: Cumulative Projects Related to Public Services .............................. 3.13-12 Table 3.14-1: Cumulative Projects Related to Recreation ....................................... 3.14-7 Table 3.15-1: Project Screening Criteria and Threshold........................................ 3.15-11 Table 3.15-2: VMT Threshold of Significance........................................................ 3.15-13 Table 3.15-3: VMT Analysis ..................................................................................3.15-15 IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
viii
Table 3.15-4: Cumulative Projects Related to Transportation................................ 3.15-17 Table 3.17-1: City’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison ............................................................................................................3.17-15 Table 3.17-2: GSWC’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison .........................................................................................3.17-15 Table 3.17-3: City’s Most Severe Demands of Multiple Dry Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison ........................................................ 3.17-16 Table 3.17-4: GSWC’s Most Severe Demands of Multiple Dry Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison ........................................................ 3.17-16 Table 3.17-5: Summary of Groundwater and Imported Water Sources for Project Retail Water Suppliers based on BPP of 85 Percent during dry years ........... 3.17-17 Table 3.17-6: Cumulative Projects Related to Utility and Service Systems............ 3.17-21 Table 4.5-1: No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative Buildout Assumption .................... 4-6 Table 4.6-1: Project Alternative Impact Comparison .................................................. 4-13 Table 4.6-2: Project Alternatives Comparison to Project Objectives........................... 4-13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Regional Location .................................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2-2: Housing Opportunity Sites ....................................................................... 2-13 Figure 2-3: Housing Opportunity Site - 1780 Pacific Coast......................................... 2-24 Figure 2-4: Housing Opportunity Site - Leisure World ................................................ 2-25 Figure 2-5: Housing Opportunity Site - 1101 Seal Beach Blvd/Accurate Storage ....... 2-28 Figure 2-6: Housing Opportunity Site - Shops at Rossmoor....................................... 2-29 Figure 2-7: Housing Opportunity Site - Old Ranch Town Center ................................ 2-30 Figure 2-8: Housing Opportunity Site - Seal Beach Plaza .......................................... 2-32 Figure 2-9: Housing Opportunity Site - Seal Beach Center ........................................ 2-33 Figure 2-10: Housing Opportunity Site - 99 Marina Drive ........................................... 2-35 Figure 2-11: Main Street Program.............................................................................. 2-38 Figure 3-1: Cumulative Project Location..................................................................3.0-12
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Notice of Preparation/Initial Study and Written Comments Appendix B CalEEMod and Energy Calculations
Appendix C Biological Resources Technical Report
Appendix D Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix E Paleontological Resources Technical Report
Appendix F VMT Tables
Appendix G Water Supply Assessment
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
ix
Acronyms and Abbreviation
AB Assembly Bill
ACBM Asbestos-containing building materials
ADU Accessory dwelling unit
AELUP Airport Environs Land Use Plan
AFY acre feet per year
AICUZ Air Installations Compatible Use Zone
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BEA Basin Equity Assessment
BERD California Built Environment Resource Directory
BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
BPP Basin Production Percentage
BRTR Biological Resources Technical Report
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAL EMA California Emergency Management Agency
Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalOSHA Californias Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCC California Coastal Commission
CCMP California Coastal Management Program
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CF4 perfluoromethane
CH4 methane
CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Seal Beach
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
x
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNNDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
County Orange County
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agencies
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
C2F6 perfluoroethane
C3F8 perfluoropropane
C4F8 perfluorocyclobutane
C4F10 perfluorobutane
C5F12 perfluoropentane
C6F14 perfluorohexane
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dB decibel
dB(A) A-weighted decibel
DCH Designated Critical Habitat
DPM Diesel particulate matter
DOF Department of Finance
DRRP Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EDD Employment Development Department
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act
EO Executive Order
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPSA Energy and Policy Conservation Act of 1975
EQCB Environmental Quality Control Board
ESA environmental site assessment
EV Electric vehicle
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulation
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
xi
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FGS California Fish and Game Code
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FR Federal Register
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GC General Commercial
California GC California Government Code
GHG Greenhouse gas
GMP Growth Management Plan
GPCD gallons per capita per day
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GSWC Golden State Water Company
GWh gigawatt
GWP global warming potential
GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System
g/L grams per liter
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HOT high occupancy toll
hp horsepower
HRA Health risk assessment
HRER Historical Resource Evaluation Report
HSC California Health and Safety Code
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
HVAC Heating, ventilation, air conditioning
Hz Hertz
H2S Hydrogen sulfide
IRA Inflation Reduction Act
I-405 Interstate 405
I/L Ratio Improvement-to-land value ratio
JFTB Joint Forces Training Base
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LCP Local Coastal Program
LC/RMD Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
xii
Ldn Day-night sound level
Leq Equivalent sound level
LEV Low-Emission Vehicle
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Lmax Maximum sound level
Lmin Minimum sound level
LOS Level of service
LRSP Local Roadway Safety Plan
LSAA Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
LUST Leaking underground storage tank
Lxx Percentile-exceeded sound level
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MC/RHD Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density
MET Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MG million gallons
MGD million gallons per day
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTCO2e/year metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOA naturally occurring asbestos
NOC Notice of Completion
NOP Notice of Preparation
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPAA Native Plant Protection Act
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NWPR Navigable Waters Protection Rule
N2O nitrous oxide
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
xiii
OC San Orange County Sanitation District
OCFA Orange County Fire Authority
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OCTAM Orange County Transportation Analysis Model
OCWD Orange County Water District
OE Oil Extraction
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OHP California Office of Historic Preservation
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration
O3 ozone
Pb lead
PC California Penal Code
PD Planned Development
PDA Priority Development Areas
PERP Portable Equipment Registration Program
PFC perfluorocarbon
PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter ppm parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PPV Peak particle velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project PTO Permit to Operate
RA Replenishment Assessment
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFS renewable fuel standards
RHD Residential High Density
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SAP Safety Action Plan
SBPD Seal Beach Police Department
SC Service Commercial
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
xiv
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCC Species of Special Concern
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLF Sacred Lands File
SLR Sea level rise
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SOV Single occupant vehicles
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SPL Sound pressure level
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
STC Sound transmission class
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Wate Resources Control Board
TAC Toxic air contaminants
TAZ Traffic analysis zone
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIA Transportation Impact Analysis
TNW traditional navigable waters
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USC U.S. Code
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle miles traveled
VOC Volatile organic compounds
WOCWB West Orange County Water Board
WOTUS Waters of the United States
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
ZEV Zero emission vehicles
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
ºF Fahrenheit
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section presents an overview of the proposed City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This executive summary also provides conclusions of the analyses contained in Sections 3.1 through 3.17 of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a summary of the alternatives to the Project, and issues to be resolved. For a complete description of the Project, refer to Section 2.0, Project Description. For a discussion of alternatives to the Project, see Section 4.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
This Draft EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with adoption and implementation of the Project. An EIR is a public document designed to provide the public, local, and state governmental agency decision-makers with an analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision-making. CEQA requires that local government agencies, prior to taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority, consider the environmental consequences of such projects.
This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC], Division 13, Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR], Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.) to determine if the Project could have a significant impact on the environment. Information for this Draft EIR was obtained through analysis of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports, data, and similar literature in the public domain; and specialized environmental assessments (e.g., air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation). The City of Seal Beach (City) as the Lead Agency has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted draft plans, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own independent judgement including relying on applicable City of Seal Beach technical personnel and consultants and review of all technical reports.
ES.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
This Draft EIR has been prepared to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Project. The six main objectives of this document as established by CEQA are:
To disclose to decision-makers and the public the significant environmental effects of the proposed activities.
To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental impacts.
To prevent environmental impacts through implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.
To disclose significant environmental effects,
To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects. •
•
•
•
•
m
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
ES-2
To enhance public participation in the planning process.
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in the CEQA statue and in the CEQA Guidelines. It provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full-disclosure analysis of any environmental consequences associated with a proposed project which may have the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgement of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the proposed project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives, and if needed, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided.
ES.1.1 EIR Organization
This Draft EIR is arranged into the following sections, which contain the contents of an EIR as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15120 through 15132.
Section ES: Executive Summary. The Executive Summary provides a summary of the Project and the project alternatives, including a summary of project impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of significance after mitigation for each environmental issue.
Section 1.0: Introduction. The Introduction provides an overview of the Project and the CEQA process and describes the purpose, scope, and components of this Draft EIR.
Section 2.0: Project Description. The Project Description provides a detailed description of the Project, including the location and project characteristics. The intended uses of this Draft EIR, project background, project objectives, and required discretionary approvals are also addressed.
Section 3.0: Environmental Analysis. The Environmental Analysis analyzes the environmental effects of the Project. Impacts are organized into major environmental topic areas. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, regulatory setting, methods, thresholds of significance, Housing Element Update policies, impact analysis, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation.
The specific environmental topic areas that are addressed in Section 3.0 include the following:
Section 3.1: Aesthetics
Section 3.2: Air Quality
Section 3.3: Biological Resources
Section 3.4: Cultural Resources
Section 3.5: Energy
Section 3.6: Geology and Soils
Section 3.7: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Section 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Section 3.9: Hydrology and Water
Quality
Section 3.10: Land Use and Planning
Section 3.11: Noise
Section 3.12: Population and Housing
Section 3.13: Public Services
Section 3.14: Recreation
•
• •
•
• •
•
• •
• •
• •
•
•
m
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
ES-3
Section 3.15: Transportation
Section 3.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
Section 3.17: Utilities and Service
Systems
Section 4.0: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Describes and compares the proposed alternatives to the Project.
Section 5.0: Other CEQA Considerations. The Other CEQA Considerations section provides a summary of significant environmental effects, including unavoidable, irreversible, and growth-inducing impacts.
Section 6.0: Effects Found Not to Be Significant. This section provides a summary of project impacts that have been determined, through preparation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), to result in a less than significant impact or no impact.
Section 7.0: List of Preparers. The List of Preparers section provides a list of the various individuals who contributed to the preparation of this Draft EIR.
Appendices. The appendices contain the NOP (including comments) and technical studies prepared to support the analyses and conclusions in this Draft EIR.
ES.1.2 Type and Purpose of this EIR
According to Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EIR is to:
Inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA with the City of Seal Beach as the Lead Agency.
This EIR assesses the potential environmental consequences of implementing the Project and identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the Project that would avoid or reduce significant impacts. This EIR is intended to inform decision-makers, other responsible agencies, and the general public as to the nature of the Project’s potential environmental impacts.
ES.2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT
ES.2.1 Project Location
The City is located at the northwestern edge of Orange County (County), California. It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The City has a land area of approximately 13 square miles, roughly 8 square miles of which is dedicated to the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (Figure 2-1).
•
•
m
•
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
ES-4
ES.2.2 Project Summary
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 (Figure 2-2). 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 Pipeline Project as a pipeline project towards meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. The Old Ranch Country Club 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 Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project (herein referred to as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project) are programmatically evaluated within this 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 Old Ranch Country Club 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 project description is provided in Section 2.0, Project Description of this Draft EIR. m
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
ES-5
ES.2.3 Project Objectives
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15124, the following primary objectives support the Project’s purpose, assist the Lead Agency in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to be evaluated in this EIR, and ultimately aid decision-makers in preparing findings and overriding considerations, if necessary.
Protect and improve quality of life for current and future residents.
Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs.
Amend land use standards and designations in the City’s Zoning Code, Specific Plans, General Plan as needed to comply with state law and meet the required Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
Remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development.
Affirmatively further fair housing.
ES.2.4 Lists of Permits and Other Approvals
The Project evaluated in this EIR is comprised of implementation of the Housing Element Update and establishment of eight Housing Opportunity Sites, Main Street Program and a new zoning designation, as well as rezoning of parcels, resulting in increased densification and intensification of residential uses. The Project does not propose any site development on the Housing Opportunity Sites. Future developments would occur on the Housing Opportunity Sites as market conditions allow at the discretion of the individual property owners. The anticipated permits, approvals and consultation required for the Project include:
Certification of CEQA document
Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Change of Zone
Seal Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Code Amendment
In addition to the amendments included as part of the Project, approval of various General Plan and Seal Beach Municipal Code Title 11 amendments may be required for the Housing Opportunity Sites ultimately included in the Housing Element, and ancillary amendments to other planning documents, as necessary for clarification and consistency purposes.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
m
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
ES-6
ES.2.5 List of Agencies
It is anticipated that approval of the Housing Element Update from the following agencies will be required:
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission, City of Seal Beach City Council, and California Department of Housing and Community Development. Likewise, the City of Seal Beach City Council would certify and adopt this Housing Element Update EIR.
ES.3 COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA for the initiation of environmental review, on November 16, 2023, the City sent a NOP to the State Clearinghouse [SCH No. 2023110425], responsible and trustee government agencies, organizations, and individuals potentially interested in the project. The NOP requested that agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of the project describe that authority and identify relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Interested members of the public were also invited to comment. The NOP also included the Initial Study which was prepared to identify any resources that was determined to not have any potentially significant impacts. The analysis provided in the Initial Study included 13 Housing Opportunity Sites and did not include the Main Street Program. However, as outlined in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Initial Study was reduced to the eight Housing Opportunity Sites analyzed in this Draft EIR and the Main Street Program was added as a component of the Project. The modifications to the components of the Project analyzed in the Draft EIR and Initial Study was a result of comment received from California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the City’s Housing Element Update.
The comment period for the NOP and Initial Study was set for November 16, 2023, through December 15, 2023. The NOP/Initial Study and the comments received on the NOP are included in Appendix A of this EIR.
ES.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123(b)(3) of CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the Project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to:
1. Whether this Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project.
2. Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance.
3. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area.
4. Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified.
5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides the Mitigation Measures identified in the Draft EIR.
m
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
ES-7
6. Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project and achieve most of the basic project objectives.
ES.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The Project alternatives and their potential impacts are discussed in Section 4.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of this Draft EIR. As authorized under CEQA, the alternatives are discussed in less detail than the Project.
No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative
The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative assumes that certification of the Housing Element Update would not occur and the establishment of a new zoning designation and rezoning of specific parcels proposed as part of the Project would not occur. The six rezone sites identified for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites would not be rezoned to the new MC/RHD zoning district and would continue to be zoned its existing zoning designations. Additionally, the Main Street Program which proposes to amend the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential uses on the second story of structures within the Main Street Specific Plan area would not occur. Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the buildout assumptions for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program would be 218 residential units based on the existing zoning designations. Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the Housing Element and Zone Code Updates would not be implemented by the City, land use densities and zoning would remain unchanged, and development would be consistent with the existing zoning designation.
The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would result in less impacts related to air quality, GHG, noise, population and housing, and utilities and service systems compared to the Project. However, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would result in similar impacts as the Project to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, public services, recreation, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. Finally, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would result in greater impacts to land use and planning compared to the Project. The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts to public services, recreation, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and would not help the City meet its RHNA requirements as it would not plan for enough residential units. Additionally, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet most of the Project objectives.
ES.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table ES-1, Summary of Impact for Each Resource, provides a summary of the level of significance determined for each resource topics analyzed in the Initial Study and Draft EIR. Table ES-2, Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, summarizes the potential environmental effects of the Project, the recommended mitigation measures, if applicable, and the level of significance after mitigation as outlined in the Initial Study and this Draft EIR for each impact question required to be analyzed per CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. All eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program are anticipated to have the same level of impact as identified in Table ES-2 and mitigation measures m
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
ES-8
identified in Table ES-2 would apply to all future developments on the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR and therefore impact findings associated with the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are not made in this EIR and are not included in the tables below. Per CEQA Section 15093, should the Project be approved as proposed, any impact noted in the summary as “significant” after mitigation would require the adoption of a statement of overriding considerations. As shown in Table ES-2, development of the Project could result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, a statement of overriding considerations would be required.
Additionally, CEQA requires public agencies to establish a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the purpose of ensuring compliance with those mitigation measures identified in an EIR and/or adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts identified in an EIR. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program, incorporating the mitigation measures set forth in this document, will be adopted at the time of certification of the Final EIR.
Table ES-1: Summary of Impact for Each Resource
Resource Level of Significance
Aesthetics Less Than Significant Impact
Agricultural and Forestry Resources No Impact
Air Quality Significant and Unavoidable Impact
Biological Resources Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Cultural Resources Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Energy Less Than Significant Impact
Geology and Soils Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significant and Unavoidable Impact Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less Than Significant Impact Hydrology and Water Quality Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Land Use and Planning Less Than Significant Impact
Mineral Resources No Impact
Noise Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Population and Housing Less Than Significant Impact
Public Services Significant and Unavoidable Impact
Recreation Significant and Unavoidable Impact
Transportation Significant and Unavoidable Impact
Tribal Cultural Resources Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Wildfire No Impact
I I 7
-
~ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
>---
~ -
-
~
r--
-
- -
~ -
L -
m
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-9 Table ES-2: Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Initial Study Section 3.1 Aesthetics (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact AES-a: The Project would not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact AES-b: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact AES-d: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact AG-a: The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact AG-b: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact AG-c: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or No Impact None required. No Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-10 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)). Impact AG-d: The Project would not result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact AG-e: The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use, or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No Impact None required. No Impact Initial Study Section 3.4 Biological Resources (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact BIO-e: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as trees preservation policy or ordinance. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.5 Cultural Resources (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact CUL-c: The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.6 Energy Resources (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact EN-b: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.7 Geology and Soils (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact GEO-a: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-11 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation substantial adverse effects, including the risk or loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault ii. Strong seismic ground shaking. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact iv. Landslides. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact GEO-b: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact GEO-c: The Project would not be located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact GEO-d: The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-12 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact GEO-e: The Project would have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. No Impact None required. No Impact Initial Study Section 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact HAZ-a: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact HAZ-b: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact HAZ-c: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact HAZ-d: The Project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact HAZ-f: The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-13 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impact HAZ-g: The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact HYD-a: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact HYD-c: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would i. Result in substantial soil erosion on or offsite Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.11 Land Use and Planning (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact LU-a: The Project would not physically divide an established community. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.12 Mineral Resources (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact MIN-a: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact MIN-b: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally No Impact None required. No Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-14 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Initial Study Section 3.14 Population and Housing (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact POP-b: The Project would not displace substantial number of existing people or housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.15 Public Services (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact PUB-a: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: iii. Schools v. Other Public Facilities Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.17 Transportation (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact TRANS-c: The Project would not substantially increase hazards to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact TRANS-d: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-15 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Initial Study Section 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact UTIL-d: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact UTIL-e: The Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Initial Study Section 3.20 Wildfire (Discussed in Draft EIR Section 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant) Impact WF-a: The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact WF-b: The Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact WF-c: The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact WF-d: The Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream No Impact None required. No Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-16 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Draft EIR Section 3.1 Aesthetics Impact AES-1: In an urbanized area, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Draft EIR Section 3.2 Air Quality Impact AQ-1: The Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Potentially Significant Impact MM AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project construction-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance. If construction-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include: Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 emission limits for engines above 50 horsepower. Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super-compliant volatile organic compounds (VOC) content (0 grams/Liter [g/L] to 10 g/L). If VOC emissions still exceed thresholds, then the applicant may elect to prohibit architectural coating activities during summer months (June, July, and August) when ozone formation peaks. Regardless of the results of the emissions modeling, the following best practices shall be implemented throughout the duration of all construction activity: Significant and Unavoidable • Impact • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-17 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation All off-road equipment operating at the construction site must be maintained in proper working condition according to manufacturers’ specifications. Idling shall be limited to 5 minutes or less in accordance with the Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleet Regulation as required by California Air Resources Board (CARB). Clear Signage regarding idling restrictions shall be placed at the entrances to the construction site. Portable equipment over 50 horsepower must have either a valid SCAQMD Permit to Operate (PTO) or a valid statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) placard and sticker issued by CARB. Water all active construction areas at least three times daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). Pave, apply water three times daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. MM AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project operational-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance. If operational-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-18 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Acceptable options for reducing operational emissions may include, but are not limited to, the following: Prohibition of natural gas hearths. Installation of solar water heaters or tankless water heaters. Exceeding Title 24 energy standards. Constructing Level 2 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for multi-family developments and pre-wiring to allow for Level 2 EV charging stations in single-family residential garages. Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super-compliant volatile organic compound (VOC) content (0 to 10 g/L). Impact AQ-2: The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact Impact AQ-3: The Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact MM AQ-3: Construction Health Risk Assessment. Prior to future discretionary project approval for any future development project that would involve construction lasting more than two months and within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, the project applicant shall submit a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The level of detail required for the HRA is described below: A quantitative health risk assessment shall be prepared in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance to identify the potential for increased cancer and non-cancer health risks. If the health risks do not exceed the applicable thresholds, further mitigation is not necessary. If the resultant health risks are determined to exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, the applicant shall implement measures to reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions and associated risks to below the applicable thresholds. Methods may include requiring the use of off-road equipment engines • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-19 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation that meet or exceed California Air Resources Board’s Tier 4 Final engine emissions standards for off-road equipment exceeding 50 horsepower (hp). Any emissions reduction measures identified in the HRA shall be incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the project. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the Community Development Department clearly show incorporation of all applicable mitigation measures. Impact AQ-4: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Draft EIR Section 3.3 Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: The Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Potentially Significant Impact MM BIO-1: Documentation of Plant and Wildlife Species. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all projects must provide documentation that the site does not include special-status or protected plant and wildlife species. If the species are found on the site, focused surveys shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance activities. The documentation shall ensure that botanical surveys are conducted during the appropriate blooming period and any nesting bird surveys are conducted during the appropriate avian nesting season. If no special- status species are found on the project site, no additional action is necessary and the project can continue. If special-status species are found, no ground disturbance can occur and the project must either avoid the special-status species, or develop a mitigation plan approved by the City in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If offsite replacement is the only mitigation option available, the performance criteria shall be at a ratio specified by the resource agency such as the Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation MM BIO-2: Mitigation Plan. Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist for approval by the City, the USFWS, and CDFW which shall m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-20 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation include: (1) the responsibilities and qualifications of personnel to implement and supervise the plan; (2) site selection; (3) site preparation and planting implementation; (4) a schedule; (5) maintenance plan/guidelines; (6) a monitoring plan; and (7) long-term preservation requirements. MM BIO-3: Preconstruction Surveys. Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit) for future development projects facilitated by the Project, project applicants shall complete a preconstruction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting locations within the project site. If the biologist does not find any active nests within the project site, the construction work shall be allowed to proceed. If the biologist finds an active nest within the project site and determined that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest, and the size of the buffer zone shall depend on the affected species and the type of construction activity. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph. Only construction activities (if any) that have been approved by a biological monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor when construction activities take place near active areas to ensure no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results of the preconstruction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the City. Impact BIO-2: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact BIO-3: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but No Impact None required. No Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-21 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Impact BIO-4: The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No Impact None required. No Impact Impact BIO-5: The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No Impact None required. No Impact Draft EIR Section 3.4 Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5. Potentially Significant Impact MM CUL-1: Development Review Process for Historical Resources. Prior to approval of discretionary projects at any of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area, City staff shall determine whether the project applicant should conduct further study to assess the project’s potential impacts on historical resources. Further study is required if the project is located on the same parcel or within 100 feet of a known historical resource. Further study is also required if the project is located on the same parcel as a building, structure, or object 45 years old or older from the date the discretionary permit application was filed. If further study is necessary, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architectural history. The qualified consultant shall prepare a Historical Resource Evaluation Report (HRER). The HRER should involve a California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) and California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) records search and preparation of a historic context. If a building, structure, or object on the parcel is 45 years old or older and has not been previously identified Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-22 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation as a historical resource, the consultant should prepare an evaluation for NRHP, CRHR, and local landmark eligibility per NPS, OHP, and City guidelines. All evaluated resources should be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The qualified consultant should analyze potential project impacts and provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise mitigating potentially significant impacts to historical resources, which shall be enforced as conditions of approval for the project. Impact CUL-2: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Potentially Significant Impact MM CUL-2: Development Review Process for Archaeological Resources. Prior to approval of discretionary projects that include ground-disturbing activities, City staff shall conduct a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center to review the current data on file for the project location. If it is determined that known archaeological cultural resources are within a 0.25-mile of the project site, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in archaeology to assess the project’s potential impacts to archaeological cultural resources. Further study may include a survey of the project location; controlled excavation to determine the presence of subsurface archaeological deposits; a review of relevant literature, including historical maps and published archaeological and ethnographic sources; and consultation with local Native American tribes. The qualified archeologist shall provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise mitigating potentially significant impacts to archaeological cultural resources and human remains, which shall be enforced as conditions of approval for the project. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation MM CUL-3: Human Remains. The City shall use the development review process to identify human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and follow the appropriate procedures outlined under Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. Should human remains be found on a project site, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall be disturbed until the Orange County Coroner is contacted and determines that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If an investigation is required, and the coroner determines the remains to m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-23 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation be Native American then: (1) the coroner would contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours; (2) the NAHC would identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased native American; (3) the most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. Draft EIR Section 3.5 Energy Impact EN-1: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact EN-2: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Draft EIR Section 3.6 Geology and Soils Impact GEO-1: The Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Potentially Significant Impact MM GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring Program. Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a paleontologist meeting professional standards as defined by Murphey et al. (2019) as a Principal Investigator shall be retained as the designated Project Paleontologist for each development, to review project-specific construction plans and develop a project-specific paleontological mitigation program. The mitigation program should be outlined in a Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan tailored to specific construction plans and geotechnical studies, should these be available, that identifies when or under what conditions paleontological monitoring should be implemented. The plan should include: A Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training developed by the Project Paleontologist that communicates requirements and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of paleontological Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-24 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation resources during construction to be delivered by the paleontologist or their designated representative to the construction crew prior to the onset of ground disturbance. Fulltime paleontological monitoring when work occurs in the geologic units assessed as having high paleontological potential, which is expected to occur when work exceeds 5 foot in depth in unit 2 of the young alluvium, or when work occurs at any depth in old shallow marine deposits on a wave-cut surface, the San Pedro Formation, the Paleo Verdes Sand, the Lomita Marl, and the Timms Point Silt. Work into previously disturbed sediments, beach deposits, paralic estuarine deposits, or the upper 5 feet of unit 2 of the young alluvium does not require monitoring. After the initiation of the monitoring work, the Project Paleontologist may reduce the frequency or depths of monitoring should low paleontological potential sediments be identified in the monitoring area. Procedures to follow in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction activities, including work stoppage in a safe radius of the finds, usually 50 feet, assessment by the Project Paleontologist, and, should the fossils be of scientific importance, collection and curation in an accredited repository along with associated data such as photographs, GPS coordinates, lithological descriptions, and depth data, as well as curation fees. A Paleontological Monitoring Report documenting the results of the mitigation program. Draft EIR Section 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact GHG-1: The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Potentially Significant Impact MM GHG-1: Implement GHG Reduction Measures. In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the City: Significant and Unavoidable Impact • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-25 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation a) Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (California Building Code Title 24), local building codes and other applicable laws, into project design including: o Use energy efficient materials in building design, construction, rehabilitation, and retrofit. o Install energy-efficient lighting, heating, and cooling systems (cogeneration); water heaters; appliances; equipment; and control systems. o Reduce lighting, heating, and cooling needs by taking advantage of light-colored roofs, trees for shade, and sunlight. o Incorporate passive environmental control systems that account for the characteristics of the natural environment. o Use high-efficiency lighting and cooking devices. o Incorporate passive solar design. o Use high-reflectivity building materials and multiple glazing. o Prohibit gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment. o Install electric vehicle charging stations. o Reduce wood burning stoves or fireplaces. o Provide bike lanes accessibility and parking at residential developments. b) Include offsite measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. c) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction, and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to: o Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; o Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; o Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; o Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-26 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production; o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse; o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy; o Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; o Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible; o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; o Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and o Solicit bids that include concepts listed above. d) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following: o Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; o Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; o Improve or increase access to transit; o Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; o Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; o Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; o Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; o Provide traffic calming measures; o Provide bicycle parking; o Limit or eliminate park supply; o Unbundle parking costs; o Provide parking cash-out programs; m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-27 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation o Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; e) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network; f) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction of transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and g) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; h) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including: o Retaining onsite mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse. Impact GHG-2: The Project could conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and GHG-1 are required. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Draft EIR Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: The Project would not, for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-28 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. Draft EIR Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-1: The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact HYD-2: The Project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite; iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) Impede or redirect flood flows. Potentially Significant Impact MM HYD-1: Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure. Future development projects facilitated by the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update shall be required 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 do not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it shall 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 shall be analyzed at the time of project-specific environmental analysis. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Impact HYD-3: The Project would not, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-29 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact HYD-4: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Draft EIR Section 3.10 Land Use and Planning Impact LU-1: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Draft EIR Section 3.11 Noise Impact NOI-1: The Project could result in a generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise level in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Potentially Significant Impact MM NOI-1: Noise Mitigation Plan. Project applicants shall describe and commit to a mitigation plan that will be developed when the information is available to make final decisions on all specific mitigation measures. The objective of the plan should be to minimize construction using all reasonable (e.g., cost vs. benefit) and feasible (e.g., possible to construct) means available. Components of a mitigation plan may include some or all of the following provisions, which should also be specified in construction contracts. During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques available. (e.g., mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds). Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-30 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Stockpiling shall be located as far as possible from nearby noise- sensitive receptors. Construction traffic shall be limited to approved haul routes. Construct noise barriers, such as temporary walls or piles of excavated material, between noisy activities and noise-sensitive receptors. Combine noisy operations to occur in the same time period. The total noise level produced will not be substantially greater than the level produced if the operations were performed separately. At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City. Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the onsite construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. During the entire active construction period, the use of noise- producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back- up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. Impact NOI-2: The Project could result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Potentially Significant Impact MM NOI-2: Noise and Vibration Analysis. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet from fragile structures, such as historical resources, 75 feet from older residential structures, of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 55 feet of new residential or commercial buildings; or a vibratory roller within 25 Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation • • • • • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-31 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. A qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer shall conduct this noise and vibration analysis. The vibration levels shall not exceed the Caltrans damage thresholds listed in the table below. If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Sources Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile 1 buildings 0.30 0.12 Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.20 Older2 residential structure 0.70 0.30 New residential structures 1.2 0.50 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.50 m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-32 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Notes: Transient sources again create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack- and-seal equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. 1 A fragile building is considered one where the structural components are weakened due to age, poor construction materials, or significant deterioration, making it susceptible to damage from even minor stress. 2 An older building refers to a structure that has been around for a considerable period of time, regardless of its current structural integrity, with factors like construction materials, maintenance history, and design playing a role in determining its overall condition. Source: Caltrans 2020 Impact NOI-3: For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Draft EIR Section 3.12 Population and Housing Impact POP-1: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-33 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation Draft EIR Section 3.13 Public Services Impact PUB-1: The Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? o Fire protection o Police protection o Parks Potentially Significant Impact MM PUB-1: Parks and Recreation. Subsequent environmental review at a project specific level shall be required for individual development projects facilitated by the Housing Element Update and Zone Code Update. The environmental analysis shall include an analysis of the proposed project’s contribution to potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities, and potential impacts resulting from implementation of individual development projects under the Housing Element Update and Zone Code Update shall be mitigated to the extent feasible. The proposed project’s required contribution to the City related to parkland dedication and payment of required fees as required by Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, shall be determined at the time of subsequent environmental review at a project specific level. Significant and Unavoidable Impact Draft EIR Section 3.14 Recreation Impact REC-1: The Project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would be required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact Impact REC-2: The Project would include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would be required. Significant and Unavoidable Impact Draft EIR Section 3.15 Transportation Impact TRANS-1: The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-34 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation including transit roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impact TRANS-2: The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision(b). Potentially Significant Impact MM TRANS-1: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis. Individual projects that do not screen out from Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis shall provide a quantitative VMT analysis consistent with the methodology in the City of Seal Beach Transportation Analysis Guidelines. As described in the Guidelines, Projects which result in a significant impact shall provide VMT mitigation, which could consist of, but not be limited to, the following: Modify the project’s characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the project. This might involve changing the density or mixture of land uses on the project site or changing the project’s location to one that is more accessible by transit or other travel modes. Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT generated by the Project. Provision of offsite infrastructure improvements including roadway improvements for active transportation and multimodal infrastructure, or offsite multimodal improvements. Significant and Unavoidable Impact Draft EIR Section 3.16 Tribal Cultural Resources Impact TRIB-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to California Native American tribe, and that is: Potentially Significant Impact MM TCR-1: Tribal Consultation Requirements. Any future development projects proposed within one of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area shall consult with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation tribal government as requested by the tribal representative. The project shall be analyzed in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on an individual project level to identify any existing tribal cultural resources that may be onsite. If tribal cultural resources are determined to be onsite, the appropriate tribal group shall be consulted. If additional tribal consultation is determined to be required, it shall be conducted in conformance with AB 52, SB 18, and CEQA requirements. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation • • • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-35 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation i) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. MM TCR-2: Inadvertent Discoveries. In the event that additional significant site(s) or resource(s) not identified as significant in a project environmental review process, but are later determined to be significant, are located within a project impact area, such sites shall be subjected to further archaeological and cultural significance evaluation by the project applicant, lead agency, and the applicable tribe(s) to determine if additional mitigation measures are necessary to treat sites in a culturally appropriate manner consistent with California Environmental Quality Act requirements for mitigation of impacts to cultural resources. If there are human remains present that have been identified as Native American, all work will cease in the vicinity of the find and the County Coroner shall be contacted and notified of the discovery. Draft EIR Section 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems Impact UTIL-1: 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 telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Potentially Significant Impact Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Infrastructure and Utility Evaluation. All projects proposed on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program shall be required to provide 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. 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. During site development, a supplemental evaluation shall be conducted to verify the fire flow deficiencies are valid. Mitigation may include, but not be limited to all or some combination of the following: Regarding Housing Opportunity Site 8 development: Additional 12- inch water main to connect to the existing 8-inch water main at Corsair Way and Caravel Way to mitigate fire flow deficiencies. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation • m CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES-36 Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure Level of Significance After Mitigation All sites including Housing Opportunity Site 8: Payment of impact fees, as calculated by the City’s impact fee schedule, proportionate to the project’s fair share contributions to mitigate project impacts to a less than significant level. All sites including Housing Opportunity Site 8: Improvements to the water, sewer, and stormwater facilities, designed to state, County, and local standards and requirements, to mitigate project impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed future development shall be required to contribute payment of required fees at the time of building permit issuance. Impact UTIL-2: The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact Impact UTIL-3: The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Less Than Significant Impact None required. Less Than Significant Impact • • m
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Executive Summary
ES-37
ES.7 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR
The Draft EIR will be available for public review for the statutory 45-day review period and will circulate from May 9, 2025 to June 23, 2025. During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, are available for review online at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning-Development/Environmental-Documents-Under-Review. Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on this Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period. The City of Seal Beach encourages the electronic submission of comments. Send your comments to Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director, via email at:
[email protected]. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:
Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director
City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
m
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the City of Seal Beach's proposed Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project). This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.). This Draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public agency decision makers and the public regarding the Project.
1.1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
CEQA requires public agencies to identify, disclose, and consider the potential environmental impacts of proposed discretionary actions that lead agencies are considering for approval. A project that may have a significant impact on the environment cannot be approved unless the lead agency makes the approval contingent upon the implementation of mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid that impact to the extent feasible. When a project may have significant environmental impacts, the lead agency must prepare an EIR before it considers whether to approve the project.
The City of Seal Beach (City), as the lead agency for the Project, has prepared this Draft EIR for public review and comment. As discussed below, the Draft EIR will be available for review and comment by public agencies and the general public for a period of 45 days. Prior to considering the Project, the City will prepare a Final EIR that includes the Draft EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, a list of commenters, and any revisions being made to the Draft EIR in response to the comments. The Final EIR will be considered by the City's discretionary bodies when taking action on the Project.
1.1.1 Purpose of Environmental Impact Report
CEQA requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This Draft EIR has been prepared to satisfy CEQA and meet the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the Project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage and to identify alternatives to the Project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
The lead agency means "the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment" (CEQA Section 21067).
The City of Seal Beach has the principal responsibility for approval of the Project. For this reason, the City of Seal Beach is the CEQA lead agency for this Project. The intent of the Draft EIR is to provide sufficient 11 1-1
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
information on the potential environmental impacts of the Project to allow the City of Seal Beach to make an informed decision regarding approval of the Project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Section 2.9.1, List of Permits and Other Approvals.
1.1.2 Type of Environmental Impact Report
This is a Program EIR that examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed City of Seal Beach Housing Element Update and related Zoning Code Update. This EIR serves as a Program EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(b), use of a Program EIR can provide advantages, including:
1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action,
2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis,
3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations,
4. Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and
5. Allow reduction in paperwork.
As a Program EIR, this document focuses on the overall effects of the Project and is a discussion of cumulative impacts evaluating the entirety of the action. The analysis does not examine the effects of any project on a specific property that may occur during the lifespan of the Project. Any impacts associated with development that are not fully evaluated within the scope of this EIR may require further environmental analysis. However, the City envisions that this Program EIR may be used to eliminate or reduce the scope of future environmental review for individual projects that are consistent with the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21083.3 and other streamlining provisions authorized by CEQA.
For a complete listing of environmental topics covered in this Draft EIR, see Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis.
1.2 SCOPE OF DRAFT EIR
Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall focus an EIR discussion on potentially significant environmental effects and may limit discussion on other effects to brief explanations about why they are not significant (PRC Section 21002.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15128). A determination of which impacts would be potentially significant was made for this Project based on review of the information presented in the Initial Study prepared for the Project and comments received as part of the public scoping process (Appendix A), as well as additional research and analysis of relevant project data obtained during preparation of this Draft EIR. This Draft EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the Project. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for the Project beginning on November 16, 2023. The NOP was distributed for a 30-day comment period that ended on 11 1-2
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
December 15, 2023. The Public Scoping Meeting on the Draft EIR for the Project was held on December 6, 2023. The comments received on the NOP and during the Public Scoping Meeting were considered in the preparation of this Draft EIR. The scope of this Draft EIR includes the potential impacts identified in the NOP and issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP.
The City has determined that the Project has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts on the following resources, which are addressed in detail in this Draft EIR. • Aesthetics • Land Use and Planning
• Air Quality • Noise
• Biological Resources • Population and Housing
• Cultural Resources • Public Services
• Energy • Recreation
• Geology and Soils • Transportation
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Tribal Cultural Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems • Hydrology and Water Quality
Please refer to Section 1.2.1, Environmental Issues Determined Not to be Significant, for a list of environmental issues determined not to be significant. Table 1.2-1 lists the comment letters received during the Project scoping period.
Table 1.2-1: NOP Comment Summary
Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR
California Department of December The comment letter identified the Potential impacts related to topics Transportation 15, 2023 agency's support for opportunities identified by the commenter are (Caltrans)/Scott Shelley for affordable housing and provided in the following sections:
provided specific guidelines that • Draft EIR Section 3.15, they would like incorporated into Transportation the future planning of roadways, bikeways, parking, pedestrian
circulation, and transit services.
The comment letter also provided
impact analysis guidelines to be
utilized for analysis of
transportation related impacts
and identified potential permits
that may be required to meet
Caltrans' guidelines. The
comment letter stated they are
requestino a Transportation
11 1-3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR
Impact Analysis (TIA) be
prepared to assess and address
potential impacts from future
developments.
Department of Toxic December The comment letter stated the Potential impacts related to topics Substances Control 14, 2023 Project encompasses multiple identified by the commenter are (DTSC)/Tamara Purvis active and nonactive mitigation provided in the following sections:
and clean-up sites that may be • Draft EIR Section 3.8, Hazards impacted as a result of the and Hazardous Materials
Project and may restrict what
Draft EIR Section 6.0, Effects construction activities are • permissible in the Project areas in Found Not to be Significant order to avoid impacts to human
health and environment. The
comment letter stated due to the
broad scope of the Project, they
are unable to determine if the
Project sites are listed as having
documented contamination, land
use restrictions, be listed on a list
of hazardous materials sites and
therefore, recommends providing
future information on the Project
site and areas that may fall under
DTSC oversight.
City of Long Beach December The comment letter outlined their The comment is noted. The Community 15,2023 general support for the Project. comment provided does not identify Development specific environmental concerns
Department/Alejandro related to the Project and does not Sanchez-Lopez require a response for the purposes
ofCEQA.
Anne S. Calvo December The commenter stated the The comment regarding removal of 8,2023 Leisure World Housing Leisure World as a Housing Opportunity Site should be Opportunity Site is noted; however, removed from the list of Housing the comment does not identify Opportunity Sites stating the specific environmental concerns proposed area is an RV storage related to the Project and does not site reserved for Leisure World require a response for the purposes residents as an amenity. of CEQA. The remaining topics
Additionally, the commenter listed outlined in the comment letter are impacts would result to analyzed in the following sections:
aesthetics, air quality due to • Draft EIR Section 3.1, additional vehicles, energy use Aesthetics and demand, reduce quality of life
Draft EIR Section 3.2, Air due to increased population and • limiting access to existing Quality
amenities, increased noise, • Draft EIR Section 3.5, Energy increased demand to public • Draft EIR Section 3.8, Hazards services, eliminate residents and Hazardous Materials access to RVs and access to
recreational opportunities, traffic • Draft EIR Section 3.10, Land congestion, and increased utility Use and Planning
demands. • Draft EIR Section 3.11, Noise
11 1-4
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR
• Draft EIR Section 3.12,
Population and Housing
• Draft EIR Section 3.13, Public
Services
• Draft EIR Section 3.14,
Recreation
• Draft EIR Section 3.15,
Transportation
• Draft EIR Section 3.17, Utilities
and Service Systems
Schelly Sustarsic December The commenter stated the Potential impacts related to topics 15, 2023 Project would result in the identified by the commenter are following impacts: aesthetics provided in the following sections:
(views blocked, open space • Draft EIR Section 3.1, removed, glare), biological Aesthetics resources (wetlands and tree
Draft EIR Section 3.2, Air preservation), energy (increased • demand and adequate Quality
infrastructure), geology and soils • Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological (fault lines and liquefaction), Resources
hazards and hazardous materials • Draft EIR Section 3.5, Energy (existing gas line), hydrology and water quality (potential flooding), • Draft EIR Section 3.8, Hazards land use and planning and Hazardous Materials
(Consistency with Los Alamitos • Draft EIR Section 3.9, Joint Forces Training Base Hydrology and Water Quality
(JFTB)), noise (noise from Los
• Draft EIR Section 3.10, Land Alamitos JFTB), recreation Use and Planning (increased demand for parks), transportation (circulation, • Draft EIR Section 3.11, Noise increased vehicle miles traveled • Draft EIR Section 3.12, (VMT), emergency vehicle Population and Housing access), tribal (potential tribal
• Draft EIR Section 3.13, Public artifacts and remains located Services within the City), and cumulative effects. • Draft EIR Section 3.14,
Recreation
• Draft EIR Section 3.15,
Transportation
• Draft EIR Section 3.16, Tribal
Cultural Resources
• Draft EIR Section 3.17, Utilities
and Service Systems
• Draft EIR Section 6.0, Effects
Found Not to be Significant
Theresa Miller December The commenter stated they The comment is noted and has been 15, 2023 appreciated the scoping meeting shared with the Planning and agree with the concerns Commission. The comment does discussed during the meeting. not identify specific environmental concerns related to the Project and
does not require a response for the
purposes of CEQA.
11 1-5
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR
Kurt Bourhenne December The comment letter stated The comment provided are political 11,2023 construction of residential uses at in nature and is not applicable to the Leisure World Housing CEQA. Therefore, response is not Opportunity Site would deprive required. The topic of sunlight is not Leisure World residents of a required topic of analysis under sunlight and shared political CEQA and therefore, is not further views regarding the Project. analyzed.
Aaron and Barbara December The commenter stated their The comment is noted and has been Groseclose 14,2023 opposition for the Leisure World shared with the Planning Housing Opportunity Site as it Commission. The comment does would take away the RV Club not identify specific environmental amenity at the site. concerns related to the Project and does not require a response for the
purposes of CEQA.
Alan Hunter December The commenter stated their The comment is noted and has been 12,2023 opposition for the Leisure World shared with the Planning Housing Opportunity Site as it Commission. The comment does would take away the RV lot not identify specific environmental amenity at the site. concerns related to the Project and does not require a response for the
purposes of CEQA.
Bert van der Veer December Stated their opposition for the The comment is noted and has been 14,2023 Leisure World Housing shared with the Planning
Opportunity Site as it would take Commission. The comment does away the RV lot amenity at the not identify specific environmental site. concerns related to the Project and
does not require a response for the
purposes of CEQA.
Lori Gray December Stated their opposition for the The comment is noted and has been 13,2023 Leisure World Housing shared with the Planning
Opportunity Site as it would take Commission. The comment does away the RV lot amenity at the not identify specific environmental site. concerns related to the Project and
does not require a response for the
purposes of CEQA.
Catherine Showalter December The commenter provided a list of The comments are noted and have 7,2023 spelling and grammatical errors been shared with the City. This Draft discovered in the Initial Study EIR does not include a revision to document and provided the Initial Study section and all requested revisions to the Initial applicable spelling and grammatical Study. revisions have been incorporated.
The comment does not require
further response.
Adrianne Rosenfeld December The commenter stated their The comments provided are 11,2023 personal opinion that housing will personal opinions and political views not be constructed within Leisure in nature and are not applicable to World and shared personal CEQA. Therefore, response is not political beliefs. required.
Susan Perrell December The commenter stated potential The comments are noted and have 7,2023 impacts to environmental, been shared with the Planning historical and cultural resources, Division. Potential impacts not and oublic services should be scooed out durina the Initial Studv 11 1-6
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR
more deeply studied in the EIR process are expanded upon and than the Initial Study suggests. discussed in more detail in this EIR.
The commenter stated each The level of analysis provided in this individual Housing Opportunity EIR is in accordance with CEQA Site should be discussed in its requirements. This EIR is a own separate EIRs and stated programmatic document and does they disagree with the not analyze the potential impacts of programmatic nature of the EIR. each individual Housing Opportunity The commenter stated potential Sites as no actual development is impacts to resource topics currently proposed on these sites. discussed in the EIR need to be When a development project is addressed on a site specific proposed on these sites in the basis. Additionally, the future, each proposed development commenter disagrees with the would require its own individual level of significance identified for environmental analysis to address impacts in the Initial Study and site specific impacts. stated the Program EIR needs to
be revisited and updated when a Potential impacts to aesthetics are specific project is later proposed or a separate project EIR needs discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.1, to be prepared. Aesthetics. Potential impacts related
to commerce are not a resource
topic under CEQA and therefore, is
The commenter stated potential not analyzed in this EIR. impacts to commerce and
aesthetics should be discussed As stated in the Initial Study as well and needs to analyze placing new residential parking within as in Draft EIR Section 3.8, Hazards existing commercial parking and Hazardous Materials, and areas and assess if and where Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to be there is an excess of parking. Significant, future individual developments proposed on
identified Housing Opportunity Sites
The commenter stated Housing would require individual
Opportunity Site 8 (Housing environmental review to analyze Opportunity Site 8 in the Initial potential impacts and would be Study has been renumbered to required to prepare an
Housing Opportunity Site 7 in the Environmental Site Assessment to Draft EIR) appears to be listed on assess any existing onsite Geo Tracker and needs to study contamination and determine if the feasibility of clean up to residential development is feasible residential standards. within the site.
The commenter noted that Housing Opportunity Site 10, also Housing Opportunity Site 10 referred to as the Old Ranch identified in the Initial Study is Country Club or the Old Ranch prone to historic flooding and Country Club Pipeline Project, needs analysis in the EIR. identified in the Initial Study, is no Additionally, the commenter longer defined as a Housing stated the EIR should consider Opportunity Site. Instead, the Old impacts to capacity of stormwater Ranch Country Club is defined as a systems and infrastructure and pipeline project. This proposed water quality as well as analyze pipeline project is a component of a the requirements for flood larger specific plan proposal being insurance in project areas and if evaluated by the City in a areas with hiah flood insurance standalone EIR. However, the 167 11 1-7
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR
costs can serve lower income units proposed within the Old Ranch residents. Country Club Pipeline Project count
towards the City's Regional Housing
The commenter stated impacts to
Needs Allocation (RHNA)
requirements. Therefore, the 167 cultural resources and the proposed units from the Old Ranch potential loss of historic Country Club Pipeline Project are structures, specifically to Main evaluated at a programmatic level Street's historic resources need as a basis for implications to be discussed and analyzed in associated with housing production the EIR. only within this EIR, including potential impacts to stormwater
The commenter stated an systems and infrastructure and
Avoidance, Mitigation, and water quality.
Monitoring Plan should be
developed that would specify The topic of flood insurance costs is administrative mechanisms to not a required topic of analysis assure measures are under CEQA and therefore, is not implemented and enforced. further analyzed.
The commenter stated the EIR Impacts related to cultural resources should analyze water supply by and historic structures are analyzed comparing current demand with in Draft EIR Section 3.4, Cultural that post-project and determine if Resources. water supply would be available.
Additionally, the commenter
stated impacts to wastewater As part of the EIR, a Mitigation, infrastructure should be analyzed. Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) would be developed that
The commenter requested describes all mitigation measures identified in this EIR. The MMRP transportation noise and HVAC would also specify the timing of noise be analyzed and mitigated implementation, specify the in the EIR as well as noise responsible party for the mitigation, sources from Los Alamitos. and the monitoring frequency of the proposed mitigation to ensure the
The commenter requested mitigation measures are
impacts to response and implemented and enforced.
evacuation times be analyzed
and mitigated. Potential impacts related to water
and wastewater infrastructure, and
The commenter stated mitigation water supply are discussed in Draft should be required for developers EIR Section 3.17, Utilities and to prevent impacts to recreation. Service Systems. The analysis includes a comparison of the
The commenter states impacts to existing and projected demand for the City with the projected demand
transportation systems should be that would result from buildout of the analyzed in the EIR. Project.
The commenter stated the EIR Potential noise related impacts, should analyze potential including noise resulting from cumulative impacts. transportation, stationary equipment, and Los Alamitos JFTB are
11 1-8
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR
The commenter provided discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.11, revisions and text edits that they Noise.
would like to be made to the
Initial Study. Impacts related to public service
such as police and fire services are
The commenter stated the EIR discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.13, should require open space and Public Services.
tree planting and maintenance as
part of each development project Potential impacts related to to mitigate atmospheric carbon recreation are analyzed and, if and provide shade. required, mitigated in Draft EIR Section 3.13, Public Services, and
Section 3.14, Recreation.
Potential impacts to transportation
systems are analyzed in Draft EIR
Section 3.15, Transportation.
An analysis of potential cumulative
impacts is included in each resource
section of the Draft EIR. The
cumulative analysis analyzes
whether the Project in conjunction
with cumulative projects, would
result in a cumulatively considerable
impact.
This Draft EIR does not include a
revision to the Initial Study section
and all applicable revisions have
been incorporated. The comment
does not require further response.
Potentially significant impacts
identified in this EIR are mitigated to
the extent feasible. The City has
existing requirements for tree
planting, landscape maintenance,
and required open space for new
developments in its Zone Code. All
individual projects proposed in the
future at one of the Project sites
would be required to be designed
and constructed in accordance with
City requirements. The request for
mitigation requiring open space and
tree plantings have been noted;
however, this mitigation is not
identified to be required for the
Project to reduce impacts.
Gary Allen December Commissioner Allen requested This comment was provided during (Environmental Quality 6, 2023 additional information regarding the in-person public scoping 11 1-9
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR
Control Board (EQCB) what is analyzed as the Project meeting. The comment was Board Member) as there is no guarantee that all responded to by Staniec staff who or any of the identified residential stated that the worst-case scenario units may be constructed as a is analyzed to provide flexibility for result of the Project. future potential developments within the identified Project site and
provide an adequate buffer for the
analysis. As the comments provided
does not identify specific
environmental concerns related to
the Project, additional analysis is not
required.
Donald Horning (EQCB December Commissioner Horning requested This comment was provided during Board Member) 6,2023 for a definition of an underutilized the in-person public scoping site. The commenter asked if all meeting. The comment was the proposed developments are responded to by Staniec staff and consistent with the safety plan City staff who responded to the (General Plan safety element) specific questions and outlined the and requested additional process of the EIR, how impacts are information regarding the determined, what information is certification process of the EIR, utilized, and outlined the different who the ultimate decisions topics the EIR covers. As the makers are, process of evaluating comment provided does not identify the sites, site specific studies, specific environmental concerns how levels of impacts are related to the Project, additional determined, and who bears the analysis is not required. costs of environmental
assessments. Additionally, the The EIR includes an analysis of commenter questioned whether there would be coordination with potential transportation and traffic other environmental studies being related impacts in Draft EIR Section prepared in the City. 3.15, Transportation. This section includes an analysis of potential
traffic related impacts resulting from
The commenter brought up increased population and vehicle potential impacts involving traffic usage; however, it does not take within the Leisure World Housing into account the driving abilities of a Opportunity Site stating the particular population as CEQA senior population there are requires an evaluation of the sensitive in terms of driving Project's potential impacts on the abilities. environment.
Catherine Showalter December Commissioner Showalter This comment was provided during (EQCB Board Member) 6,2023 questioned why a particular the in-person public scoping document was utilized in the meeting. The comment was
Initiative Study. Additionally, the responded to by Staniec staff who commenter questioned how a responded that different studies and cumulative project list is documents are utilized in
developed. information gathering for the Project
and outlined the process of
The commenter stated their determining thresholds. Staniec staff also provided an explanation of how
concerns with how the Initial a cumulative project list is Study is written describing developed and what is taken into Housing Opportunity Site 10 and consideration for an analysis of the associated development cumulative impacts. As the agreement and requests that 11 1-10
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR
additional information is comments provided does not
incorporated. identify specific environmental
concerns related to the Project,
additional analysis is not required.
Housing Opportunity Site 10, also
referred to as the Old Ranch
Country Club or the Old Ranch
Country Club Pipeline Project,
identified in the Initial Study, is no
longer defined as a Housing
Opportunity Site. Instead, the Old
Ranch Country Club is defined as a
pipeline project. This proposed
pipeline project is a component of a
larger specific plan proposal being
evaluated by the City in a
standalone EIR. However, the 167
units proposed within the Old Ranch
Country Club Pipeline Project count
towards the City's RHNA
requirements. Therefore, the 167
proposed units from the Old Ranch
Country Club Pipeline Project are
evaluated at a programmatic level
as a basis for implications
associated with housing production
only within this EIR.
Susan Perrell (EQCB December The commenter questioned the This comment was provided during Board Member) 6, 2023 process of a programmatic EIR the in-person public scoping and the level of analysis of each meeting. The comment was site that would occur, and the responded to by Stantec staff who process of subsequent provided an explanation of the
environmental review of process, the level of analysis, and individually proposed how the comments received during
developments and the process of the scoping period are incorporated. incorporating comments received As the comments provided does not during the scoping period. identify specific environmental concerns related to the Project,
Commissioner Perrell questioned additional analysis is not required. what kind of recreational
resources are going to be given An analysis of the Project's potential up and how the Project would impacts to recreational resources is mitigate the loss of those provided in Draft EIR Section 3.14, resources. Recreation, and mitigation has been
identified to reduce potential
The additional comments impacts, where appropriate.
provided by Commissioner Perrell
during the in-person scoping
meeting is the same as those
described above in this table
provided through a comment
letter bv Susan Perrell. For a
11 1-11
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR
summary of comments provided,
see above.
Carol Churchill December The commenter stated the tide's As outlined in the Initial Study, as 6,2023 movements can affect the water well as Draft EIR Section 3.8, table resulting in contamination Hazards and Hazardous Materials moving inland and outland with and Section 6.0, Effects Found Not the tides and therefore, the to be Significant, site specific environment study should evaluation of potential existing evaluate not just a specific site contamination and its potential but the water element and water effects are to be completed through tables and its effects on existing individual project specific contamination. environmental review at the time of
individual development proposal and
The commenter stated Housing would be required to prepare an Opportunity Site 10 has a
Environmental Site Assessment.
contract with the City with regard
to the use of the property until Housing Opportunity Site 10, also 2029 and what becomes of the referred to as the Old Ranch existing golf course at the end of Country Club or the Old Ranch the contract and the potential Country Club Pipeline Project, legal implications and identified in the Initial Study, is no development restrictions. longer defined as a Housing
Additionally, the commenter Opportunity Site. Instead, Old stated Housing Opportunity Site Ranch Country Club is defined as a 10 includes a golf course and the pipeline project. This proposed potential cumulative effects pipeline project is a component of a should be analyzed if the golf larger specific plan proposal being course is turned into housing. evaluated by the City in a standalone EIR. However, the 167
The commenter provided units proposed within the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project count information about a study that towards the City's RHNA looked at safety hazards and requirements. Therefore, the 167 noise hazards on a military base proposed units from the Old Ranch and stated these issues need to Country Club Pipeline Project are be addressed in the EIR. evaluated at a programmatic level as a basis for implications
The commenter stated that when associated with housing production calculating the Quimby fee, a fair only within this EIR. market value of land within Seal
Beach to ensure that the Quimby A discussion of safety and noise fee is not underestimated. hazards related to the nearby airports, including Los Alamitos
JFTB can be found in Draft EIR
Section 3.8, Hazards, and
Hazardous Materials and Section
3.11, Noise.
As discussed in Draft EIR Section
3.14, Recreation, required Quimby
fees would be calculated at the time
of individual proposed developments
11 1-12
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Commenting Date Comment Summary Responses/ Location of Issue Agency/Person Addressed in EIR
and would be based on the value of
land at the time of calculation.
Susan Barronbam December The commenter noted that they A discussion of potential flooding 6,2023 live in College Park East which impacts and impacts to the drainage currently has flooding and system can be found in Draft EIR drainage issues. Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water
Quality.
Additionally, the commenter
identified Housing Opportunity Housing Opportunity Site 10, also Site 10 and noted issues related referred to as the Old Ranch to hydrology, noise, and traffic. Country Club or the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project,
The commenter asked a question identified in the Initial Study, is no longer defined as a Housing regarding the Old Ranch Country Opportunity Site. Instead, Old Club's individual project level EIR Ranch Country Club is defined as a analysis that is being prepared pipeline project. This proposed and how that would affect the pipeline project is a component of a decision making for the Housing larger specific plan proposal and is Element Update EIR. being evaluated by the City in a standalone EIR. However, the 167
units proposed within the Old Ranch
Country Club Pipeline Project count
towards the City's RHNA
requirements. Therefore, the 167
proposed units from the Old Ranch
Country Club Pipeline Project are
evaluated at a programmatic level
as a basis for implications
associated with housing production
only within this EIR
This comment was provided during
the in-person public scoping
meeting. The comment was
responded to by Stantec staff who
outlined the process for each EIRs
and how the approval or disapproval
of each document could affect each
other. As the comments provided
does not identify specific
environmental concerns related to
the Project, additional analysis is not
required.
1.2.1 Environmental Issues Determined Not To Be Significant Pursuant to CEQA, the discussion of the potential effects on the physical environment is focused on those impacts that may be significant or potentially significant. CEQA allows a lead agency to limit the details of discussion of the environmental effects that are not considered potentially significant (PRC 11 1-13
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Section 21100, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.2[a] and 15128). CEQA requires that the discussion of any significant effects on the environment be limited to substantial or potentially substantial adverse changes in physical conditions that exist within the affected area, as defined in PRC Section 21060.5 (Statutory definition of "environment"). Effects dismissed in an analysis as clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the Draft EIR unless the lead agency subsequently receives information inconsistent with the finding (CEQA Guidelines Section 15143).
Based on a review of the project information provided in the NOP (Appendix A), comments received as part of the public scoping process and application submittal (Appendix A), and additional research and analysis of relevant project data obtained during preparation of this Draft EIR, the following were identified as resources that would not experience any significant environmental impacts from the Project.
Accordingly, these resources are not addressed further in this Draft EIR but are identified below. A brief explanation as to why impacts to each resource are not anticipated, as required by CEQA is provided in Section 6.0, Effects Not Found to be Significant.
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Mineral Resources
• Wildfire
In addition, certain subjects within various environmental resource topics were determined not to be significant. Other potentially significant issues are analyzed within these environmental resource topics; however, the following issues listed in Table 1.2-2 are not analyzed, but a brief explanation as to why impacts are less than significant as required by CEQA is provided in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant.
Table 1.2-2: Issues Determined Not to be Significant
Issue Area Impact Question
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, Aesthetics and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Biological Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree Resources preservation policy or ordinance?
Cultural Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Resources Energy Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Geology and Soils • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
11 1-14
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Issue Area Impact Question
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Hazards and
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Hazardous
Materials Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Hydrology and Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the Water Quality alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
• Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite; Land Use and Physically divide an established community? Planning Population and Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of Housing replacement housing elsewhere?
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to Public Services maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
• Schools
• Other Public Facilities
Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or Transportation dangerous intersection(s) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? Result in inadequate emergency access?
11 1-15
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Issue Area Impact Question
Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of Utilities and
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Service Systems Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT EIR
This Draft EIR is arranged into the following sections, which contain the contents of an EIR as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15120 through 15132.
Section ES: Executive Summary. The Executive Summary provides a summary of the Project and the project alternatives, including a summary of project impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of significance after mitigation for each environmental issue.
Section 1.0: Introduction. The Introduction provides an overview of the Project and the CEQA process and describes the purpose, scope, and components of this Draft EIR.
Section 2.0: Project Description. The Project Description provides a detailed description of the Project, including the location and project characteristics. The intended uses of this Draft EIR, project background, project objectives, and required discretionary approvals are also addressed.
Section 3.0: Environmental Analysis. The Environmental Analysis analyzes the environmental effects of the Project. Impacts are organized into major environmental topic areas. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, regulatory setting, methods, thresholds of significance, Housing Element Update policies, impact analysis, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation.
The specific environmental topic areas that are addressed in Section 3.0 include the following:
• Section 3.1: Aesthetics • Section 3.9: Hydrology and Water • Section 3.2: Air Quality Quality
• Section 3.3: Biological Resources • Section 3.1 0: Land Use and Planning • Section 3.4: Cultural Resources • Section 3.11 : Noise • Section 3.5: Energy • Section 3.12: Population and Housing • Section 3.6: Geology and Soils • Section 3.13: Public Services • Section 3. 7: Greenhouse Gas • Section 3.14: Recreation Emissions • Section 3.15: Transportation
• Section 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous • Section 3.16: Tribal Cultural Resources Materials • Section 3.17: Utilities and Service
Systems
11 1-16
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Section 4.0: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Describes and compares the proposed alternatives to the Project.
Section 5.0: Other CEQA Considerations. The Other CEQA Considerations section provides a summary of significant environmental effects, including unavoidable, irreversible, and growth-inducing impacts.
Section 6.0: Effects Found Not to Be Significant. This section provides a summary of project impacts that have been determined, through preparation of the NOP, to result in a less than significant impact or no impact.
Section 7 .0: List of Preparers. The List of Preparers section provides a list of the various individuals who contributed to the preparation of this Draft EIR.
Appendices. The appendices contain the NOP (including comments) and technical studies prepared to support the analyses and conclusions in this Draft EIR.
1.4 REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR
CEQA does not require formal hearings at any stage of the environmental review process (CEQA Guidelines Section 15202[a]). However, it does encourage, "wide public involvement, formal and informal, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues ... " (CEQA Guidelines Section 15201). The City distributed an NOP of a Draft EIR for the Project beginning on November 16, 2023. The NOP was distributed for a 30-day comment period that ended on December 15, 2023. The comments on the NOP were considered in the preparation of this Draft EIR. Appendix A contains the written comments received on the NOP.
The City of Seal Beach has filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to begin the public review period (PRC Section 21161 ). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as to all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with PRC Section 21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, are available for review online at: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planninq-Development/Environmental-Documents-Under-Review.
Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on this Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period, which will begin on May 9, 2025, and end on June 23, 2025. The City of Seal Beach encourages the electronic submission of comments. Send your comments to Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director, via email at: [email protected].
Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:
11 Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director
City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 907 40
1-17
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Introduction
Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to all environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to any public hearing on the Project at which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decisionmakers for the Project.
1.4.1 Effectively Commenting on an EIR
Readers are invited to review and comment on the adequacy and completeness of this Draft EIR in describing the potential impacts of the Project, the level of severity of each impact, the mitigation measures being proposed to reduce or avoid those impacts, and the project alternatives being considered. The most effective comments are those that focus on the adequacy and completeness of the environmental analysis and that are supported by factual evidence. Comments that focus on whether the Project should be approved or denied are not comments on the adequacy of this Draft EIR.
1.4.2 Final EIR
After the end of the review period, the City will review the comments received, prepare written responses to those comments, make any related revisions to the Draft EIR, and publish the Final EIR, which will include the Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, responses to comments and any revisions to the Draft EIR.
The Final EIR will be considered by the City's Planning Commission and City Council when taking action on the Project. If the Project is approved, CEQA requires the City to adopt findings describing how each of the significant impacts identified in the EIR is being mitigated. The findings are required to describe the reasons why significant unavoidable impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. The findings will also describe the project alternatives analyzed in the EIR and explain whether or not any alternative or portion of an alternative has been adopted.
Because the Project has significant and unavoidable impacts, the City would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations describing the benefits of the Project that outweigh its environmental impacts.
Finally, the City would adopt a MMRP that describes how it will ensure the mitigation measures being required for the Project would be carried out.
11 1-18
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
California state law requires each city and county to adopt a General Plan for its physical development. A General Plan is a key tool that addresses a variety of subject areas and expresses the community's development goals related to the jurisdiction’s future land uses. In the City of Seal Beach (“City” or “Seal Beach”), the most recent General Plan was adopted in December 2003. The Housing Element is one of seven state-mandated General Plan elements. California Government Code Section 65583 details the content and process by which a Housing Element is prepared. Among other requirements, Housing Elements must identify, analyze, and make adequate provision for the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of decent and suitable living as a major housing goal. Housing Element law—first enacted in 1969 and significantly strengthened since — mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of everyone in the community.
The General Plan includes the Housing Element, which is required to be updated every eight years. The City is preparing the Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. It is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle.
The Housing Element, which integrates/updates supporting socioeconomic, demographic, and household data, is specifically intended to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 1,243 new dwelling units. The RHNA allocated 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 sites 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.
Beyond the sites inventory, the City has also identified the Main Street Program in its Housing Element Update. As such, this Program EIR evaluates the following buildout areas within the City: Housing Opportunity Sites and ADUs, Main Street Program, and the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project.
Housing Opportunity Sites and ADUs. The Housing Element Update identifies Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City. Housing Opportunity Sites are parcels of land that have been identified by the City as having the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation, see Section 2.6.2. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-2
code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. The Housing Element Update identifies eight Housing Opportunity Sites totaling 83.45 acres, of which 35.05 acres are developable. Of these eight Housing Opportunity sites, two are underutilized sites that do not require rezoning, and six sites are proposed for zoning modifications. Out of the six Housing Opportunity Sites proposed for rezoning, five would be rezoned to Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD), a new zoning designation that is proposed to be implemented. The remaining site would be rezoned to the City’s existing Residential High Density (RHD)-33 zoning designation. According to the Housing Element Update, the eight Housing Opportunity Sites have an assumed buildout of 70 percent and a residential development potential of 1,165 dwelling units. An additional seven ADUs are projected to be constructed within the planning period and would be credited toward the RHNA. Therefore, the Housing Opportunity Sites and the ADUs would result in 1,172 dwelling units.
Main Street Program. In addition to the Housing Opportunity Sites, the Housing Element Update includes a proposal of the Main Street Program which is analyzed in this EIR. The Housing Element Update’s Main Street Program does not identify specific housing opportunity sites but would modify the existing 21-acre Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential units to be developed above the ground floor of properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. The Housing Element Update assumes two dwelling units would be proposed and permitted within the Main Street Specific Plan area during the Housing Element Update’s planning period.
Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project. The RHNA projection period for 2021-2029 began on June 30, 2021, therefore 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. The Housing Element Update identified Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project as a pipeline project towards meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. The Old Ranch Country Club 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 dwelling units across four acres.
The 167 dwelling units of Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project (herein referred to as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project) are programmatically evaluated within this EIR as these 167 dwelling units are included within the City’s sites 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 Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR.
This EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Pipeline Project; there is no nexus. 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.
The combination of the projected ADUs, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, and Housing Opportunity Sites would result in a total residential development potential of 1,339 dwelling units based on what was identified as the anticipated buildout within the City’s Housing Element Update.
With a RHNA allocation of 1,243, there would be a surplus of 96 dwelling units or an eight percent buffer over the RHNA. However, the number of potential units within the Housing Element (1,339 units), is based on a 70 percent buildout of the Housing Opportunity Sites (1,165 units). In order to evaluate all IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-3
potential environmental impacts under CEQA, it was conservatively assumed for the purposes of the analysis that the Housing Opportunity Sites would be developed at 100 percent. This assumption increases the total units across the eight Housing Opportunity Sites to 1,491 units (the two underutilized sites would provide 182 dwelling units, and the six rezoned sites would provide 1,309 dwelling units).
Additionally, this EIR evaluates the potential impact from new housing units constructed as part of the Main Street Program. This EIR assumes a 70 percent buildout of the Main Street Program which would facilitate the development of 115 dwelling units. In addition to the Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program, 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. Therefore, the total residential buildout assumption within this EIR is 1,773 dwelling units, see Table 2.1-1.
Table 2.1-1: Housing Element Update Buildout Assumptions Buildout Areas
Housing Element
Buildout Assumption
(dwelling units)
EIR Buildout
Assumption
(dwelling units)
Land
Area
(acres)
Developable
Area (acres)
Housing Opportunity
Sites 1,165 1,491 83.45 35.05
ADUs 7 --* -- --
Main Street Program 2 115 21 21
Residential Component
of the ORCC Specific
Plan Project
167 167 155 4
Total Dwelling Units Evaluated in this EIR 1,773 259.45 60.05 * ADUs are not included in the EIR buildout assumptions because the ADUs would be dispersed throughout the City and are allowed by-right.
It is noted that future General Plan and Seal Beach Municipal Code Title 11 (Zoning Code) amendments may be required for the Housing Element Update, and ancillary amendments to other planning documents, as necessary for clarification and consistency purposes. However, in accordance with state CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Program EIR), all later activities in the Housing Element Update program will be examined in the light of this EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The Seal Beach City Council adopted the City of Seal Beach’s Housing Element Update on February 7, 2022. In response to California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) comment, the City updated the Housing Element Update on August 24, 2023. The Housing Element Update was then updated again in March 2024 in response to comments received from HCD. The most up to date version of the Housing Element Update is from August 2024. The City is preparing the Housing Element Update to comply with the legal mandate requiring each local government to identify adequate sites for housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs for varying income-levels in the community. It IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-4
is intended to provide the City with a comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent and affordable housing and affirmatively furthering fair housing during the housing cycle. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new dwelling units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories.
The Housing Element Update identifies a sites inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites, ADUs, and pipeline projects throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The Housing Opportunity Sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. As identified in the Initial Study, the Housing Element Update originally included 13 Housing Opportunity Sites. However, in response to comments received from HCD since the preparation of the Initial Study, the number of Housing Opportunity Sites identified has been reduced to eight. Of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning. The City’s rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, MC/RHD, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites. The new MC/RHD mixed-use zoning designation is needed in order to facilitate a density equivalent to RHD-46 (up to 46 units per acre) but with a minimum density of 40 units per acre.
This new zoning district would facilitate housing for lower-income households as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City.
In addition, this EIR analyzes potential impacts related to the Main Street Program component of the Housing Element Update. As identified in the Initial Study previously prepared for the Housing Element Update, Main Street was previously identified as one of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites originally included in the Housing Element Update. The Main Street Housing Opportunity Site was originally assumed to have a development capacity of 163 units. However, Main Street was removed from the list of Housing Opportunity Sites as a result of comments received from HCD. Though Main Street is no longer included as a Housing Opportunity Site, the City revised the Housing Element Update to include the Main Street Program to represent a good faith effort by the City to produce additional housing. 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 above the ground floor of properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. The Housing Element Update assumes two dwelling units would be proposed and permitted within the Main Street Specific Plan area during the Housing Element Update’s planning period, though the City is not relying on these units to meet the City’s RHNA requirement.
Finally, this EIR also provides programmatic analysis of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project. As identified in the Initial Study previously prepared for the Housing Element Update, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project was previously identified as one of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites originally included in the Housing Element Update (referred to as Old Ranch Country Club in the Initial Study). The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project was originally assumed to have a development capacity of 167 units. However, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project was removed from the list of Housing Opportunity Sites as a result of comments received from HCD, and redefined as a pipeline project as the City has received a Specific Plan development application. Pipeline projects are 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 IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-5
expected to be completed before the end of the planning period (October 15, 2029). The impacts associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. However, since the 167 dwelling units that comprise the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan are included within the City’s sites inventory to meet its RHNA requirements, the impacts from these dwelling units are evaluated within this analysis.
An Initial Study was prepared for the City and this EIR is being prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the City’s recent Housing Element Update, which was adopted by the Seal Beach City Council on February 7, 2022, and updated in August 2023, March 2024, and August 2024 in response to HCD comments. It identifies the City’s housing conditions and needs and establishes the policies and programs that comprise the City’s strategy to accommodate projected housing needs, including the provision of adequate housing for lower-income households and for special-needs populations (i.e., unhoused people, seniors, single-parent households, large families, and persons with disabilities). The City is continuing to work with HCD to certify the Housing Element Update. The Housing Element Update would bring the Element into compliance with state legislation and the City’s current RHNA allocation.
In March 2021, SCAG adopted its 6th Cycle RHNA allocation plan, covering the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. During this cycle, SCAG received a need of 1,341,827 new dwelling units, which was distributed to all 197 SCAG jurisdictions (SCAG 20211). HCD compliance requires a demonstration by the City that it can meet its “fair share” of the RHNA allocation of 1,243 new dwelling units.
The Housing Element Update includes the following components, as required by state law (City of Seal Beach 20242):
• An analysis of the City’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends; • An evaluation of land, financial, and administrative resources available to address the City’s housing goals;
• A review of potential constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, to meet the City’s housing needs; and
• A Housing Action Plan for the 2021-2029 planning period, including goals policies and programs. 1 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2021. SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan (approved by HCD on 3/22/21 and modified on 7/1/21). https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785. Accessed February 2025. 2 City of Seal Beach. 2024. 2021-2029 Housing Element, Adopted February 7, 2022, Revised August 2024. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Users/027/27/27/Seal%20Beach_HEU%20MainBody_Cleancompressed.pdf?ver=2024-08-20-083139-120. Accessed October 2024.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-6
The Housing Element Update identifies the following strategies and programs that focus on the following major goals:
• Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income-levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents;
• Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households;
• Address and, where appropriate and legally possible; remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing;
• Maintain and enhance the existing quality of residential neighborhoods in Seal Beach; and • Affirmatively further fair housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, marital status, income, or familial status.
The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new dwelling units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. The City must demonstrate to HCD that the Housing Element Update has adequate land capacity and implementing policies to accommodate its RHNA allocation. The Housing Element proposes that of the 1,243 units, 167 can be produced through one pipeline project pending approval (ORCC Specific Plan Project) and 7 ADUs. The Housing Opportunity Sites are expected to produce 1,165 units; however, the EIR assumes 100 percent buildout and evaluates 1,491 units on the eight Housing Opportunity Sites.
2.3 PROJECT SETTING
2.3.1 Population
The 2020 Census reported that the City’s population increased from 24,168 persons in 2010 to 25,242 persons in 2020 (see Section 3.12, Population and Housing for detailed information). The City’s 2020 population represented 0.8 percent of Orange County’s (County) 2020 population of 3,186,989 persons.
As identified in the City’s Housing Element Update, the City’s population has remained relatively stable over the past decade and had an annual growth rate of 0.2 percent during the 20-year period between 2000 and 2020.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) identifies growth forecast projections for each county and city under jurisdiction of the SCAG. The SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy adopted on September 3, 2020, included a demographics and growth forecast technical report that identifies the projected growth for each county and city under the jurisdiction of the SCAG. The SCAG’s growth forecast identifies the anticipated population for Seal Beach by the year 2045 to be 25,400 residents (SCAG 20203). As a nearly built-out community with almost no 3 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report, Adopted on September 3, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed February 2024.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-7
vacant developable land remaining to accommodate new growth, the City is expected to experience a low percentage of annual growth.
2.3.2 Housing
The housing stock in the City consists of a mix of single-family and multi-family units with one mobile home park. The City’s Housing Element Update identified that the most commonly occurring household size in the City is one person (45.1 percent) and the second-most occurring household is of two people (35.4 percent) (City of Seal Beach 20244). As of January 1, 2024, the City is estimated to have 14,678 total dwelling units with a vacancy rate of 8.9 percent (DOF 20245). Housing is discussed in more detail in Section 3.12, Population and Housing.
2.3.3 General Plan
The City of Seal Beach General Plan was adopted in December 2003 and serves as the major framework for directing growth within the City. The General Plan presents a comprehensive plan to accommodate the City’s growing needs and includes objectives related to eight Elements:
• Land Use
• Circulation
• Open Space/Recreation/Conservation
• Safety
• Housing (amended 2022)
• Noise
• Cultural Resources
• Growth Management
The General Plan reflects the broad-based attitudes of the community, consistent with environmental, economic, social, and legal constraints. The General Plan is a statement of City policy regarding the community’s future and serves as a guide for all planning and permit decisions.
2.3.4 Land Use Categories
The Land Use Element of the General Plan identified land use designations to recognize the type and nature of development permitted within specified areas of a site. The City includes 17 land use designations under the land use categories of residential, commercial, industrial, public, quasi-industrial, and military.
4 City of Seal Beach. 2024. 2021-2029 Housing Element, Adopted February 7, 2022, Revised August 2024. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Users/027/27/27/Seal%20Beach_HEU%20MainBody_Cleancompressed.pdf?ver=2024-08-20-083139-120. Accessed October 2024. 5 Department of Finance (DOF). 2024. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2024. May 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-countiesand-the-state-2020-2024/. Accessed September 2024.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-8
Table 2.3-1: City of Seal Beach Land Use Designations
Land Use Designation Acres Percent of Total Area
Residential
Low 353.7 5.0
Medium 505.4 7.0
High 166.4 2.3
Commercial
Professional Office 16.4 0.2
Service 49.3 0.7
General 93.4 1.3
Industrial
Light 117.0 1.6
Oil Extraction 54.6 0.8
Open Space
Open Space 42.7 2.0
Golf Course 156.8 2.2
Wetlands & Wildlife Refuge 1,020 14.3
Park 65.4 0.9
School 15.3 0.2
Community Facility 61.8 0.9
Miliary 4,336 60.7
Beach 80.3 1.1
Total 7,135 100
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
2.3.5 Zoning Code
The City’s Zoning Code is defined in Seal Beach Municipal Code Title 11 – Zoning. The Zoning Code defines the City’s allowed land uses and establishes development standards for each zone. The Zoning Code is adopted to regulate the use of real property, and the buildings, structures, and improvements located thereon, to implement the provisions of the General Plan and carry out its objectives.
Development standards provide density, floor area, setbacks, height, development intensity, and other such standards that help maintain the City’s vision within the General Plan for a parcel. l
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-9
Table 2.3-2: City of Seal Beach Zoning Code
Zoning Abbreviation Description
Base Residential Zoning Districts
Residential Low Density –
9 RLD-9 To allow single-unit neighborhoods at a base density of up to 9 dwelling units per net acre.
Residential Low Density –
15 RLD-15 To allow single-unit and small, zero-lot line neighborhoods at a base density of up to 15 dwelling units per net acre.
Residential Medium
Density – 18
RMD-18 To allow duplexes, townhouse projects, apartments, and small-lot, single-unit residential uses, at a density of 15 to 18 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses.
Residential High Density –
20 RHD-20 To allow for multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 20 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses.
Residential High Density –
33 RHD-33 To allow for multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 33 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses.
Residential High Density –
46 RHD-46 To allow for multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 46 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses.
Base Mixed-Use, Commercial, and Industrial Districts
Limited
Commercial/Residential
Medium Density
LC/RMD To allow limited commercial and office uses in conjunction with residential uses.
Main Street Specific Plan MSSP To allow visitor-serving and resident-serving office, retail, restaurant, and personal service uses with upper floors devoted to office uses along Main Street.
Professional Office PO To allow office, medical and related uses that may also serve as a buffer area between residential areas and more intensive commercial areas.
Service Commercial SC To allow neighborhood-serving commercial areas that provide retail, restaurant, and personal service uses.
General Commercial GC To allow sub-regional and regional centers of commercial activity and may include both pedestrian- and auto-oriented development.
Other typical uses are auto service stations, auto repair, and sales.
Light Manufacturing LM To allow sites in a business park environment for moderate- to lowintensity commercial services and light manufacturing uses.
Oil Extraction OE To allow for oil extraction and related production storage and processing, maintenance facilities, and related operational and maintenance facilities.
Base Public and Semi-Public Park Districts
Public and Semi-Public
Facilities
PS To allow appropriate public uses, including private utilities (electrical, gas, water, and telecommunications), schools (both private and public), and other city, county, state, or federal facilities.
Recreation/Golf RG To allow golf courses and associated club houses, maintenance facilities, accessory concession sales, and related plant nurseries.
I I
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-10
Zoning Abbreviation Description
Base Military, Open Space, and Park Districts
Military M Military
Beach BEA Beach
Open Space Natural OS-N To preserve publicly owned parklands, environmentally sensitive lands and habitats in their natural state. Uses permitted shall be limited to those that maintain the property in its natural state.
Open Space Parks and
Recreation
OS-PR To provide appropriately located areas for recreation and recreational uses. Uses permitted shall be limited to those that are devoted to public recreation including parks, playgrounds, swimming centers, tennis and basketball courts, golf courses, community centers within the facilities, and accessory concession sales.
Overlay District and Specific Plan Zone Regulations
Residential Conservation
Overlay
RC-O Support the preservation of locally-significant residential structures within the city and the need to provide incentives for owners to continue to occupy and maintain locally-significant historic structures as "bed and breakfast" facilities within appropriate areas of the city.
Planned Development
Overlay
PD Provide for detailed and substantial review of development that warrants special review and deviations from underlying
development standards. This overlay district is also intended to provide opportunities for creative development approaches that will achieve superior design solutions to that which would be possible if the project were built in full compliance with the required standards of the base district, and will not cause a significant adverse impact on residences to the side, rear, or directly across a street with respect to solar access, privacy and compatibility.
Commercial/Park C/P Seventy percent of any parcel within this zone shall be devoted to park uses with unrestricted access to the public.
Coastal Zone CZ Area under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Act, which is all areas south of Westminster Avenue located within the City limits.
Specific Plan Regulation SPR All property in the SPR Zone shall be used only for the purposes permitted by the general plan and the specific plan adopted for such property.
Source: City of Seal Beach, General Plan Zoning Map, 2013; City of Seal Beach Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, Title 11, 2024.
2.4 PROJECT LOCATION
Seal Beach is located at the northwestern edge of County, California (Figure 2-1). It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The City has a land area of approximately 13 square miles, roughly 8 square miles of which is dedicated to the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. l l
IJ
S nt
Gle ndale Pasadena
everly Hills
Los Ang eles East Los
~ 10 S.r1ta ,~c,,. Angeles
Monie Ir, \'Wt
42 lngl wood
e onclo Be ch
ncho P los
To rranc
Verdes 1473 ft
Down y
Sa.,,()·
r•ooF 11,y
Long Be ch
Ar cli lend or
qi 210
B ld,•1in P. rk
-- West Covina El M onte 0l
No rwa lk
Cerrit os
W l.Jnccin 'Po An heim
,S
Orong e
Sant Ana
Fount in
V lley
Hunti ngton
Beach
,, "Os I t ine
Costa M esa
Ne• port
Be ch
foothi ll Fwy
Ontari
Po mon a
Cl1ino
Chino Hills
"" ""
<11
•!
Mission Viejo
L un
Niguel
61 L un
S n Clemente
() Stantec
■ Housing Opportunity Sites
■ Main Street Program
Residential Component of the
■ Old Ranch Country Club Specific
Plan Project
■ Seal Beach City Limits
N
@ Miles
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:500,000
Notes
1. Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary
Sphere
2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024.
3. Background: World Topographic Map: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS
World Ocean Base: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NaturalVue
World Ocean Reference: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NGS
Project Location
City of Seal Beach,
California
Prepared by KDLP on 2025-03-10
IR by JW on 2025-03-10
Client/Project 204266500
City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project
Figure No.
2-1
Title
Regional Location
Di sclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Staniec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Staniec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-12
2.5 HOUSING ELEMENT PROJECT COMPONENTS
The Project evaluated within this EIR includes the Housing Element Update and the potential environmental impacts associated with the rezoning and buildout of eight Housing Opportunity sites and the Main Street Program (Figure 2-2). While the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is included within the RHNA totals, only the dwelling units are evaluated at a programmatic level within this EIR and therefore, the ORCC Specific Plan Project and its other components which include a medical office facility, overnight accommodation, bar/lounge and specialty restaurant, and parking structure are not considered as portions of the Project. This EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Pipeline Project; there is no nexus. 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. The entirety of the ORCC Specific Plan Project and its resulting implications and impacts are being analyzed by the City in a standalone EIR.
2.5.1 Housing Element Update
The City of Seal Beach Housing Element is a required General Plan element. In compliance with California Government Code Section 65583, the Housing Element identifies, analyzes, and makes adequate provision for the existing and projected housing needs of all the City’s economic segments.
California Government Code Section 65580–65589.8 require that jurisdictions evaluate their Housing Elements every eight years. The current statutory update in the SCAG region covers the eight-year 6th Cycle Housing Element (October 2021 to October 2029). The City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element is proposed to ensure consistency with current state housing laws and cover the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2021-2029). The Housing Element Update represents a comprehensive update to the City’s last adopted Housing Element (i.e., the 5th Cycle). The Housing Element Update will include revised goals and policies, and new, modified, and continuing implementation programs.
The Housing Element will provide the City with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing for all within the City. The Housing Element will be prepared to ensure the City establishes policies, procedures, and incentives in its land use planning and development activities that result in maintenance and expansion of the housing supply to adequately accommodate households currently living and expected to live in the City. The Housing Element will institute policies intended to guide City decision-making and establish an Implementation Program to achieve housing goals through the year 2029.
The Housing Element will be comprised of the following components:
Section 1: Introduction
This section of the Housing Element will provide background information and a baseline for the Housing Element’s primary sections. It will discuss the community context, describe the purpose of the Housing Element, a description of the organization of the Housing Element and the Housing Element’s role in relation to the General Plan, and summarize applicable state housing law. This section will summarize the community engagement process and outline the data sources and methods used.
IJ
VA Long
Be c h
He lthc are
. ste m
l.:im1tos Bay
dro
Cahro rn1a
State
Un1.ers1ty
Lo ng Be c h
/
al
B c h
ta lill'l
I
I
....
e
C '
um Gro,-e
Pill!,; 58 ft
"'e
<2
(j)'I.
LL
Kempto n Dr
<i,, ,, ~?.
"'Vt>! ~ ,. <?. c,.t. t;r,
<?. "C
~o .2:
CD
~'l>' .;;
..., '(,<:' Iv
m
O ld Ranc h
Country C lub
CA-22~W .. _-_-_-_-_ -_ -_
=======11/1/es tinm
Nav;:il W
Staton
Sea l Beach
() Stantec
■ Housing Opportunity Sites
■ Main Street Program
Residential Component of the
■ Old Ranch Country Club Specific
Plan Project
Site # Housing Site
1780 Pacific Coast
2 Leisure World
3 1011 Seal Beach Blvd/Accurate Storage
4 Shops at Rossmoor
5 Old Ranch Town Center
6 Seal Beach Plaza
7 Seal Beach Center
8 99 Marina Drive
N
@ 0.25 0.5
""'""',,_ __ _.""'""'""'""'"' Miles (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:31,680
Notes
1. Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary
Sphere
2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024.
3. Background: World Topographic Map: City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA,
USDA
World Ocean Base: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NaturalVue
World Ocean Reference: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NGS
Project Location
City of Seal Beach,
California
Prepared by KDLP on 2025-03-10
IR by JW on 2025-03-10
Client/Project 204266500
City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project
Figure No.
2-2
Title
Housing Opportunity Sites
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-14
Section 2: Projected Housing Need
This section provides a summary of the RHNA and outlines the RHNA allocation and housing needs for the City.
Section 3: Housing Resources
This section outlines the analysis of land resources available as potential development sites. Additionally, this section discussed opportunities for energy conservation and programs included in the Housing Element that would implement energy conservation strategies.
Section 4: Goals, Policies, and Programs
This section will contain the requisite Housing Element goals, policies, and programs that the City intends to implement to address the City’s housing-related needs. The overarching intent of the Housing Element is to create a policy structure that allows for facilitation of the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels to meet existing and future needs of residents and increased capacity in housing options that are available to people within the lower income categories.
Appendices
The following appendices contain information which further details and supports the development of the Housing Element:
• Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment
• Appendix B: Sites Inventory and Methodology
• Appendix C: Housing Constraints
• Appendix D: Existing Programs Review
• Appendix E: Public Participation Summaries
• Appendix F: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment • Appendix G: Housing Resources
Housing Element Implementation
As noted above, various General Plan and Seal Beach Municipal Code Title 11 Amendments may be required for the Housing Element Update, and ancillary amendments to other planning documents as necessary for clarification and consistency purposes. However, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, all later activities in the Housing Element Update program will be examined in the light of this EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-15
2.5.2 Rezoning and Creating of New Zoning Designation
Program 1b of the Housing Element Update commits to a rezoning program that facilitates housing for lower-income households as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City. As described, in order to implement housing development at some of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites and address constraints on the development of housing for a variety of income-levels, the City must establish a new zoning designation, MC/RHD, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites, facilitating residential development at what are generally commercial sites currently. The new MC/RHD mixed-use zoning designation would facilitate a residential density of RHD-46 (up to 46 units per acre) with a minimum density of 40 units per acre to better facilitate development of housing affordable to lower income levels in accordance with HCD policy. Other changes to zoning designations include rezoning a former oil extraction property to residential use under Program 1a (Provide Adequate Sites for Housing through updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code) to the City’s existing RHD-33 zoning district.
The actions described above would result in a change to the permitted uses and development standards on six of the Housing Opportunity Sites to align with the densities identified in the Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential list (Table 2.6-5, below).
Housing Element Update Program 1b
The proposed new zoning designation of MC/RHD will consider how to accommodate state requirements and policies to allow for: a minimum residential density of 40 units per acre and maximum residential density of 46 units per acre on larger, developed sites large enough size to permit: at least 16 units; exclusively residential uses; at least 50 percent of the building floor area of a mixed-use development to be dedicated to residential uses; and housing by-right with at least 20 percent of the units affordable to lower-income households. The definitions of “persons and families of low- and moderate-income,” “lowerincome households,” and “very low-income households” as set forth in Health and Safety Code Sections 50079.5, 50093, and 50150 shall apply. The City shall engage with affected property owners, the Building Industry Association, affordable housing developers, and other stakeholders during the zoning process to ensure the development standards can result in the development of the maximum number of units allowed and facilitate the inclusion of affordable units.
2.5.3 Main Street Program
Program 1r of the Housing Element Update commits to modifying the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow housing at select properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area. The amendments made to facilitate housing at select properties in the Main Street Specific Plan are not accounted for in the City’s Housing Opportunity Sites. The Main Street Program’s proposed amendments to the Main Street Specific Plan would allow for and permit the development of residential units to be constructed at select properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-16
2.6 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
SCAG has allocated the region’s 1,341,827 dwelling unit growth needs among the 197 jurisdictions in the region, including cities and counties, through the adopted its 6th Cycle RHNA allocation plan, covering the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. The RHNA represents the minimum number of housing units that the City’s sites inventory must accommodate for in its Housing Element Update, through its General Plan and Zoning. The City’s RHNA allocation is 1,243 new dwelling units, which is distributed among four income categories, consisting of 258 very low-, 201 low-, 239 moderate-, and 545 above moderate-income units (SCAG 20216).
2.6.1 Existing Site Conditions
The City has identified an inventory of sites across all areas of the city to implement programs to meet its RHNA. The City’s current base zoning, including the General Plan land use designation implemented by zoning designation, are provided in Table 2.6-1, below.
Table 2.6-1: Current Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations Zoning Abbreviation General Plan Designation
Implemented by Zoning
Base Residential Zoning Districts
Residential Low Density – 9a RLD-9 Residential Low Density Residential Low Density – 15a RLD-15 Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density – 18b RMD-18 Residential Medium Density Residential High Density – 20c RHD-20 Residential High Density Residential High Density – 33c RHD-33 Residential High Density Residential High Density – 46c RHD-46 Residential High Density Base Mixed-Use, Commercial, and Industrial Districts
Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Densityd LC/RMD Mixed Use Main Street Specific Plan MSSP Main Street Specific Plan Professional Office PO Professional Office
Service Commercial SC Service Commercial
General Commercial GC General Commercial
Light Manufacturing LM Light Manufacturing
Oil Extraction OE Oil Extraction
Base Public and Semi-Public Park Districts
Public and Semi-Public Facilities PS Community Facility and School Recreation/Golf RG Open Space – Golf
Base Military, Open Space, and Park Districts
6 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2021. SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan (approved by HCD on 3/22/21 and modified on 7/1/21). https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785. Accessed February 2025.
I I
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-17
Zoning Abbreviation General Plan Designation
Implemented by Zoning
Military M Military
Beach BEA Beach
Open Space Natural OS-N Open Space
Open Space Parks and Recreation OS-PR Park
Overlay District and Specific Plan Zone Regulations
Residential Conservation Overlay RC-O All
Planned Unit Development Overlay PUD/PD All
Commercial/Park C/P All
Coastal Zone CZ All
Specific Plan Regulation SPR All
Source: City of Seal Beach, General Plan Zoning Map, 2013; City of Seal Beach Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, Chapter
11.1.05.030, 2021.
Notes:
a Typical single-unit, and small, zero-lot line neighborhoods at a base density up to 9 or 15 dwelling units per net acre respectively.
b Duplexes, townhouse projects, apartments, and small-lot, single-unit residential uses, at a density of 15 to 18 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses. c Multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 20 to 46 dwelling units per net acre. Additional density may be achieved through density bonuses.
d Limited commercial and office uses in conjunction with residential uses.
2.6.2 Housing Opportunity Sites Categories
An important component of the City’s Housing Element Update is the identification of sites for future housing development, including an evaluation of the adequacy of those sites in fulfilling the City’s share of regional housing needs. Seal Beach is nearly built out with almost no vacant developable land remaining.
Therefore, the sites inventory must rely primarily on non-vacant sites.
The City’s RHNA allocation for the current cycle calls for accommodating 1,243 new dwelling units at low- , moderate-, and above moderate-income levels. Of this total allocation, there are seven ADUs that are projected to be developed, as well 167 dwelling units that are proposed as part of the Old Ranch Country Club Project, which can be counted towards the City’s overall unit requirement. Therefore, with the inclusion of ADU projections and entitled projects, the City has a remaining RHNA allocation of 1,069 that would be required to be satisfied by the other identified Housing Opportunity Sites.
The first iteration of the Housing Element Update included a total of 13 Housing Opportunity Sites.
Initially, all parcels in the city were evaluated through a process of elimination based on criteria set by HCD. Where housing units could not be located at sites under present zoning, the City examined nonresidential areas where zoning amendments could facilitate residential development. 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. The sites were also reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings, and property owners and other interested stakeholders IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-18
had the opportunity to provide comments on sites that should be considered for additional residential development. Following comments received from HCD regarding the Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the prior Initial Study and draft Housing Element Update, the sites were reevaluated and several of the originally previously Housing Opportunity Sites are no longer to be included in the plan. The number of identified Housing Opportunity Sites was reduced to eight sites. Housing Opportunity Sites 3 (ADUs), and 11 through 13 identified in the Initial Study were removed and are no longer proposed as Housing Opportunity Sites in response to HCD comments. These sites are no longer proposed as Housing Opportunity Sites but are included as part of the Housing Element Update. Site 10 is now categorized as a pipeline site, not a Housing Opportunity Site, but the 167 units proposed are analyzed in this Program EIR. See Table 2.6-2 below for a list of the Housing Opportunity Sites currently and previously proposed and the corresponding identifying number for the sites.
Table 2.6-2: Housing Opportunity Sites Numbering
Site Name
Housing Element
Update Redline (August
2023)
Initial Study Site No.
(November 2023)
EIR Site No.
(August 2024)
1780 Pacific Coast
Highway
1 1 1
Leisure World 2 2 2
Accessory Dwelling Units* 3 3 --
Accurate Storage 4 4 3
The Shops at Rossmoor 5 5 4
Old Ranch Town Center 6 6 5
Seal Beach Plaza 7 7 6
Seal Beach Center 8 8 7
99 Marina Drive 9 9 8
Old Ranch Country Club 10 10 (Recategorized to
Pipeline Site)
Naval Weapons Station
PCH & Seal Beach Blvd.
11 11 Converted to a Program,
not analyzed in this EIR
Water Storage Site (City
Property Navy Base)
12 12 Converted to a Program,
not analyzed in this EIR
Main Street* 13 13 Converted to a Program,
and analyzed in this EIR
The inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites addresses fair housing objectives by providing opportunities for affordable housing throughout the city. Potential underutilized sites and ADUs also create opportunities for affordable housing dispersed throughout the city in low-density residential neighborhoods, thereby expanding affordable housing choices. The Housing Opportunity Sites are not concentrated in low-resource areas. The sites are broken into two categories: (a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-19
Underutilized Sites
The Housing Opportunity Sites inventory consists of two underutilized sites with realistic potential for residential development, as summarized in Table 2.6-3. Because the current capacity of these underutilized sites is not sufficient to fully accommodate the RHNA allocation in all income categories, due to zoning and other limitations, proposed rezone sites have been identified, as shown in Table 2.6-4, below.
Table 2.6-3: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required) Proposed Rezone Sites
To accommodate the balance of the RHNA allocation and provide the required unit buffer, the City conducted an evaluation of potential properties where land use regulations could be amended to create additional opportunities for housing or mixed-use development, and six sites have been identified for further evaluation to determine the most appropriate parcels to be rezoned. Due to the lack of vacant and underutilized sites in the city, the sites were identified and analyzed in light of the development standards for their proposed zoning designation.
The City analyzed the most current parcel-level data to determine which sites were most appropriate for inclusion into the sites inventory and to estimate the number of additional units that are likely to be developed. Bearing in mind that most of the developable land within the city consists of established residential uses, most of these areas were eliminated from consideration, as land assembly in a singlefamily neighborhood was considered infeasible. To ensure sites selected for the sites 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 was determined by a number of different variables, including the improvement-to-land value ratio (I/L ratio), existing lot coverage, lot size, future development potential, and existing uses. As the I/L ratio serves as an indicator of the likelihood of redevelopment, according to the Housing Element Update, a I/L ratio or less than 1.0 for commercial and multi-family residential properties indicates that the parcels are underutilized, with a higher potential for residential infill redevelopment.
Site
No.
Site
Name
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
Onsite
Use(s)
General
Plan/
Zoning
Approximate
Acres
Estimated
Developable
Acres
Density (du/ac*)
Min.
Allowed
Max.
Allowed
1 1780
Pacific
Coast
Hwy
199-061-01 Retail,
specifically
a small
liquor store
and a bait
shop
Commercial
Limited;
LC/RMD
0.25 0.25 21.8
2 Leisure
World
095-691-04 Recreational
vehicle
storage
High
Density
Residential;
RHD-PD
5.5 5.5 32.2
* Du/ac – dwelling units per acre
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-20
Table 2.6-4: Proposed Rezone Sites
Site
No. Site Name
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
Onsite
Use(s)
Approximate
Acres
Estimated
Developable
Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
3 Accurate
Storage
095-791-18 Vehicle and
boat storage
4.4 1.8 RHD-20 MC/RHD
4 The Shops at
Rossmoor
086-492-51 Retail, office,
fast food,
grocery and
pharmacy
27 12 GC MC/RHD
5 Old Ranch
Town Center
130-861-
14, -15, -
16, -17, -
18, -19, -
20, -21, -
22, -23, -
24, -25, -
26, -27
Existing
commercial
center with
bank,
surface
parking,
restaurants,
department
stores, retail,
services,
Ralph’s
supermarket,
and CVS
Pharmacy
26 8.3 GC MC/RHD
6 Seal Beach
Plaza
095-641-
44, -49, -
55, -56, -57
Existing
commercial
center with
Chase Bank,
retail,
market, drive
through
restaurant,
and medical
and
professional
offices
7 1.5 SC MC/RHD
7 Seal Beach
Center
043-260-
02, -05
Existing
commercial
center with
CVS
Pharmacy,
retail,
services,
restaurant,
and market
9 2.7 SC MC/RHD
8 99 Marina Drive 199-011-10 Former oil
separation
facility with
abandoned
handball
court
4.3 3 OE RHD-33
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-21
Site
No. Site Name
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
Onsite
Use(s)
Approximate
Acres
Estimated
Developable
Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, March 2024.
Notes:* The City will create a new Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density (MC/RHD). The new mixed-use zoning designation would need to be created to facilitate a density equivalent to Residential High Density (RHD)-46, with a minimum density of 40 units per acre.
GC = Commercial General
OE = Oil Extraction
SC = Service Commercial
MC/RHD = Mixed Commercial/Residential High
Although ORCC Specific Plan Project is not identified as a Housing Opportunity Site, the ORCC Specific Plan Project would require a rezone from RG to a Specific Plan zone to accommodate the 167 dwelling units. The environmental impacts from the ORCC Specific Plan Project and rezoning of this property are evaluated in a separate environmental analysis. This EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Pipeline Project; there is no nexus. 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.
Density and Realistic Capacity Assumptions
The City’s sites inventory relies primarily on the rezoning of existing commercial properties to a new zone that allows for high density residential, mixed-use developments under Program 1b (Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density Zone). This new MC/RHD zone will allow residential development with a maximum density of up to 46 dwelling units per acre and will require a minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre. Sites in the City’s sites inventory that are being rezoned MC/RHD are conservatively assumed to develop at a capacity of 80 percent of maximum density (80 percent of 46 dwelling units per acre, or almost 37 dwelling units per acre), to account for the possibility of 100 percent commercial projects and inefficacies that can arise from parcel shape and orientation during the development process. In terms of land use controls, however, through Program 1b the City will create development standards in the MC/RHD zone that are conducive to achieving the maximum density of 46 dwelling units per acre.
The City’s conservative realistic capacity assumption for sites to be rezoned MC/RHD (80 percent of the maximum density of 46 dwelling units per acre) is lower than the minimum density of 40 dwelling units.
However, as the minimum density standard of 40 dwelling units per acre is a component of the proposed MC/RHD zoning district, the City anticipates additional units than those projected in its sites inventory may be constructed. The City considers this conservative approach to give it an additional built-in “buffer” for the purposes of meeting its RHNA obligations during the 6th cycle and is committed to adopting minimum and maximum densities as described in this Housing Element.
One other site, Housing Opportunity Site 8, located at 99 Marina Drive, will be rezoned under Program 1a (Provide Adequate Sites for Housing through updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code) to the City’s existing High Density Residential-33 zoning district, which allows a maximum density of 33 dwelling units
I I I I I I I I I
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-22
per acre. The realistic capacity assumed at Housing Opportunity Site 8 was discounted to 70 percent of maximum density (i.e., 70 percent of 33 dwelling units per acre, or approximately 23 dwelling units per acre) to account for land use controls, although again, the City anticipates that the maximum allowable density of 33 dwelling units per acre could be achieved, and therefore 100 percent of maximum density was analyzed in this EIR.
Lastly, the City’s sites inventory includes two sites that do not require rezoning for the production of housing, 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (Housing Opportunity Site 1) and the Leisure World RV parking lot (Housing Opportunity Site 2), which are also projected to accommodate an assumed capacity of 70 percent of maximum density to account for land use controls. Housing Opportunity Site 1 is zoned Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density, which allows a maximum density of 21.8 dwelling units per acre (i.e., 70 percent of 21.8 dwelling units per acre, or approximately 15.26 dwelling units per acre), and Housing Opportunity Site 2 is zoned Residential High Density/Planned Development and has a maximum density of 32.2 dwelling units per acre (i.e., 70 percent of 32.2 dwelling units per acre, or approximately
22.54 dwelling units per acre).
2.6.3 Housing Opportunity Site Descriptions
The Housing Element Update currently includes descriptions for the Housing Opportunity Sites, with an explanation of the methodology for the sites that are currently developed with various uses. With respect to existing utility infrastructure, such as water, wastewater, drainage systems, and dry utilities, there are no known limitations that would preclude the potential development and increased intensification of uses at each of the Housing Opportunity Sites. A description of the Housing Opportunity Sites is provided below, as taken from the March 2024 Housing Element Update (City of Seal Beach 20247).
Site 1 – 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (No Rezoning)
Location: 1780 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH; Pacific Coast Highway), at the eastern corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard. The site has housing to the rear of it, and retail to the north. Across the street to the south is the Naval Weapons Station, and to the west are single family residential uses. (Figure 2-3)
Size: 0.25 acre
Current Use: retail, specifically a small liquor store and a bait shop.
Current Zoning: Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density (LC/RMD) Reason For Selection: This parcel is developed with an older commercial building currently occupied by a liquor/convenience store. Due to the age and marginal condition of the structure, taken in combination with the value of the land, this site is an excellent and likely candidate for redevelopment with a new 7 City of Seal Beach. 2024. 2021-2029 Housing Element, Adopted February 7, 2022, Revised August 2024. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Users/027/27/27/Seal%20Beach_HEU%20MainBody_Cleancompressed.pdf?ver=2024-08-20-083139-120. Accessed October 2024.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-23
residential or mixed-use project. It is immediately adjacent to housing, with excellent access to goods and services.
Assumed Development Capacity: This zoning designation allows residential use at up to 21.8 units/acre. The site can reasonably accommodate ground floor commercial use and parking with four second-story housing units. Because of its maximum allowable density, this parcel has been listed in the moderate-income sites inventory, as shown in Table 2.6-5 below.
Site 2 – Leisure World (No Rezoning)
Location: Leisure World is a large, high-density residential senior community generally bound by Westminster Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard, Interstate (I)-405, and the Los Alamitos Flood Control Channel. The community currently has 6,608 units. The opportunity site within the development is located along the eastern border, about 0.33 miles from the southwestern corner of the community. (Figure 2-4) Size: 5.5 acres
Current Use: Recreational vehicle storage
Current Zoning: Residential High Density–Planned Development (RHD-PD) Reason For Selection: This is an underutilized site in a community that while not income-restricted, offers very affordable living options, with units selling far below the cost of condominiums elsewhere in the region. For example, a one-bedroom unit may be found for under $300,000 while elsewhere pricing starts in the $500,000 range. More than 75 percent of the population in Leisure World consists of low- to moderate-income households. Additionally, the community is already developed to higher densities, with a few buildings at three-stories with parking underneath. Additional units could integrate well into the community and could spread ongoing maintenance and operational costs among a greater number of owners, helping to keep those costs in an affordable range. Furthermore, such development has precedent. The series of three-story buildings earlier referenced, known as Mutual 17, were built in the 1980s, well after the rest of Leisure World was developed, and include 126 2-bedroom, 2-bath condominiums on a little less than five acres. As only one percent of the site is proposed for redevelopment, and adequately sized common areas are present, the existing uses will not impede the anticipated amount of residential development. A development proposal at this site can be approved administratively. No additional zoning revisions are needed.
Assumed Development Capacity: An additional 125 moderate-income units can be accommodated on approximately 5.5 acres presently devoted to recreational vehicle storage at a density of 32.2 units to an acre. New three-story buildings can accommodate parking on the ground level with units above.
IJ
() Stantec
■ Housing Opportunity Site
N
@
NotH
125 250
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:3,000
1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary
Spher@
2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024.
3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf
NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US
Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
ch
•
v1:e.:tminster
•
• 'ti
A
P(OJ«tLoear..on
City of Seal Beach,
California
Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10
1R by JW on 2025-03.t0
Client/Project
City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project
hgu�No.
2-3
Tille
Housing Opportunity Site 1
- 1780 Pacific Coast
204266500
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has net verified the aocuracy andfcr completeness of this information and shall not be responsible fer any errors er omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility fer data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full respcnsiliility fer verifying me aocuracy and completeness cf me data. () Stantec
■ Housing Opportunity Site
N
@
NotH
200 400
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:4,'300
1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary
Spher@
2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024.
3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf
NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US
Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
ch
•
�!'ikt:tminster
•
·,.
A
P(OJ«tLoear..on
City of Seal Beach,
California
Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10
1R by JW on 2025-03.t0
Client/Project
City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project
hgu�No.
2-4
Tille
Housing Opportunity Site 2 -
Leisure World
204266500
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has net verified the aocuracy andfcr completeness of this inf01maticn and shall not be responsible fer any errors er omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility fer data supplied in electronic f01mat, and the recipient accepts full respcnsiliility fer verifying me aocuracy and completeness cf me data.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-26
Site 3 – Accurate Storage (Rezoning Required)
Location: 1011 Seal Beach Boulevard. This site is bordered by office, commercial and light industrial uses to the north and west, by the City Police Station across Adolfo Lopez Drive to the south, and by the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach Boulevard to the east. (Figure 2-5) Size: 4.4 acres (Developable acres: 1.8 acres)
Current Use: Self storage facility
Current Zoning: High Density Residential (RHD-20)
Reason For Selection: This site was previously selected as a candidate housing site due to underutilized parking, location close to services, and interest from the property owner. There are no known environmental constraints on this property, and the site has good access to employment and transit routes. Due to the high land value and relatively low utilization, there is significant financial incentive for residential development on this property.
Assumed Development Capacity: As the current zoning did not result in redevelopment of this site with residential uses, the development assumptions have been revised. The improvement value to land value is less than 1.0 (0.54), indicating a likelihood for redevelopment, with conversion of the outdoor storage being the most likely to intensify in value. The indoor storage could remain in place and not be an impediment to development due to the site plan and overall quality of development and maintenance of the site. Therefore, it is assumed that only 1.8 acres of the site will redevelop to housing, instead of the entire 4.4 acres. This site is proposed for rezoning to a maximum density of 46 units per acre that will enhance the financial viability of adding residences to the site. Development of 1.8 acres could yield 66 above-moderate units, or more if a density bonus is employed. However, given the need to design around existing buildings, the projected number of units has been reduced to 59. Because the presumed developable area is less than 2 acres, Table 2.6-5 shows a conservative estimate of only 10 percent at lower-income and 10 percent at moderate income, despite a proposed density of 46 units per acre.
Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor (Rezoning Required)
Location: This multi-address retail center is located on the west side of Seal Beach Boulevard between St. Cloud Drive and Rossmoor Center Way. (Figure 2-6)
Size: 27 acres (Developable acres: 12 acres)
Current Use: Retail center, with uses including Marshalls, Kohl’s, Ulta, Sprouts Farmers Market, and Burlington
Current Zoning: General Commercial (GC)
Reason For Selection: This site 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 IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-27
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.
Assumed Development Capacity: The site is 27 acres, and surface parking occupies approximately 19 acres. It is assumed that approximately 12 acres of surface parking could be developed with housing, at a proposed 46 units per acre, resulting in 441 units, exclusive of a density bonus. Because of the ample development potential and therefore ability to achieve economies of scale, Table 2.6-5 projects 276 units at lower-income, 14 units at moderate-income, and 151 units at above-moderate-income.
Site 5 – Old Ranch Town Center (Rezoning Required)
Location: This multi-address retail center is on the east side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between the Old Ranch Country Club golf course and Plymouth Drive. (Figure 2-7) Size: 26 acres (Developable acres: 8.3 acres)
Current Use: Retail center including stores such as Target and Ralph’s supermarket.
Current Zoning: General Commercial (GC)
Reason For Selection: Similar to the Shops at Rossmoor, the Old Ranch Town Center has a significant amount of underutilized parking, and primarily big box uses. 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 on-site 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.
Assumed Development Capacity: It is assumed approximately 8.3 acres of the surface parking lot of the center could be developed or redeveloped with housing uses, creating a mixed-use environment at 46 units per acre, for a total of 306 units. Because of the ample development potential and therefore ability to achieve economies of scale, as well as density over 30 dwelling units per acre, Table 2.6-5 projects 258 units at lower-income and 48 at moderate-income. Due to its proximity to the Joint Forces Training Base, all residential units would be conditioned to meet interior noise level standards of 45 decibels, however, this is not an obstacle to development as this is also the standard in the California Building Code.
Housing currently exists to the north and northeast of the site, also adjacent to the Joint Forces Training Base.
IJ
() Stantec
■ Housing Opportunity Site
N
@
NotH
125 250
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:3,000
1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary
Spher@
2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024.
3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf
NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US
Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
ch
P(OJ«tLoear..on
City of Seal Beach,
California
Client/Project
City of Seal Beach
•
v1:e.:tminster
•
·,.
A
Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10
1R by JW on 2025-03.t0
204266500
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project
hgu�No.
2-5
Tille
Housing Opportunity Site 3 -
Accurate Storage
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has not verified the aocuracy andfor completeness of this inf01maticn and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic f01mat, and the recipient accepts full responsiliility for verifying me aocuracy and completeness of me data. () Stantec
■ Housing Opportunity Site
Residential Component of the
■ Old Ranch Country Club Specific
Plan Project
N
@
NotH
250 500
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:tl,000
1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary
Spher@
2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024.
3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf
NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US
Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
A
ch
·,.
P(OJ«tLoear..on
City of Seal Beach,
California
Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10
1R by JW on 2025-03.t0
Client/Project
City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project
hgu�No.
2-6
Tille
Housing Opportunity Site 4 -
The Shops at Rossmoor
204266500
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has net verified the aocuracy andfcr completeness of this information and shall not be responsible fer any errors er omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility fer data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full respcnsiliility fer verifying me aocuracy and completeness cf me data. ~
¼'e minster
•
() Stantec
■ Housing Opportunity Site
Residential Component of the
■ Old Ranch Country Club Specific
Plan Project
N
@
NotH
250 500
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:tl,000
1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary
Spher@
2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024.
3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf
NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US
Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
A
ch
·,.
P(OJ«tLoear..on
City of Seal Beach,
California
Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10
1R by JW on 2025-03.t0
Client/Project
City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project
hgu�No.
2-7
Tille
Housing Opportunity Site 5 -
Old Ranch Town Center
204266500
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he No�s section. Stantec has not verified the aocuracy andfor completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsiliility for verifying me aocuracy and completeness of me data. l!!!!!!!!lii;;;;;-i!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! F••t
~
\.ll.1et trninst:e r
•
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-31
Site 6 – Seal Beach Plaza (Rezoning Required)
Location: This multi-address retail center is at the northwest corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. Two churches and Leisure World are to the north and west, and generally the Naval Weapons Station surrounds the other sides. (Figure 2-8) Size: 7 acres (Developable acres: 1.5 acres)
Current Use: Retail and office/service uses.
Current Zoning: Service Commercial (SC)
Reason For Selection: This site has a low improvement value to land value ratio at 0.72 and has experienced some large tenant turnover in the past, which could indicate a need to reposition the site for long-term success in the future. Similar to other retail plazas, it is underutilized with large parking areas.
The site offers excellent access to goods and services, and augmenting the site with housing would benefit the on-site retailers. The adjacent Leisure World utilizes higher densities, and the Naval Weapons Station is immediately east, and is not a conflicting use.
Assumed Development Capacity: This site can be redeveloped entirely or partially as a mixed-use project. Assuming that residential uses are developed on 1.5 acres of surface parking at the site at a base density of 46 du/acre, 55 moderate-income units could be accommodated following adoption of a new mixed-use zoning district.
Site 7 – Seal Beach Center (Rezoning Required)
Location: This retail plaza is located on Pacific Coast Highway, between Balboa Drive and Bolsa Avenue. It is directly across the Pacific Coast Highway from Main Street, the commercial core of the Old Town and Marina Hill areas. (Figure 2-9)
Size: 9 acres (Developable acres: 2.7 acres)
Current Use: The center consists of two anchor stores, a Pavilions supermarket and a CVS Pharmacy, along with several smaller retail and restaurant tenant spaces.
Current Zoning: Service Commercial (SC)
Reason For Selection: This site has an improvement value to land value ratio of 0.72, indicating it is underutilized and could perform to a higher capacity. Its location provides excellent walkability and access to goods and services, including an elementary school. A small mixed-use project could be undertaken using available parking and redeveloping portions of the site with housing above retail. Moreover, the property representatives have expressed an interest in mixed use as a future possibility to increase site utility.
Assumed Development Capacity: With a mixed-use zoning allowing up to 46 units per acre, and 2.7 acres of surface parking, the capacity would be 99 above-moderate units without using a density bonus.
IJ
() Stantec
■ Housing Opportunity Site
N
@
NotH
200 400
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:4,'300
1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary
Spher@
2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024.
3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf
NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US
Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
ch
•
v1:mminster
•
·,.
A
P(OJ«tLoear..on
City of Seal Beach,
California
Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10
1R by JW on 2025-03.t0
Client/Project
City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project
hgu�No.
2-8
Tille
Housing Opportunity Site 6 -
Seal Beach Plaza
204266500
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has net verified the aocuracy andfcr completeness of this information and shall not be responsible fer any errors er omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility fer data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full respcnsiliility fer verifying me aocuracy and completeness cf me data. () Stantec
■ Housing Opportunity Site
■ Main Street Program
N
@
NotH
125 250
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:3,000
1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary
Spher@
2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024.
3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf
NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US
Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
ch
•
v1:e.:tminster
•
. ,,.
A
P(OJ«tLoear..on
City of Seal Beach,
California
Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10
1R by JW on 2025-03.t0
Client/Project
City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project
hgu�No.
2-9
Tille
Housing Opportunity Site 7 -
Seal Beach Center
204266500
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has not verified the aocuracy andfor completeness of this inf01maticn and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsiliility for verifying me aocuracy and completeness of me data.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-34
Site 8 – 99 Marina (Rezoning Required)
Location: 99 Marina Drive, northeast of Marina Drive and First Street intersection. (Figure 2-10) Size: 4.3 acres (Developable acres: 3 acres)
Current Use: Vacant. At some point, a handball court was constructed on the western edge of the property and the City maintains a small section of the property around the court primarily for safety reasons as the court is located adjacent to a public park.
Current Zoning: Oil Extraction (OE)
Reason For Selection: Previously a site that supported oil extraction in the area, 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.
Assumed Development Capacity: A density of 33 units per acre is proposed at this site to meet the 30- du/ac default density thresholds established under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)).
However, this location may have additional development standards imposed by the Coastal Commission, similar to the adjacent development, where a portion of the site was left as open space. Thus, the total housing production expected at the site is 69 units, all of which are assumed to be above moderate, to be extremely conservative.
2.6.4 Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential As shown in Table 2.6-5 below, redevelopment of underutilized sites could result in a total of approximately 129 new dwelling units, and potential rezone parcels could accommodate a total of approximately 1,036 new dwelling units. Based on this, by implementing the Project, in combination with the ADU projections and the pipeline project at Old Ranch Country Club, the City would be able to provide 1,339 additional dwelling units, thereby accommodating the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation (1,243 new dwelling units) and a buffer to demonstrate capacity for all income levels. The residential site development potential is shown in Table 2.6-5.
IJ
() Stantec
■ Housing Opportunity Site
N
@
NotH
125 250
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:3,000
1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary
Spher@
2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024.
3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf
NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US
Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
ch
•
v1:e.:tminster
•
. ,.
A
P(OJ«tLoear..on
City of Seal Beach,
California
Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10
1R by JW on 2025-03.t0
Client/Project
City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project
hgu�No.
2-10
Tille
Housing Opportunity Site 8 -
99 Marina Drive
204266500
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has net verified the aocuracy andfcr completeness of this information and shall not be responsible fer any errors er omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility fer data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full respcnsiliility fer verifying me aocuracy and completeness cf me data.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-36
Table 2.6-5: Housing Element Update Residential Development Potential Assumption Site No. Site Name Developable
Acres
Assumed
Density
(du/ac)
LowerIncome
Dwelling
Units
ModerateIncome
Dwelling
Units
Above
ModerateIncome
Dwelling
Units
Total Units
Underutilized Sites
1 1780
Pacific
Coast
Highway
0.25 15.26 (70
percent of
max
density)
-- 4 -- 4
2 Leisure
World
5.5 22.54 (70
percent of
max
density)
-- 125 -- 125
Total Units from Underutilized Sites -- -- 129 -- 129
Rezoned Sites
3 Accurate
Storage
1.8 36.8 (80
percent of
max
density)
-- -- 66 66
4 The Shops
at
Rossmoor
12 36.8 (80
percent of
max
density)
276 14 151 441
5 Old Ranch
Town
Center
8.3 36.8 (80
percent of
max
density)
258 48 -- 306
6 Seal
Beach
Plaza
1.5 36.8 (80
percent of
max
density)
55 55
7 Seal
Beach
Center
2.7 36.8 (80
percent of
max
density)
-- -- 99 99
8 99 Marina
Drive
3 33 (70
percent of
max
density)
-- -- 69 69
Total Units from Proposed Rezoning -- 534 117 385 1,036 Total Units including
Underutilized Sites
and Rezone
35.05 534 246 385 1,165
Projected ADUs 5 2 -- 7
Pipeline Projects (Old Ranch Country
Club)
-- -- 167 167
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-37
Site No. Site Name Developable
Acres
Assumed
Density
(du/ac)
LowerIncome
Dwelling
Units
ModerateIncome
Dwelling
Units
Above
ModerateIncome
Dwelling
Units
Total Units
Total Units including Underutilized
Sites, Rezone Sites, Projected ADUs,
and Approved/Entitled Projects
539 248 552 1,339
Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, March 2024.
Potential units based on estimated development area.
The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new dwelling units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories. In accordance with the “No Net Loss” provisions of SB 166, Housing Opportunity Sites inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element Update includes sufficient sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation.
2.6.5 Other Sites
The other sites included within the RHNA allocation are the ORCC Pipeline Project and the Main Street Program. As noted in Section 2.5.3, the Housing Element Update includes the Main Street Program which would modify the Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential units to be developed above the ground floor for buildings located within the Main Street Specific Plan area (Figure 2-11). The Housing Element Update assumes two dwelling units would be proposed and permitted within the Main Street Specific Plan area during the Housing Element Update’s planning period.
The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is identified by the Housing Element Update as a pipeline project. The 167 dwelling units that are proposed as part of the ORCC Specific Plan Project can be counted toward the City’s overall RHNA requirement. Therefore, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is being evaluated programmatically within this 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.
IJ
() Stantec
■ Housing Opportunity Site
■ Main Street Program
N
@
NotH
250 500
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:tl,000
1. C001dinate S�tem: WGS 1QS4 Web MercatorAudiary
Spher@
2. Data Souroes: Ci1y of Seal Buch 2024.
3. Bad..ground: Hytrid Referenc. Layer: Esri Community Maps Con1ributors, City of Lang Bea oh, Coun1y of Los Angeles, Caifotnia State Parks,® OpenStte.etMap, Mk:tosoft, Esti, TomTOM, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoT�hnologies, lne, METlf
NASA, USGS, Bureau of land Management. EPA. NPS, US
Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
ch
•
v1:e.:tminster
•
A
P(OJ«tLoear..on
City of Seal Beach,
California
Prep.are-cl by KOLP on 202>03•10
1R by JW on 2025-03.t0
Client/Project
City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project
hgu�No.
2-11
Tille
Main Street Program
204266500
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in 1he Nc�s section. Stantec has net verified the aocuracy andfcr completeness of this information and shall not be responsible fer any errors er omissions which may be incorporated herein as a resull Stantec assumes no responsibility fer data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full respcnsiliility fer verifying me aocuracy and completeness cf me data. !!!!!!!!!lii;;;;;iil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FHt
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-39
2.7 PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS AND PROJECTIONS
2.7.1 Maximum Buildout Scenario
Though the Housing Element provides conservative assumptions of the Housing Opportunity Sites’ development potential, for the purposes of this EIR, the EIR analyzes full potential scenario buildout conditions to ensure that if the Housing Opportunity Sites were developed at 100 percent capacity of the allowed maximum density, the potential environmental effects resulting from 100 percent buildout are analyzed and if applicable, mitigated, in the EIR document. If the eight Housing Opportunity Sites were built out at the maximum density allowed, the underutilized sites could result in a total of approximately 182 new dwelling units, and rezoned parcels could accommodate a total of approximately 1,309 new dwelling units. Additionally, though the Initial Study assumed that buildout for the Main Street Specific Plan area would allow for development of up to 163 new dwelling units, it is unlikely that 100 percent buildout within the Main Street Specific Plan area would occur and therefore, for the purposes of this EIR, the analysis contained herein assumed the development for the Main Street Specific Plan area as a result of the Main Street Program at 70 percent of maximum buildout resulting in the potential for 115 new dwelling units to be developed within the Main Street Specific Plan area. Finally, the analysis within this EIR assumes buildout of 100 percent of the proposed dwelling units at the ORCC Specific Plan Project site, totaling approximately 167 units. Therefore, the analysis contained herein assumed buildout under the proposed project to result in the potential for 1,773 new dwelling units (1,491 dwelling units from the eight Housing Opportunity Sites, 115 dwelling units from the Main Street Program, and 167 from ORCC Specific Plan Project) to be developed within the City.
Therefore, this EIR analyzes the potential maximum buildout conditions for the Housing Opportunity Sites and 70 percent of maximum buildout for the Main Street Specific Plan area that could result from implementation of the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update resulting in buildout of a total of 1,606 new dwelling units. The potential impacts resulting from the 167 dwelling units from the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is evaluated at a programmatic level within this EIR but is discussed separately from the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program in the analysis. See Table 2.7-1 below for a breakdown of the maximum buildout conditions for each of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and potential buildout for the Main Street Program at 70 percent of the maximum allowable buildout.
Table 2.7-1: Buildout Conditions Utilized in CEQA Analysis Site No. Site Name Developable Acres Maximum Density
(du/ac) Total Units
Underutilized Sites
1 1780 Pacific Coast Highway 0.25 21.8 5
2 Leisure World 5.5 32.2 177
Total Units from Underutilized Sites 182
Rezoned Sites
3 Accurate Storage 1.8 46 83
I
1 l I l
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-40
Site No. Site Name Developable Acres Maximum Density
(du/ac) Total Units
4 The Shops at Rossmoor 12 46 552
5 Old Ranch Town Center 8.3 46 382
6 Seal Beach Plaza 1.5 46 69
7 Seal Beach Center 2.7 46 124
8 99 Marina Drive 3 33 99
Total Units from Proposed Rezoning 1,309
Total Units including Underutilized Sites
and Rezone
35.05 -- 1,491
Other Sites
Main Street Program* 9.2 -- 115
Old Ranch Country Club 4.0 - 167
Total Units under Buildout 49.25 1,773
* The Housing Element Update assumes under the Main Street Program, two dwelling units would be proposed and permitted within the Main Street Specific Plan area during the Housing Element Update’s planning period. However, based on a 70 percent buildout scenario of the 163 total dwelling units identified in the Initial Study for the Main Street Specific Plan area, 115 dwelling units is the assumed buildout condition under the Main Street Program for the purposes of CEQA.
2.7.2 Buildout Projections for Future Site Development
A “project” as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a) “means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment” or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” The Project is comprised of eight Housing Opportunity Sites for future development to meet the City’s allocation of 1,243 dwelling units in the 6th Cycle RHNA; it does not propose any site development on a Housing Opportunity Sites. Future development could occur on these Housing Opportunity Sites, if ultimately included within the Housing Element, as local conditions dictate with timing at the discretion of each individual property owner.
The Project is ultimately implementing the Housing Element Update. Therefore, this EIR evaluates implementation of the Housing Element Update at the maximum buildout potential scenario and the potential environmental impacts that would result, including establishment of eight Housing Opportunity Sites and a new zoning designation, as well as rezoning of parcels, resulting in increased densification and intensification of residential uses.
Future developments are evaluated in this EIR at a programmatic level based on information available to the City where reasonably foreseeable, direct, and indirect physical changes in the environment could be considered. Additional project-level analysis of the potential impacts resulting from future developments discussed within the Housing Element Update would be speculative at this time. Therefore, a programmatic level analysis is appropriate.
Future Development Constraints
Future developments facilitated by the Housing Element could be constrained by market conditions or various environmental conditions or impacts. Market constraints on potential future developments are I
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-41
created by environmental and regulatory frameworks that reduce the potential profitability of housing development. Environmental constraints on potential future developments are created by the time, effort, and costs associated with mitigating environmental impacts.
Where environmental impacts are significant and unavoidable, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council would be asked to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Housing Element Update against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the Housing Element Update. It is noted, as discussed above, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, all later activities in the Housing Element Update program will be examined in the light of this EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. For example, a Housing Opportunity Site may require additional environmental documentation and analysis in the event that the housing types proposed on the site change.
Future Development
Future projects proposed under the Housing Element would be required to adhere, as applicable, to CEQA mitigation measures identified in this EIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the site to develop consistent with the Housing Element Update’s purpose and to avoid or lessen any potentially significant environmental impacts.
Future housing projects may tier from this EIR or a finding may be made that sufficient environmental clearance occurred with this EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152, 15162 and 15168). This EIR comprehensively considers a series of related projects with the intent to streamline subsequent review of future development projects consistent with the Housing Element’s intent.
Future developments facilitated by the Housing Element Update programs would be subject to subsequent environmental and other discretionary review and permitting. Specifically, design review and subsequent discretionary review would be required for most subdivision map actions. Subsequent discretionary actions must be examined in the light of this EIR to determine whether an additional environmental documentation needs to be prepared. Future development projects on the Housing Opportunity Sites would be required to go through the City’s established entitlement process.
2.8 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the following primary objectives support the project’s purpose, assist the Lead Agency in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to be evaluated in this EIR, and ultimately aid decision-makers in preparing findings and overriding considerations, if necessary.
• Protect and improve quality of life for current and future residents. • Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs.
• Amend land use standards and designations in the City’s Zoning Code, Specific Plans.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Project Description
2-42
• General Plan as needed to comply with state law and meet the required Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
• Remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development.
• Affirmatively further fair housing.
2.9 INTENDED USES OF THE PROGRAM EIR
2.9.1 List of Permits and Other Approvals
The proposed Project evaluated in this EIR is comprised of implementation of the Housing Element Update and establishment of eight Housing Opportunity Sites and a new zoning designation, as well as rezoning of parcels, resulting in increased densification and intensification of residential uses. The Project does not propose any site development on the Housing Opportunity Sites. Future development would occur on the Housing Opportunity Sites, if ultimately included within the Housing Element, and as market conditions allow at the discretion of the individual property owners. The anticipated permits, approvals and consultation required for the Project include:
• Certification of CEQA document
• Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (if applicable) • Change of Zone
• Seal Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Code Amendment
In addition to the amendments included as part of the Project, approval of various General Plan and Seal Beach Municipal Code Title 11 amendments may be required for the Housing Opportunity Sites ultimately included in the Housing Element, and ancillary amendments to other planning documents, as necessary for clarification and consistency purposes.
2.9.2 List of Agencies
It is anticipated that approval of the Housing Element Update from the following agencies will be required:
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission, City of Seal Beach City Council, and HCD. Likewise, the City of Seal Beach City Council would certify and adopt this Housing Element Update EIR.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Analysis
3.0-1
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following sections evaluate the potential environmental impacts that could result from the Project, including implementation of the Housing Element Update at the maximum buildout potential scenario and the potential environmental impacts that would result, including establishment of eight Housing Opportunity Sites and a new zoning designation, establishment of the Main Street Program, as well as rezoning of parcels, resulting in increased densification and intensification of residential uses.
Implementation of the Housing Element Update is anticipated to occur over the next eight years, which constitutes the City’s planning period from 2021 to 2029 to meet the state’s RHNA allocation. Potential impacts are assessed against the existing conditions, long-term implementation horizon year of 2030, criteria for determining the significance of potential environmental impacts, analyses of the type and magnitude of environmental impacts, and feasible mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts.
The Housing Opportunity Sites were evaluated in this EIR at a programmatic level based on information available to the City of Seal Beach where reasonably foreseeable, direct, and indirect physical changes in the environment could be considered. While the legally required contents of a programmatic-level-based analysis are the same as those of a project-specific analysis, a programmatic level analysis is typically more conceptual and may contain a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures than project-specific analysis. As provided in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a programmatic level analysis may be prepared on a series of actions that may be characterized as one large project. Use of a programmatic level analysis provides the City (as Lead Agency) with the opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures and provides the City with greater flexibility to address environmental issues and/or cumulative impacts on a comprehensive basis. Agencies generally prepare programmatic level analysis for programs or a series of related actions that are linked geographically, are logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program, or are individual activities carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways.
Further (project-level) analysis was not conducted because the City has not received development proposals for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area analyzed in this EIR and therefore had no further information on which to base an analysis; any such analysis would be too speculative. Similarly, the analysis related to the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is provided to be informational as the project-specific impacts related to development of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being analyzed in detail and evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Analysis
3.0-2
Environmental Resource Topics
The environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures related to each environmental resource area are described in the following sections:
• Section 3.1: Aesthetics
• Section 3.2: Air Quality
• Section 3.3: Biological Resources
• Section 3.4: Cultural Resources
• Section 3.5: Energy
• Section 3.6: Geology and Soils
• Section 3.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Section 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
• Section 3.9: Hydrology and Water
Quality
• Section 3.10: Land Use and Planning
• Section 3.11: Noise
• Section 3.12: Population and Housing
• Section 3.13: Public Services
• Section 3.14: Recreation
• Section 3.15: Transportation
• Section 3.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
• Section 3.17: Utilities and Service Systems
Organization of Environmental Resource Section
Each environmental resource section is organized as follows:
Summary of Impacts provides a summary of the potential environmental impacts associated with the Project. A discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is also included; however, specific impact findings associated with the development of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR.
Environmental Setting provides an overview of the existing physical environmental conditions in the study area that could be affected by implementation of the Project (i.e., the “affected environment”). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, each environmental resource section will include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project area to provide the “baseline condition” against which project-related impacts are compared. Typically, the baseline condition is the physical condition that exists when the NOP is published; however, a different baseline may be used in specific cases where it is deemed appropriate. For the Project, the environmental setting described in each of the following sections will be that which existed on November 16, 2023, the date the NOP was published.
Regulatory Setting identifies the plans, policies, laws, and regulations that are relevant to each resource area and describes permits and other approvals necessary to implement future housing projects.
Compliance with these applicable laws and regulations is mandatory unless otherwise noted. Therefore, as it relates to the impact analysis, compliance is assumed because the laws in effect require it, and mitigation would generally not be required when compliance with an existing law or regulation would either avoid or reduce a significant impact to a level below significance.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Analysis
3.0-3
Thresholds of Significance identifies the thresholds of significance used to determine the level of significance of the environmental impacts for each resource topic, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126, 15126.2, and 15143. The thresholds of significance used in this Draft EIR are based on the checklist presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines; best available data; and regulatory standards of federal, state, and local agencies.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures identify the level of each environmental impact by comparing the effects of the project to the environmental setting. Key methods and assumptions used to frame and conduct the impact analysis, as well as issues or potential impacts not discussed further (e.g., such issues for which the project would have no impact), are also described.
Project impacts are organized numerically in each subsection (e.g., Impact AQ-1, Impact AQ-2, Impact AQ-3). A bold-font environmental impact statement precedes the discussion of each impact while its level of significance succeeds the discussion of each impact. The discussion that follows the impact summary includes the substantial evidence supporting the impact significance conclusion.
Mitigation Measures describe any feasible measures that could avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for significant adverse impacts, with measures having to be fully enforceable through incorporation into the Project (PRC Section 21081.6[b]). Mitigation measures are not required for environmental impacts that are found to be less than significant. Where feasible mitigation for a significant environmental impact is available, it is described following the impact. Where sufficient feasible mitigation is not available to reduce environmental impacts to a less than significant level, or where the lead agency lacks the authority to ensure that the mitigation is implemented when needed, the impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable.
Level of Significance After Mitigation describes the level of impact significance remaining after mitigation measures are implemented.
Level of Significance
Determining the severity of Project impacts is fundamental to achieving the objectives of CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires that decision makers mitigate the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR to less than significant, if feasible. If the EIR identifies any significant unmitigated impacts, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires decision-makers to adopt a statement of overriding considerations that explains why the benefits of the Project outweigh the adverse environmental consequences identified in the EIR.
The level of significance for each impact examined in this Draft EIR is determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the impact against the applicable threshold. Thresholds were developed using criteria from the CEQA Guidelines and Appendix G Checklist; federal, state, and local regulatory schemes; regional and local plans and ordinances; accepted practice; consultation with recognized experts; and other professional opinions.
Each bolded impact statement also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as one of the following determinations:
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Analysis
3.0-4
• Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
• Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
• Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if they are readily available and easily achievable.
• No Impact. The Project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
Format Used for Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures The format adopted in this Draft EIR to present the evaluation of environmental impacts is described and illustrated below.
Summary Heading of Impact
Impact AQ-1: An impact summary heading appears immediately preceding the impact description (Summary Heading of Impact in this example). The impact abbreviation identifies the section of the report (AQ for Air Quality in this example) and the sequential order of the impact (1 in this example) within that section. To the right of the impact number is the impact statement, which identifies the potential impact.
Impact Analysis
A narrative analysis follows the impact statement.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
This section identifies the level of significance of the impact before any mitigation is proposed.
Mitigation Measures
In some cases, following the impact discussion, reference is made to federal and state regulations and agency policies that would fully or partially mitigate the impact. In addition, policies and programs from applicable local land use plans that partially or fully mitigate the impact may be cited.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Analysis
3.0-5
Project-specific mitigation measures, beyond those contained in other documents, are set off with a summary heading and described using the format presented below:
MM AQ-1: Project-specific mitigation is identified that would reduce the impact to the lowest degree feasible. The mitigation number links the particular mitigation to the impact with which it is associated (AQ-1 in this example).
Abbreviations used in the mitigation measure numbering are shown in Table 3.0-1.
Table 3.0-1: Environmental Resource Abbreviations
Code Environmental Resource Topic
AES Aesthetics
AQ Air Quality
BIO Biological Resources
CUL Cultural Resources
EN Energy
GEO Geology and Soils
GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions
HAZ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HYD Hydrology and Water Quality
LU Land Use and Planning
NOI Noise
POP Population and Housing
PUB Public Services
TRANS Transportation
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
UTIL Utilities and Service Systems
Level of Significance After Mitigation
This section identifies the resulting level of significance of the impact following mitigation.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
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.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Analysis
3.0-6
According to the CEQA Guidelines:
Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable and that compound or increase other environmental impacts. a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or multiple separate projects.
b) “The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probably future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15355)
In addition, as stated in CEQA Guidelines:
The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15064[T][5]).
Cumulative Impact Setting
An analysis of cumulative impacts follows the project-specific impacts and mitigation measures evaluation in each section. As established in the CEQA Guidelines, related projects consist of “closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects that would likely result in similar impacts and are located in the same geographic area” (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15355).
The State CEQA Guidelines define a cumulative impact as two or more individual impacts that, when considered together, are significant or that compound or increase other significant environmental impacts.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over time (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). The incremental impact of a project, although less than significant on its own, may be considerable when viewed in the cumulative context of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. A considerable contribution is considered significant from the point of view of cumulative impact analysis.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 identifies two basic methods for establishing the cumulative environment in which a project is considered: the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects or the use of adopted projections from a general plan, other regional planning document, or a certified EIR for such a planning document. This cumulative analysis uses a combination of the “list” approach and the “projections” approach to identify the cumulative setting. The plan and projections approach relies on an adopted plan or reliable projection that describes the significant cumulative impact.
This Draft EIR combines both the project list and projection approaches to generate the most reliable future projections possible.
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 IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Analysis
3.0-7
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.
Geographic Scope
The geographic area analyzed for cumulative impacts is dependent on the resource being analyzed. The geographic area associated with the proposed 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 cumulative impact analysis.
Each section of this Draft EIR considers the specific geographic area that is directly related to the individual topic addressed within that section. Some analyses including air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and population and housing, rely on much larger geographic areas such as the Southern California region. For issues that may have regional cumulative implications, the cumulative impact analysis for this EIR is based on Connect SoCal 2024, Southern California’s most recent Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Based on the forecasts in Connect SoCal 2024, in 2050 Seal Beach is estimated to have 13,900 dwelling units. However, as of January 1, 2024, the Department of Finance’s (DOF) population and housing estimates identify that Seal Beach is currently estimated to have 14,678 dwelling units, which is more than the number of projected dwelling units for 2050. Therefore, development under the Project in conjunction with development forecasted in Connect SoCal 2024 is accounted for in the cumulative impacts analysis.
For analyses 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. The cumulative impact analysis also includes the ORCC Specific Plan Project as it is a future development project in the City and currently under review.
Table 3.0-2: Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact and Method of Evaluation Resource Topic Geographic Area Method of Evaluation
Aesthetics Immediate project vicinity Projects
Air Quality Local (toxic air contaminants)
air basin (construction-related and
mobile sources)
Projects and Projections
Biological Resources Immediate project vicinity and
region
Projects
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Analysis
3.0-8
Resource Topic Geographic Area Method of Evaluation
Cultural and Historical Resources Project site only (does not contribute to cumulative impacts)
Projects
Energy Immediate project vicinity and
region
Projects and Projections
Geology and Soils Immediate project vicinity Projects
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Climate Change
State Projections
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project site only (does not contribute to cumulative impacts)
Projects
Hydrology and Water Quality Immediate project vicinity and region
Projects
Land Use and Planning City Projects
Noise Immediate project vicinity (effects
are highly localized)
Projects
Population and Housing Region Projects and Projections
Public Services Immediate project vicinity Projects and Projections Recreation City and immediate vicinity Projects
Transportation Immediate project vicinity Projects and Projections Tribal Cultural Resources Project site only (does not
contribute to cumulative impacts)
Projects
Utilities and Service Systems Local Projects
Notes:
Projects = the use of a list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects Projections = the use of projections contained in relevant planning documents List of Related Plans and Projects
The list of past, present, and probable future projects can be found in Table 3.0-3, below. Figure 3-1 shows the location of each project.
As noted above, where a cumulative impact is significant when compared to existing or baseline conditions, the analysis must address whether the project’s contribution to the significant cumulative impact is “considerable.” If the contribution of the project is considerable, then the EIR must identify potentially feasible measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of the project’s contribution to a less-than-considerable level. If the project’s contribution is not considerable, it is considered less than significant and no mitigation of the project contribution is required. The cumulative impacts analysis is formatted in the same manner as the Project-specific impacts.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Analysis
3.0-9
Table 3.0-3: Cumulative Past, Present, and Probable Future Residential Projects in the City and Surrounding Area
# Project Name* Location Project
Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units
1 Old Ranch
Country Club
Project
Old Ranch
Country Club,
City of Seal
Beach
Construction of
a 116-unit, 4-
level (188,500
square feet)
multi-family
housing
development; a
51-unit, 3-level
senior housing
complex;
medical office
facility; overnight
accommodation,
including a bar
and lounge and
specialty
restaurant
Preparation of
EIR 167
2 Naval Weapons
Station
Pacific Coast
Hwy & Seal
Beach
Boulevard
Potential future
housing
developments
proposed within
the Naval
Weapons
Station
Anticipated 150
3 Water Storage
Site
Within the Naval
Weapons
Station,
approximately
1,000 feet east
of Seal Beach
Boulevard, near
the housing
community off
Anchor Way
Potential future
housing
developments
proposed within
the Naval
Weapons
Station
Anticipated 65
4 Lampson
Project
4665 Lampson
Avenue, City of
Los Alamitos
Redevelopment
of existing office
building with a
residential
development
consisting of
cluster homes,
townhomes, and
apartments
totaling 246
units
Approved (By
City of Los
Alamitos)
246
5 Onni Marina
Shores
6500-6670 E.
Pacific Coast
Hwy, City of
Long Beach
(7242011013)
Two, 5-story
buildings with a
total of 563,529
square feet
containing 600
Approved (By
City of Long
Beach)
600
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Analysis
3.0-10
# Project Name* Location Project
Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units
residential units
and 4,000
square-feet of
ground-level
restaurant space
6 Carmel Partners
6615 E. Pacific
Coast Hwy, City
of Long Beach
(7237020050)
Construction of
a six-story
mixed-use
project
consisting of
390 residential
dwelling units
and 5,351
square feet of
commercial/retai
l space
Approved (By
City of Long
Beach)
380
7 Holland Partners
6700 E. Pacific
Coast Hwy, City
of Long Beach
(7242012006)
Construction of
a new mixeduse project
consisting of
281 residential
dwelling units,
3,100 square
feet of
commercial/retai
l space in a
building with
592,100 square
feet of area
Approved (By
City of Long
Beach)
281
8 Long Beach
Housing
Element Site
6695 E. Pacific
Coast Hwy
(7237020040);
6411 E. Pacific
Coast Hwy
(7237020051);
No address
(7237020904)
Candidate site
identified in the
City of Long
Beach’s
Housing
Element as a
site for potential
future residential
development
Proposed in
Housing
Element Update
(By City of Long
Beach)
940
9 Long Beach
Housing
Element Site
1000 N
Studebaker Rd
(7238015021)
Candidate site
identified in the
City of Long
Beach’s
Housing
Element as a
site for potential
future residential
development
Proposed in
Housing
Element Update
(By City of Long
Beach)
115
10 Orange County
Housing
Element Sites
11061 Los
Alamitos Blvd
(086-521-47);
11031 Los
Alamitos Blvd
(086-521-46);
Candidate site
identified in the
County of
Orange’s
Housing
Element as a
Proposed in
Housing
Element Update
(By Orange
County)
619
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Analysis
3.0-11
# Project Name* Location Project
Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units
3352 Katella
Ave (086-521-
19);
11131 Los
Alamitos Blvd
(086-521-23);
11088
Wallingsford Rd
(086-521-11);
11171 Los
Alamitos Blvd
(086-521-24)
site for potential
future residential
development
11 Westminster
Housing
Element Sites
13251
Springdale
Street (203-073-
04);
Dorothy Lane
/Melanie Lane
(203-073-05);
Dorothy
Lane/Lee Drive
(203-073-01 and
203-073-03)
Candidate site
identified in the
City of
Westminster’s
Housing
Element as a
site for potential
future residential
development
Proposed in
Housing
Element Update
(By City of
Westminster)
122
*The individual projects and sites from adjacent cities’ Housing Elements to be included in this table was determined using a criteria of being located within one mile of Seal Beach’s city boundaries and a minimum of 100 dwelling units proposed.
IJ
0 E Willow St
E Stearns St
ia State
ity Long
ach
a
83ft
Q)
>
<(
Q)
"2
Q)
>
0 ro
c..
£ 7th St
J
•
lli]
9 I
I
.J
I
I
\
\
I
\
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
\'
I
I
I
(\d st I
t 6 /
5 ~ 8 --- 1 ///
~ ///
/ / 7
/
/
// ,
IT]
a 58ft
2 ••
I
I
I
C
C
<(
ro
t
ro
~
•
3 •
I
/
/
I
I
I
/
/
f /
Los Alamitos
10 • Katella Ave
Farquhar Ave
Ross moor
'
••
'
Old Ranch
Country c 1 ib
• •
West minste r Ave
Naval Weapons
Station Seal
Beach
Seal Beach
National
Wildlife Refuge
Cerritos Ave
0 Joint Forces
Training Base
Los Alamitos
Navy Golf
Course Seal
Beach
#
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
~
Lil Cha
;a:
Q)
>
4 ~
• ::}' '"
@I Garden Gro
11 -0
0::
ro
u
Project Name
Old Ranch County Club
Naval Weapons Station
Water Storage Site
Lampson Project
Onni Marina Shores
Carmel Partners
Holland Partners
~
Lil
C
ro
•
Long Beach Housing Element Site
Long Beach Housing Element Site
Orange County Housing Element Site
Westminster Housing Element Sites
Vl
0 ro
ols
() Stantec
• Cumulative Projects
■ Housing Opportunity Sites
■ Main Street Program
■ Residential Component of the Old Ranch
Country Club Specific Plan Project
City Limits
Cypress
Garden Grove
Huntington Beach
Long Beach
Los Alamitos
Rossmoor
Seal Beach
Westminster
N 2,000 4,000 @ Feet
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1 :48,000
Notes
1. Coordinate System: NAO 1983 StatePlane California VI FIPS 0406 Feet
2. Data Sources: City of Seal Beach 2024.
3. Background: World Topographic Map: City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, Esri, Torn Tom, Garmin, SafeGraph, Geo Technologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS
World Hillshade: Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA
World Ocean Base: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NaturalVue
World Ocean Reference: Esri, GEBCO, Garmin, NGS
Project Location
City of Seal Beach,
California
Prepared by KOLP on 2025-03-10
TR by SET on 2025-03-10
JR by JW on 2025-03-10
Client/Project
City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project
Figure No.
Figure 3 -1 Title
Cumulative Past, Present, and
Probable Future Projects
204266500
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aesthetics
3.1-1
3.1 AESTHETICS
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for aesthetics. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to aesthetics that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; and the Project impacts would be less than significant.
The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be subject to design guidelines and development standards outlined in its Specific Plan; impacts associated with the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR.
3.1.1 Environmental Setting
Visual resources in the City feature the Pacific Ocean coastal waterfront, including beaches, the shoreline, wetlands, and marshlands. There are approximately two miles of beachfront shoreline in the City which is considered to be of regional significance for passive and active recreational activities. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge and Los Cerritos Wetlands contain marshlands and ecological areas that provide visual resources for the City. Due to the extremely developed nature of the City, there are not many visual resources and prominent viewpoints available other than the waterfront. Furthermore, the southeastern half of the City encompasses the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, which consists of vast areas of vacant lands. The northern portion of the City also abuts the Los Alamitos JFTB, which includes military aviation operations and contains some areas with vacant lands.
3.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
There are no federal regulations related to aesthetics that apply to the Project.
State
California Coastal Act
The California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) contains resource planning and management policies applicable to lands within the Coastal Zone. Coastal management policies addressing aesthetics and public scenic views are applicable to the Housing Element Update. “Scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance” (PRC Division 20, Chapter 3, Article 6, Section 30251). In addition, it is noted that development “shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas and where feasible, to restore and enhance II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aesthetics
3.1-2
visual quality in visually degraded areas.” The Coastal Act protects public scenic views, but does not include policies or regulations for the protection of private views.
Local
City of Seal Beach General Plan
The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach (City of Seal Beach 2003). The General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022, though several revisions have followed in an effort to obtain certification from HCD. The various elements within the General Plan include goals and policies for the physical development of the City. The City’s General Plan goals and policies applicable to aesthetics are presented below:
Land Use Element
The City’s Land Use Element contains the following goals, objectives, and policies related to aesthetics that apply to the Project:
Features of the Community
Despite an increase in regional population experienced throughout the surrounding metropolitan area, the City of Sea Beach has experienced a slight decline in population while maintaining its own identity and preserving its unique character. Seal Beach’s individual small town identity is due to its physical separation from various centers of urban development found in surrounding cities.
People have been attracted to Seal Beach primarily due to its unique geographical location, educational opportunity, attractive beaches, ideal climate, and small town friendly character. A goal of the City is to maintain and promote those social and physical qualities that enhance the character of the community and the environment in which we live.
Waterfront
Seal Beach’s coastal setting distinguishes it from any adjacent coastal communities. The shoreline, one of the City’s most valuable assets, shall be maintained and improved to provide maximum benefits to residents and visitors. Preservation of the ecological balance of the waterfront and the marshlands should be considered during review of any proposed developments in this planning area. In addition, the City of Seal Beach shall actively identify and resolve issues in the preservation and the more efficient utilization of the existing pier parking lots to better serve the community and beach patrons.
Housing Element Update
The Housing Element Update contains the following policies related to aesthetics that apply to the Project:
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aesthetics
3.1-3
Goal 4: Maintain and enhance the quality of residential neighborhoods in Seal Beach. Policy 4h: Promote a safe, healthful, aesthetically pleasing environment that strengthens individual and family life.
Policy 4i: Preserve and enhance viable residential neighborhoods and strengthen neighborhood identity.
Policy 4k: Encourage the use of innovative land use techniques and construction methods to minimize housing costs without compromising basic health, safety, and aesthetic conditions.
City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
The City of Seal Beach has adopted a Zoning Ordinance and related zoning map. The Zoning Ordinance and zoning map identify specific types of land use, intensity of use, and development and performance standards applicable to specific areas and parcels of land within the City. The Zoning Ordinance includes specific development and building standards for parcels within the City that were adopted to ensure new developments and growth are conducted in an orderly manner and achieve balanced residential, commercial and civic uses.
3.1.3 Environmental Impacts
This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant aesthetics impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts.
Methodology for Analysis
Analysis of the Project’s visual impacts is based on an evaluation of the changes to the existing visual resources that would result from implementation of the Project. In determining the extent and implications of the visual changes, consideration was given to: the existing visual quality of the affected environment; specific changes in the visual character and quality of the affected environment; the extent to which the affected environment contains places or features that provide unique visual experiences or that have been designated in plans and policies for protection or special consideration; and the sensitivity of viewers and their activities and the extent to which these activities are related to the aesthetic qualities affected by the Project.
Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s aesthetic impacts are significant.
Would the Project:
In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the public views of the site and its surroundings. (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aesthetics
3.1-4
accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact during the NOP Scoping. These issues are summarized in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, and are not discussed further in this section.
Would the Project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day- or nighttime views in the area?
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Visual Character and Scenic Quality
Impact AES-1 In an urbanized area, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
Impact Analysis
Implementation of the Project would result in the identification of parcels located within the City that have the potential to be developed or redeveloped to accommodate new housing developments and help the City to meet its RHNA. Implementation of the Project would also result in the creation of a new zoning designation, rezoning of several identified Housing Opportunity Sites, and implementation of the Main Street Program allowing for housing on the second floor of commercial buildings, and the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan. The Project does not propose any actual development to occur on these sites at this time. However, development of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan is being evaluated in a standalone EIR.
As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, all of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are located within highly urbanized areas of the City and are surrounded by existing urban developments.
Many of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located on land that is already developed with urban uses and the Project does not propose Housing Opportunity Sites on land that provides scenic resources or scenic vistas.
Program 1b (MC/RHD Zone) of the Housing Element Update commits to a rezoning program that facilitates housing for lower-income households as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City.
The City would establish a new zoning designation, MC/RHD, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites, facilitating residential development at what are generally commercial sites currently.
The new MC/RHD mixed-use zoning designation would facilitate a residential density of RHD-46 (up to 46 units per acre) with a minimum density of 40 units per acre, and a maximum building height of five IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aesthetics
3.1-5
stories. Other changes to zoning designations include rezoning a former oil extraction property to the City’s existing HDR-33 zoning district to residential use under Program 1a (Provide Adequate Sites for Housing through updates to the General Plan and Zoning Code) (City of Seal Beach 2024).
The actions described above would result in a change to the permitted uses and development standards on six of the Housing Opportunity Sites. The proposed new MC/RHD zoning designation would establish specific development standards that would be prepared in accordance with existing City guidelines, regulations, and General Plan policies related to scenic quality. As the Project does not propose any specific site development at this time, the proposed rezoning of the six Housing Opportunity Sites identified would not result in conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would not require rezoning and is being proposed under a Mixed-Use Country Club planning concept with the Specific Plan as the mechanism that would incorporate design guidelines and development standards to ensure development compatibility with adjacent land uses. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR.
The remaining two Housing Opportunity Sites are not proposed to be rezoned and are proposed to be developed in the future in accordance with the existing zoning designations and development standards of the site, including those that govern scenic quality. Future development of these sites facilitated by the Project would be anticipated to be developed in accordance with the development standards of the site.
Unless exempt, future development projects would also be subject to subsequent and individual environmental review to ensure that the proposed development does not result in conflicts with zoning and regulations governing scenic quality.
The Project also includes implementation of the Main Street Program (Program 1r of the Housing Element Update) which commits to modifying the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow housing above the ground floor of properties located within the Main Street Program area. As described previously, the Project would not propose any actual development to occur on or within the Main Street Program area at this time and would amend the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for future residential developments to be proposed above the ground floor within the Main Street Program area. Though the proposed amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan would result in changes to the allowable development types and subsequently the visual appearance within the Main Street Program area, approval of the proposed amendment would not result in conflicts with regulations governing scenic quality within the Main Street Program area. Additionally, voters approved Measure Z in 2008 which limited the maximum height of residences in the City’s Old Town area to 25 feet. Measure Z applies to the area of the City north of the centerline of Ocean Avenue, east of First Street, south of Marina Drive and Pacific Coast Highway, west of Seal Beach Boulevard, and that area south of Ocean between Electric Avenue and Tenth Street. Future developments facilitated by the Project in the Main Street Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the provisions of Measure Z. Future developments proposed within the Main Street Program area would also be required to be developed in accordance with the development standards and regulations governing scenic quality outlined in the Main Street Specific Plan and the City’s zoning ordinance. Future developments within the Main Street Program area would be subject to subsequent individual environmental review (except by-right pursuant to state housing law) and II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aesthetics
3.1-6
review per the design criteria of the Main Street Specific Plan to ensure that the proposed development does not result in impacts to scenic quality.
Individual future developments under the Project must comply with the City’s objective design criteria to ensure that proposed individual developments would be developed in accordance with zoning standards and existing regulations governing aesthetics and scenic quality. Individual development under the Project would be required to be designed and constructed to design standards and would not be anticipated to construct new structures that would be incompatible with the existing surrounding visual character. As described above, the City’s Housing Element Update includes Policies 4h, 4j, and 4k which require developments to maintain and enhance scenic quality in the City.
The Project’s new zoning designation would establish specific development standards that would be prepared in accordance with existing City guidelines, regulations, zoning code, and General Plan policies related to scenic quality. The Project does not propose any actual development to occur at this time.
Future development projects proposed under the Housing Element Update may deviate from certain development standards of the applicable zoning designations or utilize state housing laws and programs, such as the State density bonus program, resulting in taller buildings and high-density developments.
However, future developments would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and subject to the City’s objective design criteria, design requirements of the Main Street Specific Plan, the City’s Municipal Code, and applicable General Plan policies to ensure future development would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Unless exempt, future developments proposed under the Housing Element Update would also be subject to subsequent environmental review. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be less than significant.
Additionally, the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is being proposed under a Mixed-Use Country Club planning concept with the Specific Plan as the mechanism that would incorporate design guidelines and development standards to ensure development compatibility with adjacent land uses. The residential component associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be subject to the design guidelines and development standards outlined in the Specific Plan. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aesthetics
3.1-7
3.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if 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” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The geographic scope for cumulative aesthetic impacts is the immediate project vicinity and area surrounding the site. This geographic scope is appropriate for aesthetics as the area within the view of the Project is most likely to experience changes in visual character and experience light and glare impacts.
As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.1-1 identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to aesthetics and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion.
Table 3.1-1: Cumulative Projects Related to Aesthetics
# Project Name Location Project
Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units
1 Old Ranch
Country Club
Project
Old Ranch
Country Club,
City of Seal
Beach
Construction of
a 116-unit, 4-
level (188,500
square feet)
multi-family
housing
development; a
51-unit, 3-level
senior housing
complex;
medical office
facility; overnight
accommodation,
including a bar
and lounge and
specialty
restaurant
Preparation of
EIR 167
2 Naval Weapons
Station
Pacific Coast
Hwy & Seal
Beach
Boulevard
Potential future
housing
developments
proposed within
the Naval
Weapons
Station
Anticipated 150
Cumulative development identified in Table 3.1-1 are located within close proximity to one of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and therefore, development under the Project in combination with cumulative development identified in Table 3.1-1 could result in impacts to visual resources and aesthetic quality.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aesthetics
3.1-8
Development in Seal Beach facilitated by the Project in conjunction with buildout of cumulative projects in the City and surrounding areas could result in impacts to visual resources and aesthetic quality, although visual quality could improve with redevelopment of aging buildings and vacant sites. Implementation of the Project would encourage increased housing development at sites already developed with other uses.
Anticipated Project related impacts, in conjunction with cumulative development allowed per existing regulations, is expected to increase housing development citywide in already developed areas. Therefore, future developments facilitated by the Project in conjunction with cumulative developments could result in impacts to aesthetics. However, similar to future developments under the Project, cumulative developments would be required to comply with existing regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding aesthetic impacts and protecting visual quality. Cumulative developments would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable building standards and regulations adopted by the City including, but not limited to, building heights and outdoor lighting regulations. Potential aesthetic impacts of future developments facilitated by the Project would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan. Unless exempt, each discretionary cumulative development project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts related to aesthetics and identify necessary mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts, where appropriate.
Therefore, future developments facilitated by the Project would not result in significant cumulative aesthetic impact and the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts.
3.1.5 References
City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan, December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/PlanningDevelopment/General-Plan. Accessed October 2024.
City of Seal Beach. 2024. 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 October 2024.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-1
3.2 AIR QUALITY
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for air quality. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to air quality that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The Project would conflict with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable.
The Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds and could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria air pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable.
The Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction and operation. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 the Project would be considered significant and unavoidable.
The Project would not result in other emissions, such as odor, that would affect a substantial number of people. The impacts are considered less than significant.
The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the emissions calculations, health risk, and odor analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR.
3.2.1 Environmental Setting
The Project is located within the City of Seal Beach in Orange County, which is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). SCAB includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Regulatory oversight authority regarding air quality rests at the local, state, and federal levels with the SCAQMD, California Air Resources Board (CARB), and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), respectively.
The existing air quality setting is described further below.
Climate and Meteorology
The SCAB covers approximately 12,000 square miles, consisting of Orange County and the urbanized areas of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles counties. The distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographic location. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains around the IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-2
perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The SCAB is classified as a dry-hot desert climate (SCAQMD 1993).
Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (measured both in units of smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter [PM2.5] and in units of particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter [PM10]), and lead (Pb).
Ozone. Most ground-level ozone is formed as a result of complex photochemical reactions in the atmosphere between reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and oxygen. ROG and NOx are considered precursors to the formation of ozone, a highly reactive gas that can damage lung tissue and affect respiratory function. While ozone in the lower atmosphere is considered a damaging air pollutant, ozone in the upper atmosphere is beneficial, as it protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. However, atmospheric processes preclude ground-level ozone from reaching the upper atmosphere (USEPA 2023).
Carbon Monoxide. CO is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Elevated levels of CO can result in harmful health effects, especially for the young and elderly, and can also contribute to global climate change (USEPA 2023).
Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas primarily produced as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. NO2 can also lead to the formation of ozone in the lower atmosphere. NO2 can cause respiratory ailments, especially in the young and elderly, and can lead to degradations in the health of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (USEPA 2023).
Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is primarily emitted from the combustion of coal and oil by steel mills, pulp and paper mills, and non-ferrous smelters. High concentrations of SO2 can aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in asthmatics and others who suffer from emphysema or bronchitis. SO2 also contributes to acid rain, which in turn, can lead to the acidification of lakes and streams (USEPA 2023).
Particulate Matter. Airborne PM is not a single pollutant, but rather is a mixture of many chemical species. PM is a complex mixture of solids and aerosols composed of small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings. Particles vary widely in size, shape, and chemical composition, and may contain inorganic ions, metallic compounds, elemental carbon, organic compounds, and compounds from the earth’s crust. Particles are defined by their diameter for air quality regulatory purposes. Those with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) are inhalable into the lungs and can induce adverse health effects. Fine particulate matter is defined as particles that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). Therefore, PM2.5 compromises a portion of PM10. Emissions from combustion of gasoline, oil, diesel fuel or wood produce much of the PM2.5 pollution found in outdoor air, as well as significant proportion of PM10. PM10 also includes dust from construction sites, landfills and agriculture, wildfires and brush/waste burning, industrial sources, wind-blown dust from open lands, pollen, and fragments of bacteria.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-3
PM may be either directly emitted from sources (primarily particles) or formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions of gases (secondary particles) such as SO2, NOx, and certain organic compounds (USEPA 2023).
Lead. Sources of Pb include pipes, fuel, and paint, although the use of Pb in these materials has declined dramatically over the years. Historically, a main source of Pb was automobile emissions. Pb can be inhaled directly or ingested by consuming Pb-contaminated food, water, or dust. Fetuses and children are most susceptible to Pb poisoning, which can result in heart disease and nervous system damage (USEPA 2024a). Through regulations, USEPA has gradually reduced the Pb content of gasoline. This program has essentially eliminated violations of the Pb standard in urban areas except those areas with Pb point sources.
Attainment Status
The USEPA and CARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National non-attainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Attainment status is based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).
Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring value exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual standard for PM2.5 is met if the 3-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) identifies two types of NAAQS. Primary standards provide public health protection, including protecting the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings (USEPA 2023). The CAAQS are equal to or more stringent than the NAAQS and include pollutants for which national standards do not exist. Table 3.2-1 presents the applicable CAAQS and NAAQS.
Table 3.2-1: California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1
National Standards2
Primary Secondary
Ozone (O3)
8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137
µg/m3) Same as Primary
Standards
1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) --
8-hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) --
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-4
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1
National Standards2
Primary Secondary
Carbon monoxide
(CO) 1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
Annual arithmetic
mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100
µg/m3) Same as Primary
Standard
1-hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 100 ppb (188 µg/m3)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Annual arithmetic
mean -- 0.030 ppm (80 µg/m3) --
24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (80 µg/m3) --
3-hour -- -- 0.5 ppm
(1300 µg/m3)
1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) -- --
Respirable
Particulate Matter
Smaller than 10
Microns in Diameter
(PM10)
Annual arithmetic
mean 20 µg/m3 --
Same as Primary
Standards
24-hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Respirable
Particulate Matter
Smaller than 2.5
Microns in Diameter
(PM2.5)
3 Annual arithmetic
mean 12 µg/m3 9.0 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
24-hour No separate standard 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary
Standards
Sulfates 24-hour 25 µg/m3 -- --
Lead (Pb)
30-day average 1.5 µg/m3 -- --
Calendar quarter -- 1.5 µg/m3
Same as Primary
Rolling 3-month Standard
average -- 0.15 µg/m3
Hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) -- --
Vinyl chloride
(chloroethene) 24-hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) -- --
Visibility reducing
particles 8-hour
In 1989, the Air Resources
Board converted the general
statewide 10-mile visibility
standard to instrumental
-- --
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-5
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards1
National Standards2
Primary Secondary
equivalents, which are
extinction of 0.23 per
kilometer.
Notes:
1. CO, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, O3, PM10, and visibility reducing particles standards are not to be exceeded.
2. Not to be exceeded more than once a year except for annual standards.
3. On February 7, 2024, the USEPA issued a pre-publication version of the Final Rule to lower the primary annual NAAQS for PM2.5 from 12.0 µg/m3 to 9.0 µg/m3
.
-- = no standard established
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
ppm = parts per million
Source: CARB 2016.
Table 3.2-2 presents the federal and state attainment status for the SCAB, in which the Project is located.
The Project is in an area designated non-attainment for both the federal and state standards for O3 and PM2.5, the state standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead (SCAQMD 2016a).
Table 3.2-2: Attainment Status of the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation
Ozone (O3) –
1-Hour and 8-Hour
Non-Attainment (Extreme) Non-Attainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) –
1-Hour and 8-Hour
Attainment/Maintenance Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) –
1-Hour and Annual
Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – Annual Unclassifiable/Attainment * Particulate Matter (PM10) – 24-Hour Attainment/Maintenance Non-Attainment Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Annual Non-Attainment (Serious) Non-Attainment Lead (Pb) – 3-Month Rolling Non-Attainment *
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) – 1-Hour * Attainment
Sulfates – 24-Hour * Attainment
Vinyl Chloride – 24-Hour * Attainment
Note: * = Not Applicable/No Standards.
Source: SCAQMD 2016a.
Ambient Air Quality
The nearest air quality monitoring station to the Project sites is the Anaheim Monitoring Station located at 1630 West Pampas Lane. Table 3.2-3 includes a summary of the air quality monitoring data for the years IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-6
2021 through 2023. The table shows the number of times the station recorded pollutant concentrations above federal and state air quality standards and the highest annual reading for each pollutant.
Table 3.2-3: Anaheim Monitoring Station Data (2021-2023) Pollutant Air Pollutant, Averaging Time (Units) 2021 2022 2023 Ozone
(ppm)
Maximum 1-hour measurement 0.089 0.102 0.089
Number of days over National 1-hour standard 0 0 0
Number of days over California 1-hour standard 0 1 0
Maximum 8-hour measurement 0.068 0.076 0.076
Number of days over National 8-hour standard 0 1 2
Number of days over California 8-hour standard 0 1 2
Nitrogen Dioxide
(ppb)
Maximum 1-hour measurement 67.1 53.0 50.9
Annual average 12 11 10
Number of days over National 1-hour standard 0 0 0
Number of days over California 1-hour standard 0 0 0
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Maximum 24-hour measurement 54.4 33.1 45.6
Annual average 11.6 9.9 *
Number of days over National 24-hour standard 10 0 1
PM10
(µg/m3)
Maximum 24-hour measurement 63.6 67.0 97.8
Annual average 23.4 20.9 20.6
Number of days over National 24-hour standard 0 0 0
Number of days over California 24-hour standard 1 1 1
Notes: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; µg/m3 = micrograms per liter; * means there was insufficient data to determine the value.
Source: CARB 2024a.
Odors
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from the psychological (i.e., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to the physiological (i.e., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).
The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and is subjective. Some individuals can smell very minute quantities of specific substances; others have varying sensitivities to odors; and people may have different reactions to the same odor (e.g., bakery, gasoline). It is important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.
Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience (e.g., a description of flowery or sweet). Intensity refers to the strength of the odor and depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-7
the odorant concentration decreases, the odor intensity weakens, and it eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant drops below a human’s detection threshold.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air but, due to their high toxicity, they may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. Because there is no threshold level below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur, TACs differ from criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards. TACs, therefore, are not considered “criteria pollutants” under either the FCAA or the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and are not subject to NAAQS or CAAQS ambient air quality standards. Instead, USEPA and CARB regulate hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology to limit emissions. In conjunction with SCAQMD rules, these federal and state statutes and regulations establish the regulatory framework for TACs. At the national level, USEPA has established national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) in accordance with the requirements of the FCAA and subsequent amendments. These are technology-based, source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs.
Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. The following provides a summary of the primary TACs of concern within the State of California and related health effects.
Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel particulate matter (DPM) was identified as a TAC by the CARB in August 1998. DPM is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on-road diesel-fueled vehicles contribute approximately 42 percent of the statewide total, with an additional 55 percent attributed to other mobile sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and transport refrigeration units. Stationary sources, contributing about three percent of emissions, include shipyards, warehouses, heavy equipment repair yards, and oil and gas production operations. Emissions from these sources are from diesel-fueled internal combustion engines. Stationary sources that report DPM emissions also include heavy construction, manufacturers of asphalt paving materials and blocks, and diesel-fueled electrical generation facilities (CARB 2024b).
In October 2000, CARB issued a report entitled Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, which is commonly referred to as the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP). The DRRP provides a mechanism for combating the DPM problem. The goal of the DRRP is to reduce concentrations of DPM. The key elements of the DRRP are to clean up existing engines through engine retrofit emission control devices, to adopt stringent standards for new diesel IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-8
engines, and to lower the sulfur content of diesel fuel through advanced technology emission control devices on diesel engines. When fully implemented, the DRRP will significantly reduce emissions from both old and new diesel-fueled motor vehicles and from stationary sources that burn diesel fuel. In addition to these strategies, CARB continues to promote the use of alternative fuels and electrification. As a result of these actions, DPM concentrations and associated health risks in future years are projected to decline (CARB 2024b). In comparison to year 2010 inventory of statewide DPM emissions, CARB estimates that emissions of DPM in 2035 will be reduced by more than 50 percent.
DPM is typically composed of carbon particles (also called “soot” or “black carbon”) and numerous organic compounds, including over 40 known cancer-causing organic substances. Examples of these chemicals include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1,3-butadiene. Diesel exhaust also contains gaseous pollutants, including volatile organic compounds and NOx. NOx emissions from diesel engines are important because they can undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere leading to formation of PM2.5 and O3.
In California, diesel exhaust particles have been identified as a carcinogen accounting for an estimated 70 percent of the total known cancer risks in California. DPM is estimated to increase statewide cancer risk by 520 cancer occurrences per million residents exposed over an estimated 70-year lifetime. Noncancer health effects associated with exposure to DPM include premature death, exacerbated chronic heart and lung disease, including asthma, and decreased lung function in children. Short-term exposure to diesel exhaust can also have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks (CARB 2024b).
Individuals most vulnerable to non-cancer health effects of DPM are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who often have chronic health problems. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to DPM (CARB 2024b).
In addition to its health effects, DPM significantly contributes to haze and reduced visibility.
Valley Fever
Valley fever is an infection caused by a fungus that lives in the soil. The fungus that causes Valley fever, Coccidiodes immitis (C. immitis), is found in the southwestern United States, parts of Mexico and Central America, and parts of South America. The fungus grows naturally and is endemic in many areas within California. People can get this infection by breathing in fungal spores from the air, especially when the wind blows the soil with the fungal spores into the air, or the dirt is moved by human activity. About 10,000 cases in the United States are reported each year, mostly from Arizona and California. Valley fever can be misdiagnosed because its symptoms are like those of other illnesses. For most people, the symptoms of Valley fever will go away within a few months without any treatment. Some people may develop a more severe infection, especially those with compromised immune systems (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020).
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-9
In California, the number of reported Valley fever cases has greatly increased in recent years. Since 2000, the number of reported cases from increased from 1,000 to more than 9,000 cases reported in 2019 (California Department of Public Health 2021). In 2022, 297 cases of Valley fever were recorded within Orange County (California Department of Public Health 2024).
Asbestos
Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals with useful properties such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The three most common types of asbestos are chrysotile, amosite, and crocidolite. Chrysotile, also known as white asbestos, is the most common type of asbestos found in buildings. Chrysotile makes up approximately 90 to 95 percent of all asbestos contained in buildings in the United States. Exposure to asbestos fibers may result in health issues such as lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare cancer of the thin membranes lining the lungs, chest, and abdominal cavity), and asbestosis (a non-cancerous lung disease that causes scarring of the lungs). Exposure to asbestos can occur during demolition or remodeling of buildings constructed prior to 1977 when it was banned for use in buildings. Exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soil disturbing activities in areas with deposits present (USEPA 2024b).
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiovascular diseases. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools. The Project sites contain and are located adjacent to various sensitive uses, primarily single- and multi-family residences.
3.2.2 Regulatory Setting
Air quality within the Project area is regulated by several jurisdictions, including the USEPA, CARB, and SCAQMD. Each of these jurisdictions develops rules, regulations, and policies to attain the goals or directives imposed upon them through legislation. Although USEPA regulations may not be superseded, both state and local regulations may be more stringent.
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
At the federal level, the USEPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The USEPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the FCAA, which was signed into law in 1970.
Congress substantially amended the FCAA in 1977 and again in 1990.
Federal Clean Air Act
The FCAA required the USEPA to establish NAAQS, and also set deadlines for their attainment. Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-10
standards, which protect public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects, such as visibility restrictions. NAAQS are summarized in Table 3.2-1.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pursuant to the FCAA of 1970, the USEPA established the NESHAPs. These are technology-based source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs. Among these sources include asbestos-containing building materials (ACBMs). NESHAPs include requirements pertaining to the inspection, notification, handling, and disposal of ACBMs associated with the demolition and renovation of structures.
Non-Road Diesel Rule
The USEPA has established a series of increasingly strict emissions standards for new off-road diesel equipment, on-road diesel trucks, and locomotives. New construction equipment used for the Project, including heavy-duty trucks and off-road construction equipment, would be required to comply with the emissions standards.
State
California Air Resources Board
The CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the CCAA of 1988. Other CARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control districts and air quality management districts), establishing CAAQS, which in many cases are more stringent than the NAAQS, and setting emissions standards for new motor vehicles. The emission standards established for motor vehicles differ depending on various factors including the model year, and the type of vehicle, fuel and engine used. The CAAQS are summarized in Table 3.2-1.
California Clean Air Act
The CCAA requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for O3, CO, SO2, and NO2 by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts focus attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and the act provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is required to either (1) achieve a 5 percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in district-wide emissions of each nonattainment pollutant or its precursors, or (2) to provide for implementation of all feasible measures to reduce emissions. Any planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both state and federal planning requirements.
Assembly Bills 1807 & 2588 - Toxic Air Contaminants
Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) (1983) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-11
forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB designates a substance as a TAC.
Existing sources of TACs that are subject to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act are required to: (1) prepare a toxic emissions inventory; (2) prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant; (3) notify the public of significant risk levels; and (4) prepare and implement risk reduction measures.
Assembly Bill 617
In response to AB 617 (2017), the CARB established the Community Air Protection Program. The Community Air Protection Program includes community air monitoring and community emissions reduction program’s focus is to reduce exposure in communities most impacted by air pollution. The Legislature has appropriated funding to support early actions to address localized air pollution through targeted incentive funding to deploy cleaner technologies in these communities, as well as grants to support community participation in the AB 617 process. AB 617 also includes new requirements for accelerated retrofit of pollution controls on industrial sources, increased penalty fees, and greater transparency and availability of air quality and emissions data, which will help advance air pollution control efforts throughout the state.
Regulatory Attainment Designations
Under the CCAA, CARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.
The USEPA designates areas for O3, CO, and NO2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The USEPA uses the same sub-categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, USEPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.” IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-12
As noted previously, the Project is in an area designated non-attainment for both the federal and state standards for O3 and PM2.5, the state standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead (SCAQMD 2016a).
Low-Emission Vehicle Program
The CARB first adopted Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) program standards in 1990. These first LEV standards ran from 1994 through 2003. LEV II regulations, running from 2004 through 2010, represent continuing progress in emission reductions. As the state’s passenger vehicle fleet continues to grow and more sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks are used as passenger cars rather than work vehicles, the more stringent LEV II standards were adopted to provide reductions necessary for California to meet federally mandated clean air goals outlined in the 1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP). In 2012, CARB adopted the LEV III amendments to California’s LEV regulations. These amendments include more stringent emission standards for both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases for new passenger vehicles.
On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program
The CARB has adopted standards for emissions from various types of new on-road heavy-duty vehicles.
Section 1956.8, Title 13, California Code of Regulations contains California’s emission standards for onroad heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and test procedures. CARB has also adopted programs to reduce emissions from in-use heavy-duty vehicles including the Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Reduction Program, the Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance Program, the Public Bus Fleet Rule and Engine Standards, and the School Bus Program and others.
In addition, the CARB’s Truck and Bus regulation was established to meet federal attainment standards.
This regulation requires heavy-duty diesel vehicles that operate in California to reduce TAC emissions from their exhaust. Diesel exhaust is responsible for 70 percent of the cancer risk from airborne toxics.
Therefore, as of January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses were required to have 2010 or newer model year engines to reduce PM and NOx emissions. To help ensure that the benefits of this regulation are achieved, starting in 2020, only vehicles compliant with this regulation were registered by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
Regional
SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The SCAG is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the following six counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The SCAG develops long-range regional transportation plans, including sustainable communities strategies pursuant to SB 375, growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations, and a portion of the SCAQMD air quality plans (SCAG 2023). In April 2024, the SCAG Regional Council approved the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS, which is entitled Connect SoCal 2024. Connect SoCal 2024 is a longrange visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies to increase IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-13
mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern (SCAG 2024). The 2024 RTP/SCS supersedes the previous RTP/SCS that was adopted in 2020.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for ensuring that NAAQS and CAAQS are not exceeded, and the air quality conditions are maintained in the SCAB. Responsibilities of SCAQMD include, but not limited to, preparing plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspecting stationary sources of air pollution, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementing programs and regulations required by the FCAA and the CCAA.
SCAQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan
SCAB is designated as non-attainment for both federal and state standards for O3 and PM2.5, the state standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead. Because the SCAB currently exceeds these NAAQS and CAAQS, the SCAQMD is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to recognized acceptable standards. The most recent air plan is the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), created in conjunction with the SCAG, CARB, and USEPA to meet federal ozone and PM2.5 standards.
The 2022 AQMP accounts for projected population growth and predicted future emissions in energy and transportation demand, and determined control strategies for the eventual achievement of the NAAQS attainment designations. These control strategies are either organized into the SCAQMD rules and regulations, or otherwise set forth as formal SCAQMD recommendations to other agencies. The 2022 AQMP includes policies that are consistent with the SCAQMD and specify review according to the recommendations of SCAQMD guidelines. Other policies are aimed at reducing transportation emissions and emissions from major stationary sources (SCAQMD 2022).
SCAQMD Rules and Regulations
The SCAQMD rules are regulations that may apply to the Project include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Rule 201: Permit to Construct. This rule requires that projects shall obtain a permit to construct from the SCAQMD prior to initiating construction activities. • Rule 401: Visible Emissions. This rule prohibits discharges of visible air contaminants from any single source.
• Rule 402: Nuisance. This rule prohibits the discharge from any source such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-14
• Rule 403: Fugitive Dust. The purpose of this rule is to reduce the amount of particulate matter in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions.
• Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings. This rule is intended to limit the volatile organic compounds (VOC) content on architectural coatings used within the SCAQMD. • Rule 1403: Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities: This rule specifies work practices to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities.
Local
City of Seal Beach General Plan
The City’s General Plan is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Seal Beach. The City of Seal Beach prepared their General Plan in September 2003 in order to plan for the City’s development. The 2013-2021 Housing Element as well as the updated Housing Element include the following goals to promote energy efficiency which would in turn reduce air quality emissions (City of Seal Beach 2003, City of Seal Beach 2024).
Housing Element Update
The Housing Element Update contains the following goals and policies related to air quality that apply to the Project:
Goal 6: Encourage more efficient energy use in residential developments. • Policy 6a: Promote energy conservation through “green building” techniques that reduce water consumption, improve energy efficiency and lessen a building’s overall environmental impact. • Policy 6b: Promote “smart growth” principles by encouraging compact development in locations that provide opportunities for reduced vehicle trips.
3.2.3 Environmental Impacts
This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant air quality impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts.
Methodology and Modeling Parameters
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.28 was used to estimate construction and operational impacts of the Project.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-15
Construction
Construction emissions were estimated for the most emissions-intensive future development under the Project, which is expected to be buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4 as this site could accommodate the most dwelling units. At maximum buildout, Housing Opportunity Site 4 can accommodate 552 highdensity dwelling units at a density of 46 dwelling units per acre. Daily emissions were quantified for the construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 and assessed in comparison to the SCAQMD significance thresholds. In addition, a qualitative assessment of construction of all Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program is included in the analysis. Detailed model assumptions and inputs for these calculations can be found in Appendix B.
Operations
Operational emissions associated with the Project were estimated for the year 2029, estimated buildout of the Project, using CalEEMod and compared to the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. The trip generation rate for each land use was updated to be consistent with the Project-specific VMT Assessment prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, and the trip lengths and purposes were left as CalEEMod defaults. Detailed model assumptions and inputs for these calculations can be found in Appendix B.
Thresholds of Significance
Pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the final determination of whether a project is significant is within the purview of the Lead Agency. The SCAQMD has adopted mass daily thresholds of significance for NOx, VOC, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, CO, and Pb to determine the significance of a project’s potential air quality impacts. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, if a project’s emissions exceed thresholds of significance, then the Project would be expected to result in a cumulatively considered net increase of any criteria air pollutant. Table 3.24, below, presents the mass daily thresholds applied to the Project and used for purposes of this analysis.
Table 3.2-4: SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Mass Emissions Thresholds Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Pb
Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3
Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55 3
Notes: N/A = not applicable
Source: SCAQMD 1993.
In accordance with the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether air quality impacts are significant.
Would the Project:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-16
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Air Quality Plan
Impact AQ-1 The Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Impact Analysis
Air districts are required to prepare air quality plans to identify strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. As noted previously, the SCAB is designated as a non-attainment area for both the federal and state standards for O3 and PM2.5, the state standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead (SCAQMD 2016a). Accordingly, SCAQMD, in collaboration with CARB and SCAG, has prepared air quality plans, including the 2022 AQMP, to achieve attainment of the applicable ozone and PM standards. The SCAG’s RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal 2024, is also considered an applicable air quality plan. Project consistency with Connect SoCal 2024 is evaluated in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR.
The 2022 AQMP was adopted in December 2022 and represents the most updated regional blueprint for achieving the federal air quality standards and minimizing public health concerns related to air quality.
The 2022 AQMP particularly focuses on attainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Project would be considered to conflict with the 2022 AQMP if it would:
1. Contribute to exceedances and/or delay attainment of the ozone standards;
2. Result in an exceedance of the planned growth within the project area; or
3. Interfere with implementation of the ozone reduction measures established in the AQMP.
With regard to Item 1, air districts establish emissions thresholds to demonstrate the point at which a project would be considered to increase the regional air quality violations. As described in further detail under Impact AIR-2, construction and operations of the residential development facilitated by the Project is anticipated to exceed the threshold of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC emissions even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. VOC is an ozone precursor and, by exceeding the VOC threshold of significance, cumulative buildout of the Project may delay attainment of the ozone AAQS.
With regard to Item 2, the population projections in the SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP are based on the regional growth projections included in the SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS (SCAQMD 2022). According to the IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-17
Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report prepared for the 2020 RTP/SCS, the City of Seal Beach housing stock is projected to grow from 13,100 households in 2016 to 13,300 households in 2045 (SCAG 2020). The City’s household growth projected in the 2020 RTP/SCS (200 households), and therefore in the 2022 AQMP, is less than what is planned in the Housing Element Update, which plan for up to 1,339 new dwelling units by 2029 to accommodate its RHNA allocation of 1,243 units. However, the assumed residential development potential of the Housing Element Update is developed using conservative assumptions that would develop the Housing Opportunity Sites at below the maximum allowable density. For the purposes of analysis contained in this Draft EIR, the City wishes to analyze a more intense level of development so that potential impacts resulting from projects that might propose maximum developable densities are considered as part of this EIR. Therefore, the analysis contained herein assumed buildout under the Project (Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program) and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project to result in the potential for 1,773 new dwelling units. Implementation of the Project would result in household and population growth that exceeds the projections in the 2022 AQMP and, as a result, the Project is expected to result in emissions that are higher than what was planned for the City in the 2022 AQMP.
With regard to Item 3, the 2022 AQMP notes that attaining the 2015 8-hour ozone standard by 2037 will require both continuation and acceleration of existing ozone reduction strategies, as well as deployment of new strategies. Proposed measures to reduce ozone include stationary and mobile source NOx reduction strategies, supplemented by strategic VOC emission reductions. The following ozone reduction measures identified in the 2022 AQMP are relevant to residential land uses:
• R-CMB-01: Emission Reductions from Replacement with Zero Emission or Low NOx Appliances – Residential Water Heating
• R-CMB-02: Emission Reductions from Replacement with Zero Emission or Low NOx Appliances – Residential Space Heating
• R-CMB-03: Emissions Reductions from Residential Cooking Devices • R-CMB-04: Emission Reductions from Replacement with Zero Emission or Low NOx Appliances – Residential Other Combustion Sources
• CTS-01: Further Emission Reductions from Coatings, Solvents, Adhesives, and Lubricants Each of the foregoing measures are intended for implementation at the local or regional government level, rather than the project level. For example, the 2022 AQMP notes that each measure shall be implemented by (1) adopting a new rule to require compliance and (2) offering incentive funds to facilitate adoption of low-emissions technologies. Because the measures are not directly applicable to the Project, development facilitated under the Project would not interfere with implementation of the air quality improvement strategies established in the AQMP.
This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-18
would increase the total dwelling units to 1,773 and would further increase the Project’s household and population growth that exceeds the projections in the 2022 AQMP. Additionally, the impacts from construction of a larger residential development were evaluated within Table 3.2-5 below. Additionally, operational impacts from the total 1,773 units were evaluated within Table 3.2-6 and 3.2-7. Emissions were found to exceed thresholds and therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR.
Conclusion
Because the Project could contribute to a delay in attainment of the ozone AAQS and would result in an exceedance of the planned growth within the City, the Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Even with the implementation of mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project construction-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance. If construction-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include:
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 emission limits for engines above 50 horsepower. • Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super-compliant volatile organic compounds (VOC) content (0 grams/Liter [g/L] to 10 g/L). If VOC emissions still exceed thresholds, then the applicant may elect to prohibit architectural coating activities during summer months (June, July, and August) when ozone formation peaks.
Regardless of the results of the emissions modeling, the following best practices shall be implemented throughout the duration of all construction activity:
• All off-road equipment operating at the construction site must be maintained in proper working condition according to manufacturers’ specifications.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-19
• Idling shall be limited to 5 minutes or less in accordance with the Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleet Regulation as required by California Air Resources Board (CARB). • Clear Signage regarding idling restrictions shall be placed at the entrances to the construction site.
• Portable equipment over 50 horsepower must have either a valid SCAQMD Permit to Operate (PTO) or a valid statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) placard and sticker issued by CARB.
• Water all active construction areas at least three times daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).
• Pave, apply water three times daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
MM AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project operational-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance. If operational-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing operational emissions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Prohibition of natural gas hearths.
• Installation of solar water heaters or tankless water heaters. • Exceeding Title 24 energy standards.
• Constructing Level 2 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for multi-family developments and pre-wiring to allow for Level 2 EV charging stations in single-family residential garages.
• Require all paints and architectural coatings to be super-compliant volatile organic compound (VOC) content (0 to 10 g/L).
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-20
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Criteria Pollutants
Impact AQ-2 The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Impact Analysis
In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If an individual project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. As noted previously, the Project does not propose any individual development projects at this time but, rather, would facilitate the future development of up to 1,773 dwelling units as outlined in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR.
Construction Emissions
Construction activities facilitated by the Project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants due to the use of off-road equipment, heavy-duty haul trucks, and employee commutes to and from the construction sites. In addition, fugitive dust would be generated from earth-moving activities. Emissions from construction-related activities are generally short-term in duration but may still cause adverse air quality impacts.
Specific buildout details of each Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area are not available at this time; accordingly, this analysis presents estimated construction emissions associated with the most emissions-intensive future development project under the Project, which entails buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4. Housing Opportunity Site 4 totals 27 acres, 12 acres of which can be developed, and was modeled to accommodate 552 multi-family units, based on the maximum allowable buildout. The estimated criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 are presented in Table 3.2-5.
Table 3.2-5: Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 – Criteria Pollutant Emissions Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction of Housing Opportunity Site 4 166.23 13.78 36.26 0.04 6.14 1.77 SCAQMD Threshold of Significance 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No No No
Source: Appendix B.
As shown above, buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4, which is expected to be the most emissionsintensive buildout out of the eight identified Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program, may IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-21
generate construction emissions that exceed SCAQMD mass daily thresholds for VOC. These emission calculations are based on CalEEMod default factors based on land use type and size which are generally more conservative than project-specific inputs. However, performing more specific emissions calculations for any of the Housing Opportunity Sites or the Main Street Program area to determine significance on a project site by project site basis would be speculative.
Future developments facilitated by the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and future CEQA review. However, since the largest Housing Opportunity site exceeds SCAQMD thresholds, other sites may result in potentially significant emissions due to a more intensive construction timeline, additional demolition and grading, or additional construction trips. Under Mitigation Measure AQ-1, each future development project facilitated by the Project would be required to quantify construction emissions and, if emissions exceed the applicable thresholds, the future development project would reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible, including through the use of super-compliant VOC coatings. While Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce construction exhaust emissions, potential future development projects accommodated under the Project, both individually and cumulatively, could still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for construction. As a result, the cumulative impact from construction of the Project remains significant and unavoidable.
Operational Emissions
For the purposes of the analysis contained in this Draft EIR, implementation of the Project and the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would result in future development of up to 1,773 new dwelling units. Emissions during operation of the Project would be generated primarily from resident vehicle trips to and from the sites (mobile sources). In addition, the buildout facilitated by the Project would generate emissions from area sources, which include the use of fireplaces, consumer products, landscaping equipment, and others. Estimated operational emissions from cumulative Project buildout are presented in Table 3.2-6.
Table 3.2-6: Project Operations – Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Unmitigated) Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 28.4 22.3 253 0.70 71.0 18.3
Area 50.0 0.00 101 <0.005 0.05 0.04
Energy 0.36 6.08 2.59 0.04 0.49 0.49
Total1 79.0 28.3 356 0.75 71.5 18.8
SCAQMD Threshold of Significance 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No No No
1 Totals may not appear to sum due to rounding.
Source: Appendix B.
As shown in the table, full buildout of the dwelling units facilitated by the Project would result in VOC emissions that exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 is required.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-22
As required by Mitigation Measure AQ-2, each future development project facilitated by the Project would be required to quantify their individual operational emissions and, if emissions exceed the applicable thresholds, the future development project would reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. For this example, architectural coatings were limited to those with a VOC content less than 10 grams per liter.
The emissions that would occur from operations with the implementation of mitigation are presented in Table 3.2-7.
Table 3.2-7: Project Operations – Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Mitigated) Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 28.6 22.3 253 0.70 71.0 18.3
Area 40.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.33 5.61 2.39 0.04 0.45 0.45
Total 69.6 27.9 255 0.74 71.45 18.7
SCAQMD Threshold of Significance 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No No No
Source: Appendix B.
As shown above, even with mitigation, operational emissions of VOC would exceed the threshold of significance. While Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce operational emissions, cumulative future development projects accommodated under the Project could still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. As a result, the cumulative impact from operations of the Project remains significant and unavoidable.
This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The impacts from construction of a larger residential development were evaluated within Table 3.2-5. Additionally, operational impacts from the total 1,773 units were evaluated within Tables 3.2-6 and 3.2-7. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR.
Conclusion
As shown in Table 3.2-5, construction emissions of the most intensive future development project under the Project, which entails buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4, would exceed the applicable threshold of significance for VOC emissions. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, a significant impact may occur. Additionally, as presented in Table 3.2-7, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, operational criteria pollutant emissions could exceed the applicable thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-23
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are required.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
Sensitive Receptors
Impact AQ-3 The Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Impact Analysis
As discussed above, the Project itself does not propose any development; however, the Project would facilitate future development of up to 1,773 dwelling units throughout the City as outlined in Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. The eight Housing Opportunity Sites, the Main Street Program, and the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project were evaluated at a programmatic level, and no air modeling was conducted for this analysis.
This discussion qualitatively addresses whether implementation of the Project would expose sensitive receptors to construction-generated fugitive dust (PM10), Valley fever spores, naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), construction-generated DPM, or operational related TACs.
According to CARB, some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, childcare centers, playgrounds, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. As noted previously in Section 3.2.1, Environmental Setting, the eight Housing Opportunity Sites, the area within the Main Street Program, and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan contain and are located adjacent to various sensitive uses, primarily single- and multi-family residences.
Construction Emissions
During construction associated with the Project, the potential exists for emissions of fugitive dust, Valley fever, NOA, and DPM to be released. Each TAC is discussed separately below.
Fugitive Dust and Valley Fever
Fugitive dust would be generated during construction facilitated by the Project. As noted previously, Valley fever is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of a fungus, C. immitis, that lives in soil.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-24
Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust contribute to greater exposure, and they include dust storms, grading, and recreational off-road activities.
Most of the fugitive dust generated during construction activities would remain localized and would be deposited near each construction site. Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, limits the discharge of PM emissions and establishes Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction activities (SCAQMD 2005). Consistent with the SCAQMD Best Available Control Measures, construction of each future development project facilitated by the Project would be required to use water trucks to stabilize soils. In addition, the City of Seal Beach is generally built out; therefore, much of the development facilitated by the Project would occur in urban areas where conditions are generally not dry, dusty, or windy. Furthermore, as required by Mitigation Measure AQ-1, development of each future development projects subject to discretionary approval shall evaluate their individual construction emissions. If the future development project is determined to result in PM emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, then minimization measures would be incorporated to reduce PM emissions to the maximum extent feasible. Overall, construction activities associated with future developments facilitated by the Project would not result in sensitive receptor exposure to substantial concentrations of fugitive dust, including dust that may contain C. immitis spores.
Asbestos
Construction in areas of rock formations that contain NOA could release asbestos to the air and pose a health hazard. A review of the map with areas more likely to have rock formations containing NOA in California indicates that there is no known asbestos in the City of Seal Beach (USGS 2011). Therefore, construction of the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to NOA.
Many of the future development projects on Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Steet Program facilitated by the Project would entail demolition of existing structures in order to accommodate new housing. For buildings constructed prior to 1980, the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1926.1101) states that all thermal system insulation and surface materials must be designated as “presumed asbestos containing material” unless proven otherwise. ACBMs could include, but are not limited to, plaster, ceiling tiles, thermal systems insulation, floor tiles, vinyl sheet flooring, adhesives, and roofing materials. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities, would ensure that any ACBMs encountered during construction activities are handled appropriately, and risks to existing sensitive receptors would not occur.
Localized Significance Thresholds
SCAQMD has established localized significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to determine the risk of elevated levels of ozone precursors and particulate matter at nearby receptors. Thresholds were established based on an individual project’s size, location, and distance to receptors. However, SCAQMD established in the PEIR for the 2016 AQMP that the LST screening methodology is not applicable to regional projects such as local general plans, specific plans, or air quality plans since the individual project plans are typically not known at plan adoption (SCAQMD 2016b). Therefore, since the analysis is evaluating the buildout of the Housing Element Update, a localized construction analysis would be speculative for individual projects. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-25
the Project would be required to quantify the individual construction emissions and reduce as feasible below SCAQMD thresholds.
Diesel Particulate Matter
Exposure to DPM from diesel vehicles and off-road construction equipment can result in health risks to nearby sensitive receptors. Pollutant concentrations are typically highest near sources of emissions and dissipate with distance. Thus, the sensitive receptors in and adjacent to each of the Housing Opportunity Sites would be the most susceptible to adverse health effects resulting from construction-related DPM emissions. The actual level of risk would depend on a variety of factors that can only be determined once the specifics of a project are known. Since the details regarding future construction activities are not known at this time, including phasing of future individual projects, construction duration and phasing, and preliminary construction equipment, preparation of a meaningful health risk assessment (HRA) is not possible at the plan level. Rather, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 is required to assess the potential impact associated with exposing sensitive receptors to substantial concentration of DPM. Since health risks are a factor of duration of exposure, source emission rates, and distance of the receptor, an individual’s health risks during construction may still be significant and unavoidable.
Operational Emissions
The greatest potential for exposure to TACs during long-term operations is from the use of heavy-duty diesel trucks and stationary generators that use diesel fuel. The Project would facilitate development of up to 1,773 dwelling units throughout the City. The majority of vehicle trips associated with the Project would be from residents and, as a result, future developments associated with the Project would result in very few diesel truck trips. Additionally, the dwelling units developed under the Project are not expected to include any stationary generators. Should a generator be proposed as part of a future development under the Project, the project would be required by SCAQMD to evaluate the impacts of the generator as part of obtaining a Permit to Operate. For these reasons, once operational, the Project would not be expected to expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of TACs.
During operations, dust emissions would be negligible because most of the Project area would be occupied by buildings, pavement, and landscaped areas. This would preclude the possibility of Project operations resulting in exposure to fugitive dust emissions and C. immitis spores that may result in Valley fever infection.
As noted above, SCAQMD has established localized significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to determine the risk of elevated levels of ozone precursors and particulate matter at nearby receptors. A localized operational analysis would be speculative for individual projects. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, the Project would be required to quantify the individual operational emissions and reduce as feasible below SCAQMD thresholds.
This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The impacts from construction and operation of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project may result in impacts to health risks. Construction of the IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-26
residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would still be required to comply with all SCAQMD applicable rules and regulations pertaining to dust control and permitting and therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, during construction, the Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, the impact would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. However, the impact may remain significant and unavoidable.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 are required.
MM AQ-3: Construction Health Risk Assessment. Prior to future discretionary project approval for any future development project that would involve construction lasting more than two months and within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, the project applicant shall submit a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The level of detail required for the HRA is described below:
A quantitative health risk assessment shall be prepared in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance to identify the potential for increased cancer and noncancer health risks. If the health risks do not exceed the applicable thresholds, further mitigation is not necessary. If the resultant health risks are determined to exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, the applicant shall implement measures to reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions and associated risks to below the applicable thresholds. Methods may include requiring the use of off-road equipment engines that meet or exceed California Air Resources Board’s Tier 4 Final engine emissions standards for off-road equipment exceeding 50 horsepower (hp).
Any emissions reduction measures identified in the HRA shall be incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the project. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the Community Development Department clearly show incorporation of all applicable mitigation measures.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable Impact.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-27
Odors
Impact AQ-4 The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people.
Impact Analysis
While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can still be unpleasant, leading to distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including nature, frequency, and intensity of the source, the wind speed and direction, and the sensitivity of the receptor.
Construction activities facilitated by the Project could result in short-term odorous emissions from diesel exhaust associated with diesel-fueled equipment. However, these emissions would be intermittent and would dissipate rapidly from the source. Construction of all future developments facilitated by the Project would also be required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. Compliance with the aforementioned regulations would help to minimize emissions, including emissions leading to odors.
The SCAQMD has identified land uses commonly subject to odor complaints. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (SCAQMD 1993). The Project entails development of residential uses and would not involve any of the land uses identified to result in odor complaints nor involve any components with the potential to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Finally, SCAQMD regulates objectionable odors through Rule 402, Nuisance (SCAQMD 1976). Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are made during implementation of the Project, the SCAQMD would ensure that such odors are addressed, and any potential odor effects are minimized or eliminated.
This EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. Residential developments are not land uses commonly subject to odor complaints and all developments within SCAQMD would be subject to rules and regulations pertaining to odor. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR.
Conclusion
The Project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-28
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.
3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
CEQA requires that EIRs evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of a project. A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if 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” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3)). The geographic scope for cumulative air quality impacts is the extent of the air district.
As discussed in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires cumulative impact analysis in EIRs to consider a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to the cumulative impacts of a project. Section 3.0, Table 3.0-3 identifies all past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas that may impact the Project. Table 3.2-8 identifies the cumulative past, present, and probable future projects from Table 3.0-3 that may drive a potential cumulative impact related to air quality and therefore were analyzed in this cumulative discussion.
Table 3.2-8: Cumulative Projects Related to Air Quality # Project Name Location Project
Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units
1 Old Ranch
Country Club
Project
Old Ranch
Country Club,
City of Seal
Beach
Construction of
a 116-unit, 4-
level (188,500
square feet)
multi-family
housing
development; a
51-unit, 3-level
senior housing
complex;
medical office
facility; overnight
accommodation,
including a bar
and lounge and
specialty
restaurant
Preparation of
EIR 167
2 Naval Weapons
Station
Pacific Coast
Hwy & Seal
Beach
Boulevard
Potential future
housing
developments
proposed within
the Naval
Weapons
Station
Anticipated 150
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-29
# Project Name Location Project
Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units
3 Water Storage
Site
Within the Naval
Weapons
Station,
approximately
1,000 feet east
of Seal Beach
Boulevard, near
the housing
community off
Anchor Way
Potential future
housing
developments
proposed within
the Naval
Weapons
Station
Anticipated 65
4 Lampson
Project
4665 Lampson
Avenue, City of
Los Alamitos
Redevelopment
of existing office
building with a
residential
development
consisting of
cluster homes,
townhomes, and
apartments
totaling 246
units
Approved (By
City of Los
Alamitos)
246
5 Onni Marina
Shores
6500-6670 E.
Pacific Coast
Hwy, City of
Long Beach
(7242011013)
Two, 5-story
buildings with a
total of 563,529
square feet
containing 600
residential units
and 4,000
square-feet of
ground-level
restaurant space
Approved (By
City of Long
Beach)
600
6 Carmel Partners
6615 E. Pacific
Coast Hwy, City
of Long Beach
(7237020050)
Construction of
a six-story
mixed-use
project
consisting of
390 residential
dwelling units
and 5,351
square feet of
commercial/retai
l space
Approved (By
City of Long
Beach)
380
7 Holland Partners
6700 E. Pacific
Coast Hwy, City
of Long Beach
(7242012006)
Construction of
a new mixeduse project
consisting of
281 residential
dwelling units,
3,100 square
feet of
commercial/retai
l space in a
building with
Approved (By
City of Long
Beach)
281
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-30
# Project Name Location Project
Characteristics Status Total Dwelling Units
592,100 square
feet of area
8 Long Beach
Housing
Element Site
6695 E. Pacific
Coast Hwy
(7237020040);
6411 E. Pacific
Coast Hwy
(7237020051);
No address
(7237020904)
Candidate site
identified in the
City of Long
Beach’s
Housing
Element as a
site for potential
future residential
development
Proposed in
Housing
Element Update
(By City of Long
Beach)
940
9 Long Beach
Housing
Element Site
1000 N
Studebaker Rd
(7238015021)
Candidate site
identified in the
City of Long
Beach’s
Housing
Element as a
site for potential
future residential
development
Proposed in
Housing
Element Update
(By City of Long
Beach)
115
10 Orange County
Housing
Element Sites
11061 Los
Alamitos Blvd
(086-521-47);
11031 Los
Alamitos Blvd
(086-521-46);
3352 Katella
Ave (086-521-
19);
11131 Los
Alamitos Blvd
(086-521-23);
11088
Wallingsford Rd
(086-521-11);
11171 Los
Alamitos Blvd
(086-521-24)
Candidate site
identified in the
County of
Orange’s
Housing
Element as a
site for potential
future residential
development
Proposed in
Housing
Element Update
(By Orange
County)
619
11 Westminster
Housing
Element Sites
13251
Springdale
Street (203-073-
04);
Dorothy Lane
/Melanie Lane
(203-073-05);
Dorothy
Lane/Lee Drive
(203-073-01 and
203-073-03)
Candidate site
identified in the
City of
Westminster’s
Housing
Element as a
site for potential
future residential
development
Proposed in
Housing
Element Update
(By City of
Westminster)
122
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-31
Development under the Project in combination with cumulative development identified in Table 3.2-8 could increase air quality impacts within the air basin.
Implementation of the Project, including future developments on the eight Housing Opportunity Sites, the ORCC Specific Plan pipeline site, and within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Housing Element Update, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City, would result in emissions of pollutants from construction and operations. Additionally, the SCAB has been designated as a nonattainment area for both the federal and state standards for O3 and PM2.5, the state standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead. The existing non-attainment status of the SCAB is the result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air pollutants and their precursors within the SCAB as well as pollutant transport from surrounding areas.
Potential land use impacts are site-specific and would require evaluation of future housing development on a case-by-case basis. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential air quality impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. While some future development projects may not result in a significant impact, as discussed above, other future development projects would result in emissions that are considered significant. Consequently, future developments facilitated by the Project could result in significant environmental impacts from pollutant emissions and may conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan, ordinance, or standards aimed at avoiding or minimizing pollutant emissions.
Therefore, the Project, including future developments facilitated by the Project, could result a cumulatively considerable air quality impact.
3.2.5 References
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024a. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. Accessed October 2024.
_____. 2024b. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-dieselexhaust-and-health. Accessed January 2024.
California Department of Public Health. 2021. Valley Fever Fact Sheet. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ValleyFeverFact Sheet.pdf#:~:text=Valley%20fever%20%28also%20called%20coccidioidomycosis%20or%20%E2 %80%9Ccocci%E2%80%9D%29%20is,areas%20of%20California%20and%20the%20southwest ern%20United%20States. Accessed January 2024.
———. 2024. Valley Fever in California Dashboard.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/ValleyFeverDashboard.aspx. Accessed January 2024.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-32
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020. Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis). https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/coccidioidomycosis/index.html. Accessed January 2024.
City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/PlanningDevelopment/General-Plan. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024. 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 October 2024.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1976. Rule 402, Nuisance. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed January 2024.
_____. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-qualityanalysis-handbook/ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993). Accessed January 2024. _____. 2005. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule403.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed January 2024. ———. 2016a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqscaaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=14. Accessed January 2024. ———. 2016b. Final Program Environmental Impact Report 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/aqmdprojects/2016/2016aqmpfpeir.pdf?sfvrsn=10. Accessed October 2024. ———. 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-airplans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16. Accessed January 2024.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed February 2024.
_____. 2023. About Us. https://scag.ca.gov/about-us. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024. Connect SoCal 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-connect-socal-2024-finalcomplete-040424.pdf?1714175547. Accessed October 2024.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Air Quality
3.2-33
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023. Criteria Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants?msclkid=402121eaa62811ec9f3a5e32e281714a.
Accessed January 2024.
_____. 2024a. Lead. https://www.epa.gov/lead. Accessed January 2024. _____. 2024b. Asbestos. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos. Accessed January 2024.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1188/. Accessed January 2024.
IJ
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-1
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for biological resources which includes aquatic resources. It also describes impacts on biological resources that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, where feasible.
The analysis in this section is based on the Biological Resources Technical Report (BRTR) prepared by Stantec Consulting Services (2024) for the Project. This document is provided in Appendix C of the Draft EIR. Results incorporated into these documents are based on a desktop review of biological and aquatic resources surveys conducted for each of the components of the Project. The City of Seal Beach is proposing implementation of the City’s Housing Element Updates and its resulting zoning code update and rezoning program. The Housing Element Update has identified eight Housing Opportunity Sites, a pipeline site, and the Main Street Program area throughout the City with potential to provide additional housing.
The City of Seal Beach has almost no vacant, residentially zoned, developable land remaining, and large areas of vacant land are not available for development due to environmental restrictions or federal ownership. The eight Housing Opportunity Sites that have been selected can be categorized in two ways:
Underutilized Sites that do not require zoning code changes, and Candidate Sites for Rezoning.
The City of Seal Beach is located at the northwestern edge of Orange County, California. It borders the City of Long Beach and Los Angeles County to the northwest, the Orange County Cities of Los Alamitos to the north, Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The Project area is comprised of eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area. The eight Housing Opportunity Sites have a total land area of approximately 83.45 acres with a developable acreage of 35.05 acres and the Main Street Program covers approximately 21 acres.
Therefore, the Project has a total acreage of 104.45 acres; however, only 56.05 acres would be developable. The Project area is located in the City of Seal Beach and falls within the Seal Beach and Los Alamitos United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles.
In addition, this EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the site location and the proposed buildout of the 167 dwelling units that are include within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA allocation. The ORCC Specific Plan Project covers a land area of approximately 155 acres, 4 acres of which is proposed for the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project. The ORCC Specific Plan Project is subject to its own discretionary review and is being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, impacts would be less than significant.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-2
The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and there would be no impact.
The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means and there would be no impact.
The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites and there would be no impact.
The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan and there would be no impact.
Due to the existing nature of the ORCC Specific Plan Project site as a golf course, the site could provide suitable habitat for special-status plant and wildlife species. The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would result in increased development at the site and would change the existing character of the site. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR.
3.3.1 Environmental Setting
The Project area is located within the City of Seal Beach in Orange County, California, and is comprised of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area which total approximately 104.45 acres. In addition, as described above, the ORCC Specific Plan Project covers a land area of approximately 155 acres, 4 acres of which is proposed for development with the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Appendix C, Figure 1 shows the Project Location Overview. Average summer high temperatures are approximately 74 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF), average winter low temperatures are approximately 55ºF, and annual precipitation averages 12.26 inches (U.S. Climate Data 2024).
Portions of the Project area are located within the Coastal Zone and regulated by the California Coastal Act. Development and certain land use policies within the Coastal Zone (all areas south of Westminster Boulevard) are therefore subject to review by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for consistency with the California Coastal Act of 1976. The City of Seal Beach is in the process of developing a Local Coastal Program (LCP) which will implement the Coastal Act at the local level.
The western edge of the City of Seal Beach, including areas directly adjacent to portions of the Project area, includes shoreline, beaches, and marinas which support areas of biological diversity. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1972, is a protected wetland and marsh located at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge includes habitats that are II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-3
essential to migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway, which includes federal- and state-listed species. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge is under a Management Plan to 1) preserve habitat necessary for perpetuation of two endangered species, the light-footed Ridgeway’s rail, and the California least tern, and 2) preservation of habitat used by migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other waterbirds (USFWS 2024c). Other species of concern found in the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge include the Eastern Pacific green sea turtle, Belding’s savannah sparrow, and other year-round species including ospreys, peregrine falcons, red-tailed hawks, great blue herons, great egrets, snowy egrets, brown pelicans, crabs, and snails. There are several winter migration species as well, including Canada, snow, and Ross’ geese, various duck species, black-necked stilt, American avocet, black-bellies plover, and least and western sandpipers. Additionally, many California native wildflowers and shrubs occur in this area. Within the aquatic reaches of the wetlands, may also be small rays and sharks within the protected waters of the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2024c). In addition, the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex is located within the City which includes approximately 503 acres of publicly and privately owned open space in the cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach that were historically part of a much larger tidal estuarine system at the mouth of the San Gabriel River. In its current state, the Los Cerritos Wetlands consists mostly of degraded tidal and non-tidal salt march habitats behind levees and weedy uplands where tidal marshes were filed over the last 100 plus years (LCWA 2021).
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Vegetation communities and other land cover types within the Project area were determined based on review of aerial imagery and are presented below. No vegetation communities classified in the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) are present within the Project area. All areas are categorized as land cover types.
Land Cover Types
Ruderal Herbaceous
Ruderal herbaceous vegetation is generally comprised of non-native or naturalized species that populate previously disturbed areas. Common ruderal species include bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), giant reed (Arundo donax), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), castor bean (Ricinus communis), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), Maltese star-thistle (Centaurea melitensis), black mustard (Brassica nigrea), and shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana); this is the dominant land cover type in all areas not falling under the disturbed/developed cover type (see below).
Disturbed/Developed
The disturbed or developed land cover type includes City parks, recreational vehicle storage, a golf course, commercial buildings, paved or graded roadways, concrete pads, and landscaped areas. The vegetated areas within this land cover type primarily contain ornamental planters, such as within residential yards and landscaped areas. These areas are generally periodically maintained for weed control, precluding any significant growth of non-ornamental species, but may be sparsely interspersed with ruderal pioneer plant species that readily colonize open disturbed soil. These include bristly oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides), castor bean (Ricinus communis), black mustard (Brassica nigra), shortpod II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-4
mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and non-native grasses. This land cover type is present on all the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area.
Common Wildlife
Terrestrial Invertebrates
As in all ecological systems, invertebrates inhabiting the Project area play a crucial role in several biological processes. They serve as the primary or secondary food sources for a variety of bird, reptile, and mammal predators; they provide important pollination vectors for numerous plant species; they act as components in controlling pest populations; and they support the naturally occurring maintenance of an area by consuming detritus and contributing to necessary soil nutrients. Though heavily urbanized, habitat conditions within the Project area provide a suite of microhabitat conditions for a wide variety of terrestrial insects and other invertebrates that are known to adapt to such disturbance. A focused insect survey was not performed within the Project area; however, a variety of common insects are expected to be present within the Project area.
Fish
There is no flowing water identified within the Project area; therefore, there is no potential for fish in the Project area. However, there may be fish in the surrounding areas.
Amphibians
Amphibians often require a source of standing or flowing water to complete their life cycle. However, some terrestrial species can survive in drier areas by remaining in moist environments found beneath leaf litter and fallen logs, or by burrowing into the soil. These species are highly cryptic and often difficult to detect. Downed logs, bark, and other woody material in various stages of decay (often referred to as coarse woody debris), which is generally not present within the Project area, could provide shelter and feeding sites for a variety of wildlife, including amphibians and reptiles (Aubry et al. 1988; Maser and Trappe 1984).
Species known to occur in the area include the western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), California toad (Anaxyrus boreas halophilus), Baja California treefrog (Pseudacris hypocondriaca), and garden slender salamander (Batrachoseps major major).
Reptiles
The number and type of reptile species that may occur at a given site is related to several biotic and abiotic features. These include the diversity of plant communities, substrates, soil types, and presence of refugia such as rock piles, boulders, and native debris. Many reptile species, even if present, are difficult to detect because they are cryptic and their life history characteristics (e.g., foraging, thermoregulatory behavior, fossorial nature, camouflage) limit their ability to be observed during most surveys. Further, many species are only active within relatively narrow thermal limits, avoiding both cold and hot conditions, and most species take refuge in microhabitats that are not directly visible to the casual observer, such as II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-5
rodent burrows, in crevices, under rocks and boards, and in dense vegetation, where they are protected from unsuitable environmental conditions and predators (USACE and CDFG 2010). In some cases, they are only observed when flushed from their refugia. Weather conditions during the survey were favorable for reptile activity.
Common reptiles are known to occur in the area include the red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer annectens), and California king snake (Lampropeltis californiae). Although the Project area does not contain suitable habitat for these species, there is potential for them to be present in areas adjacent to the Project. A small population of green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) are present near the mouth of San Gabriel River; however, this species requires shallow coastal waters and open ocean, which is not present within the Project area (NOAA 2024).
Birds
It is possible that many birds use the Project area at different periods, either as wintering habitat, seasonal breeding, or as occasional migrants. Suitable habitat conditions for several common birds known to occur in the region. Species that may be expected to occur include Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), barn owl (Tyto alba), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), California gull (Larus californicus), western gull (Larus occidentalis), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and black-crowned heron (Nycticorax nycticorax).
Mammals
Generally, the distribution of mammals on a given site is associated with the presence of factors such as access to perennial water, topographical and structural components (e.g., rock piles, vegetation) that provide cover and support prey base, and the presence of suitable soils for fossorial mammals (e.g., sandy areas). Common mammals habituated to urban environments may move through the Project area, including striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), domestic species such as cats (Felis cattus), and various rodent species.
Bats likely forage and roost in the region, particularly along riparian corridors. Many bats tend to concentrate foraging activities in riparian habitats similar to those occurring adjacent to the Project area where insect abundance is high.
Aquatic Resources
Coastal Zone
There are four key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California, including the coastal zone: the USACE Regulatory Program regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of the federal CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates activities under the FGC Sections 1600-1607; and the RWQCB II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-6
regulates activities under Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 3, 7, 8, and the Main Street Program, fall within the Coastal Zone.
Development within these areas will require coordination with CCC and a Coastal Development Permit for the Project, which would require that the Project adhere to the policies of the California Coastal Act.
National Wetlands Inventory
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) has mapped a variety of wetland and water resources within and adjacent to the Project area (see Appendix C). These features include Estuarine and Marine Deepwater, Estuarine and Marine Wetland, Freshwater Emergent Wetland, Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, Freshwater Pond, and Riverine (USFWS 2024b).
The San Gabriel River flows west of the Project area and the Pacific Ocean is south of the Project area.
The Los Alamitos Channel, a concrete lined riverine feature, flows directly to the west of Housing Opportunity Site 2 - Leisure World. The remaining wetlands and waters features are more than 100 feet from the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area.
A formal jurisdictional delineation was not conducted as part of this assessment. The Los Alamitos Channel is a known Waters of the United States (WOTUS) as it is a tributary to the San Gabriel River.
The San Gabriel Riber is also a WOTUS. Additionally, these areas would qualify as Waters of the State and CDFW jurisdictional waters.
Special-Status Biological Resources
Special-Status Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities are defined by CDFW (2018) as, “...communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects.” All vegetation is ranked with an “S” state rarity rank; however, only those that are of special concern (S1-S3 rank) are evaluated under CEQA.
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records search indicated that there are four sensitive vegetation communities within a 10-mile radius of the Project area: Southern Coastal Salt Marsh, Southern Dune Scrub, Southern Foredunes, and Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest. The Southern Dune Scrub has a state rank of S1/Critically imperiled, at very high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. The Southern Coastal Salt Marsh and Southern Foredunes has a state rank of S2/Imperiled, at high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. The Southern Cottonwood Riparian Forest has a state rank of S3/Vulnerable, at moderate risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-7
The Project area does not contain any of these sensitive natural communities. The Project area does occur within the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) but HCP is not relevant for the Project.
Designated Critical Habitat
Designated critical habitat is defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2020) as, “. . .a term defined and used in the Endangered Species Act. It is specific geographic areas that contain features essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species and that may require special management and protection. Designated Critical Habitat (DCH) may also include areas that are not currently occupied by the species but will be needed for its recovery.” There is no DCH within the Project area. The nearest DCH is for the western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus), located approximately 3.3 miles southeast; and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), located approximately 9.5 miles northeast of the Project area (USFWS 2024a, USFW 2024c).
Special-Status Plants
Special-status plant species include those listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA), taxa proposed for such listing, Species of Special Concern (SSC), California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR), and other taxa that have been identified by USFWS, CDFW, or local jurisdictions as unique or rare and that have the potential to occur within the Project area.
Table 3.3-1 and Table 3.3-2 summarize the special-status plant taxa known to occur regionally and their potential for occurrence in the Project area. Appendix C, Figure 4 provides a depiction of previously reported species locations from the CNDDB records searches. Sources comprise the CNDDB, California Native Plant Society (CNPS), USFWS, and OCTA NCCP/HCP. Each of the taxa identified in the database records searches were assessed for its potential to occur within the Project area based on the following criteria:
High: Both a documented recent record (within 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area or immediate vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence occur within the Project area. Moderate: Both a documented recent record (within 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area, or the immediate vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions associated with taxa presence are marginal and/or limited within the Project area; the Project area is located within the known current distribution of the taxa and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence occur within the Project area. Low: A historical record (over 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area or general vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence are marginal and/or limited within the Project area.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-8
Not Likely to Occur: The environmental conditions associated with taxa presence do not occur within the Project area.
Table 3.3-1: Special-Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential Occurrence Common
Name Scientific Name
Status
Federal/
State/CRPR/OCTA
NCCP, HCP
General Habitat Description
red sandverbena Abronia
maritima
-- / -- / 4.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in coastal dune habitats.
Elevation range: below 328 feet. Typical blooming
period is February – October.
chaparral
sand-verbena
Abronia villosa
var. aurita
-- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in chaparral, coastal and desert dune habitats. Elevation range: 246 – 5,249
feet. Typical blooming period is January – September.
aphanisma Aphanisma
blitoides
-- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb adapted to saline soils, found in sand or scrub along the immediate coast. Elevation range:
below 328 feet. Typical blooming period is in March –
June.
Horn’s milkvetch Astragalus hornii
var. hornii
-- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in lake margins, salty flats, meadows, seeps, and playas. Adapted to alkaline
soils. Elevation range: 197 –. 984 feet. Typical
blooming period is May – September.
Ventura marsh
milk-vetch
Astragalus
pycnostachyus
var.
lanosissimus
FE / SE / 1B.1 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, marshes, and swamps (edges, coastal salt, or
brackish); within reach of high tide or protected by
barrier beaches; rarely occurs near seeps on sandy
bluffs. Elevation range: 3 – 115 feet. Typical blooming period is August - October.
Coulter’s
saltbush
Atriplex coulteri -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, ocean bluffs, ridgetops, as well as alkaline low places. Occurs in alkaline, dry, or clay soils.
Elevation range: 7– 1,509 feet. Typical blooming
period is March to October.
south coast
saltscale
Atriplex pacifica -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dune, coastal scrub, and playa habitats. Elevation
range: below 984 feet. Typical blooming period is
March to October.
Parish’s
brittlescale
Atriplex parishii -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in dry lake beds, playas, ephemeral vernal pools, and chenopod scrub habitats.
Present in saline and alkaline soils. Elevation range: 0 – 1,542 feet. Typical blooming period is June –
October.
Davidson’s
saltscale
Atriplex
serenana var.
davidsonii
-- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal scrub, bluffs, chenopod scrub, playas, and vernal pools from
southern California to Baja California. Occurs in
alkaline soils. Elevation range: 0 – 656 feet. Typical
blooming period is April – October.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-9
Common
Name Scientific Name
Status
Federal/
State/CRPR/OCTA
NCCP, HCP
General Habitat Description
Catalina
mariposa lily
Calochortus
catalinae
-- / -- / 4.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in coastal sage scrub, foothill woodland, chaparral, and valley grassland
habitats. Elevation range: below 2,297 feet. Typical
blooming period is March – June.
Plummer’s
mariposa lily
Calochortus
plummerae
-- / -- / 4.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane forest, and
valley and foothill grasslands. Occurs in granitic and
rocky substrates. Elevation range: 328– 5,577 feet.
Typical blooming period is May – July.
intermediate
mariposa lily
Calochortus
weedii var.
intermedius
-- / -- / 1B.2 / Listed Perennial herb that occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands; typically in rocky, calcareous substrates. Elevation range: 345 – 2,805
feet. Typical blooming period is May – June.
lucky morningglory Calystegia felix -- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb historically associated with wetland and marshy places, but possibly in drier situations as well.
May occur in silty loam and alkaline soils in meadows
and seeps, and riparian scrub habitats. Elevation
range: 98 – 705 feet. Typical blooming period is March
– September.
Lewis’
eveningprimrose
Camissoniopsis
lewisii
-- / -- / 3 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal and dune habitats.
Associated with coastal strand, coastal sage scrub,
foothill woodland, and valley grassland communities.
Elevation range: below 984 feet. Typical blooming
period is March – June.
southern
tarplant
Centromadia
parryi ssp.
australis
-- / -- / 1B.1 / Listed Annual herb the occurs on the margins of marshes and swamps, vernally mesic portions of valley and
foothill grasslands, depressions, waterway banks and
beds, open poorly drained flats, and disturbed area.
Occurs in alkaline substrates. Elevation range: 0 –
1,575 feet. Typical blooming period is May –
November.
smooth
tarplant
Centromadia
pungens ssp.
laevis
-- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in chenopod scrub; meadows and seeps; playas; riparian woodlands; valley and
foothill grasslands; depressions; waterway banks and
beds; open, poorly drained flats; and disturbed areas.
Occurs in alkaline soils. Elevation range: 295 – 1,640
feet. Typical blooming period is April – September.
salt marsh
bird’s-beak
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
FE / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal dune, marsh, and swamp habitats. Elevation range: 0-98 feet. Typical
blooming period is May – October.
seaside
cistanthe
Cistanthe
maritima
-- / -- / 4.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal sage scrub and valley grassland communities. Elevation range: 0 –
984 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June.
small-flowered
morning-glory
Convolvulus
simulans
-- / -- / 4.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in seeps. This species has a strong affinity for ultramafic substrates. Elevation
range: 98 – 2,870 feet. Typical blooming period is
March – July.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-10
Common
Name Scientific Name
Status
Federal/
State/CRPR/OCTA
NCCP, HCP
General Habitat Description
manystemmed
dudleya
Dudleya
multicaulis
-- / -- / 1B.2 / Listed Perennial herb that occurs in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. Often occurs in clay soils. Elevation range: 49 – 2,592 feet. Typical
blooming period is April-July.
small
spikerush
Eleocharis
parvula
-- / -- / 4.3 / -- Perennial grass-like herb that occurs in salt marsh and coastal habitats. Elevation range: below 164 feet.
Typical blooming period is July – August.
San Diego
button-celery
Eryngium
aristulatum var.
parishii
FE / SE / 1B.1 / -- Annual or perennial herb that occurs in vernal pools.
Elevation range: below 2,313 feet. Typical blooming
period is April – June.
Los Angeles
sunflower
Helianthus
nuttallii ssp.
parishii
-- / -- / 1A / -- Perennial herb (rhizomatous) that historically occurred in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San
Bernardino counties; however, it is presumed to be
extinct. It occurred in salt or freshwater marshes and
swamps. Elevation range: 33 – 5,003 feet. Typical
blooming period is August – October.
vernal barley Hordeum
intercedens
-- / -- / 3.2 / -- Annual grass-like herb that occurs in coastal dune, coastal scrub, saline flats and depressions in valley
and foothill grassland, and vernal pool habitats.
Elevation range: 16 – 3,280 feet. Typical blooming
period is March – June.
decumbent
goldenbush
Isocoma
menziesii var.
decumbens
-- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Shrub that occurs in coastal scrub and chaparral habitats, and disturbed areas. Occurs in sandy soils.
Elevation range: 3 – 3,002 feet. Typical blooming
period is April – November.
Southern
California
black walnut
Juglans
californica
-- / -- / 4.2 / -- Tree that occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland habitats.
Elevation range: 164 – 2,953 feet. Typical blooming
period is March – August.
southwestern
spiny rush
Juncus acutus
ssp. leopoldii
-- / -- / 4.2 / -- Perennial grass-like herb (rhizomatous) that occurs in seeps, meadows, salt marshes, and dune coastal
habitats. Elevation range: below 984 feet. Typical
blooming period is May – June.
Coulter’s
goldenfields
Lasthenia
glabrata ssp.
coulteri
-- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal salt marshes and swamps, playas, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools.
Usually found in clay and alkaline soils. Elevation
range: 3 – 4,511 feet. Typical blooming period is
February – June.
California boxthorn Lycium
californicum
-- / -- / 4.2 / -- Shrub found in coastal sage scrub communities.
Elevation range: below 492 feet. Typical blooming
period is March – August.
mud nama Nama
stenocarpa
-- / -- / 2B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in marshes and swamps, lake shores, riverbanks, and other intermittently wet areas.
Elevation range: 16 – 1. Typical blooming period is
January – July.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-11
Common
Name Scientific Name
Status
Federal/
State/CRPR/OCTA
NCCP, HCP
General Habitat Description
Gambel’s
water cress
Nasturtium
gambelii
FE / ST / 1B.1 / -- Perennial herb (rhizomatous) that occurs in freshwater or brackish marshes and swamps. Elevation range: 16
– 1,083 feet. Typical blooming period is April –
October.
prostrate
vernal pool
navarretia
Navarretia
prostrata
-- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pool, and meadow and seep
habitats. Occurs in alkaline soils. Elevation range: 10 – 4,052 feet. Typical blooming period is April – June.
coast woollyheads Nemacaulis
denudate var.
denudate
-- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Annual herb that occurs on coastal dunes and beaches. Elevation range: below 328 feet. Typical
blooming period is March – August.
California
Orcutt grass
Orcuttia
californica
FE / SE / 1B.1 / -- Annual grass-like herb that occurs in large and deep vernal pools, typically with clay soils and an
impervious subsurface layer. Elevation range: 49 –
2,165 feet. Typical blooming period is April -August.
Lyon’s
pentachaeta
Pentachaeta
lyonia
-- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs in chaparral openings, and valley and valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation
range: 98 – 2,264 feet. Typical blooming period is
March – June.
south coast
branching
phacelia
Phacelia
ramosissima
var.
austrolitoralis
-- / -- / 3.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in wetland below 12,467 feet in elevation. Typical blooming period is March –
August.
Brand’s star
phacelia
Phacelia
stellaris
-- / -- / 1B.1 / -- Annual herb that occurs on bluffs and slopes in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and coastal bluff scrub habitats.
Occurs in sandy or clay soils. Elevation range: 3 -
1,312 feet. Typical blooming period is March – June.
Engelmann
oak
Quercus
engelmannii
-- / -- / 4.2 / -- Tree that occurs in riparian habitats in foothill woodland, chaparral, and valley grassland
communities. Elevation range: below 4,265 feet.
Typical blooming period is March – June.
Sanford’s
arrowhead
Sagittaria
sanfordii
-- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Perennial herb (rhizomatous) that occurs in freshwater marsh habitats. Elevation range: below 984 feet.
Typical blooming period is May – October.
salt spring
checkerbloom
Sidalcea
neomexicana
-- / -- / 2B.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in playa, chaparral, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and Mojavean
desert scrub habitats. Also occurs in alkali springs and marshes. Elevation range: 49 – 5,020 feet. Typical
blooming period is March – June.
estuary
seablite
Suaeda esteroa -- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Perennial herb that occurs in marshes and swamps, including coastal salt marshes. Occurs in clay, silt, and sand substrates. Elevation range: 0 – 262 feet. Typical blooming period is July – October.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-12
Common
Name Scientific Name
Status
Federal/
State/CRPR/OCTA
NCCP, HCP
General Habitat Description
woolly seablite Suaeda taxifolia -- / -- / 4.2 / -- Shrub that occurs in salt marsh habitats on the edges of coastal sage scrub and wetland riparian
communities. Elevation range: below 49 feet. Typical
blooming period is January – December.
San
Bernardino
aster
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
-- / -- / 1B.2 / -- Perennial herb (rhizomatous) that occurs in meadow and seep, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest, marsh and swamp, and
valley foothill grassland habitats. Generally found in
vernally mesic grassland habitats near ditches,
streams, and springs. May also occur in disturbed
areas. Elevation range: 10 – 6,709 feet. Typical
blooming period is July – November.
General References:
USFWS IPaC 10-mile centered on each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program area (accessed January 2024) CNDDB RareFind 10-mile centered on each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program area (accessed January 2024).
CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants 8-quad search (accessed January 2024) Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP (accessed 2024) Status Codes:
No Status (--)
Federal
Federal Endangered (FE)
Federal Threatened (FT)
Federal Proposed Endangered (FPE)
Federal Proposed Threatened (FPT)
Federal Candidate (FC)
State
State Endangered (SE)
State Threatened (ST)
State Candidate (SC)
State Rare (SR)
California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
from the California Native Plant
Society (CNPS)
Rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere (Rank 1B);
Rare, threatened, or endangered in
California, but more common elsewhere
(Rank 2);
Plants that about which more information
is needed (Rank 3);
A watch list plant of limited distribution
(Rank 4)
Threat Code:
Seriously endangered in California
(≥80% of occurrences threatened / high
degree and immediacy of threat) (.1);
Fairly endangered in California (20-80%
occurrences threatened) (.2);
Not very endangered I California (≤20%
of occurrences threatened, or no current
threats known) (.3).
Orange County Transportation
Authority (OCTA) NCCP/HCP
Listed
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-13
Table 3.3-2: Special-Status Plant Species and Potential for Occurrence on Each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program
Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Main Street Program red-sand verbena N N N N N N N N N
chaparral sand-verbena N N N N N N N N N
aphanisma N N N N N N N N N
Horn’s milk-vetch N N N N N N N N N
Ventura marsh milk-vetch N N N N N N N N N
Coulter’s saltbush N N N N N N N L N
south coast saltscale N N N N N N N N N
Parish’s brittlescale N N N N N N N N N
Davidson’s saltscale N N N N N N N N N
Catalina marisposa lily N N N N N N N N N
Plummer’s mariposa lily N N N N N N N N N
intermediate mariposa lily N N N N N N N N N
lucky morning-glory N N N N N N N N N
-
~
~
~ - ~
~
~
-
~
I I I I I I I l I l _J
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-14
Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Main Street Program Lewis’ evening-primrose N N N N N N N N N
southern tarplant N N N N N N N L N
smooth tarplant N N N N N N N N N
salt-march birds’s beak N N N N N N N N N
seaside cistanthe N N N N N N N N N
small-flowered morning-glory N N N N N N N N N
many-stemmed dudleya N N N N N N N N N
small spikerush N N N N N N N N N
San Diego button-celery N N N N N N N N N
Los Angeles sunflower N N N N N N N N N
vernal barley N N N N N N N N N
decumbent goldenbush N N N N N N N N N
Southern California black walnut N N N N N N N N N
southwestern spiny rush N N N N N N N N N
Coulter’s goldenfields N N N N N N N L N
California box-thorn N N N N N N N N N
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-15
Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Main Street Program mud nama N N N N N N N N N
Gambel’s water cress N N N N N N N N N
prostrate vernal pool navarretia N N N N N N N N N
coasty woolly-heads N N N N N N N N N
California Orcutt grass N N N N N N N N N
Lyon’s pentachaeta N N N N N N N N N
south coast branching phacelia N N N N N N N N N
Brand’s star phacelia N N N N N N N N N
Engelmann oak N N N N N N N N N
Sanford’s arrowhead N N N N N N N N N
salt spring checkerbloom N N N N N N N N N
estuary seablite N N N N N N N N N
woolly seablite N N N N N N N N N
San Bernardino aster N N N N N N N N N
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-16
Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Main Street Program High (H): Both a documented recent record (within 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area or immediate vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence occur within the Project area.
Moderate (M): Both a documented recent record (within 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area, or the immediate vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions associated with taxa presence are marginal and/or limited within the Project area; the Project area is located within the known current distribution of the taxa and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence occur within the Project area.
Low (L): A historical record (over 10 years) exists of the taxa within the Project area or general vicinity (approximately 10 miles) and the environmental conditions (including soil type) associated with taxa presence are marginal and/or limited within the Project area.
Not Likely to Occur (N): The environmental conditions associated with taxa presence do not occur within the Project area II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-17
Special-Status Wildlife
Special-status wildlife include those listed as threatened or endangered under the FESA or CESA, taxa proposed for such listing, SSC, and other taxa that have been identified by USFWS, CDFW, or local jurisdictions as unique or rare and that have the potential to occur within the Project area.
Table 3.3-3 and Table 3.3-4 summarize the special-status wildlife taxa known to occur regionally and their potential for occurrence in the Project area. Appendix C, Figure 4 provides a depiction of previously reported species locations from the CNDDB records searches. Sources comprise the CNDDB, USFWS, and OCTA NCCP/HCP. Each of the taxa identified in the database records searches were assessed for its potential to occur within the Project area based on the following criteria:
High: Habitat (including soils) for the taxa occurs onsite, and a known occurrence occurs within the Project area or adjacent areas (within 5 miles of the Project area) within the past 20 years; however, these taxa were not detected during the most recent surveys. Moderate: Habitat (including soils) for the taxa occurs onsite, and a known regional record occurs within the database search, but not within 5 miles of the Project area or within the past 20 years; or a known occurrence occurs within 5 miles of the Project area and within the past 20 years and marginal or limited amounts of habitat occurs onsite; or the taxa’s range includes the geographic area and suitable habitat exists.
Low: Limited habitat for the taxa occurs within the Project area and no known occurrences were found within the database search and the taxa’s range includes the geographic area. Not Likely to Occur: The environmental conditions associated with taxa presence do not occur within the Project area.
Table 3.3-3: Special-Status Animal Species Evaluated for Potential Occurrence Common Name Scientific Name
Status
Federal / State /
CDFW / OCTA
NCCP, HCP
General Habitat Description
tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor -- / ST / SSC / -- Highly colonial species, most numerous in the Central Valley and vicinity, and largely
endemic to California. Breeds near
freshwater, preferably in emergent wetland
with tall, dense cattails or tules, but also in
thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose, and
tall herbs. Forages in grassland and cropland
habitats with insect prey within a few
kilometers of the colony. They are itinerant
breeders, nesting more than once at different
locations during the breeding season.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-18
Common Name Scientific Name
Status
Federal / State /
CDFW / OCTA
NCCP, HCP
General Habitat Description
southern California
legless lizard
Anniella stebbinsi -- / -- / SSC / -- Generally, south of the transverse range, extending to northwestern Baja California,
Mexico. Occurs in sandy or loose loamy soils
under sparse vegetation. Disjunct populations
in the Tehachapi and Piute mountains in Kern
County. Variety of habitats; generally, in
moist, loose soil. They prefer soils with a high
moisture content.
orange-throated
whiptail
Aspidoscelis
hyperythra
-- / -- / WL / Listed Found in sage scrub and chaparral habitats. burrowing owl Athene
cunicularia
-- / -- / SSC / -- Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by lowgrowing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most
notably the California ground squirrel.
Crotch bumble bee Bombus crotchii -- / -- / SA / -- Coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Food plant
genera include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia,
Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.
San Diego fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta
sandiegonensis
FE / -- /-- / -- Restricted to vernal pools in coastal southern California and northwestern Baja California,
Mexico.
ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis -- / -- / WL / -- Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills and fringes of pinyon and
juniper habitats. Eats mostly lagomorphs,
ground squirrels, and mice. Population trends
may follow lagomorph population cycles.
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swaisoni -- / ST / -- / -- Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs,
and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or
lines of trees. Requires adjacent suitable
foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa
or grain fields supporting rodent populations.
coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
-- / -- / SSC / Listed Southern California coastal sage scrub.
Wrens require tall cactus for nesting and
roosting.
western snowy
plover
Charadrius
nivosus nivosus
FT / -- / SSC / -- Sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and shores of large alkali lakes. Needs sandy, gravelly, or
friable soils for nesting.
green turtle Chelonia mydas FT / -- / -- / -- Usually occur in relatively shallow waters (except when migrating) inside reefs, bays,
and inlets. Occur in lagoons and shoals with
an abundance of marine grass and algae.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-19
Common Name Scientific Name
Status
Federal / State /
CDFW / OCTA
NCCP, HCP
General Habitat Description
western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
FT / SE / -- / -- Riparian forest nester, along the broad, lower flood-bottoms of larger river systems. Nests in
riparian forests of willow, often mixed with
cottonwoods, with well-developed
understories of blackberry, nettles, or wild
grape.
monarch – California
overwintering
population
Danaus plexippus
plexippus pop. 1
FC / -- / -- / -- Inhabitant of coastal sand dune habitat; erratically distributed from Ten Mile creek in
Mendocino County south to Ensenada,
Mexico. Inhabits foredunes and sand
hummocks; it burrows beneath the sand
surface and is most common beneath dune
vegetation. Roosts located in wind-protected
tree groves (eucalyptus, pine, cypress), with
nectar and water sources nearby.
Larvae require the host plant, (Asclepias ssp.)
for development.
southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii
extimus
FE / SE / -- / Listed Breeds in dense riparian areas associated with nearby rivers, swamps, and wetlands.
western pond turtle Emys marmorata FPT / -- / SSC /
Listed
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of small ponds and
lakes, marshes, permanent and ephemeral
shallow wetlands, stock ponds, reservoirs,
treatment lagoons, irrigation ditches, and
slow-moving permanent or intermittent rivers,
streams, usually with aquatic vegetation,
below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking sites
and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open
fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water
for egg-laying. Abundant cover necessary
including logs, rocks, and submerged
vegetation.
western mastiff bat Eumops perotis
californicus
-- / -- / SSC / -- Open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal
scrub, grasslands, chaparral. Roosts in
crevices in cliff faces, high buildings, bridges,
trees, and tunnels. In California, most records
are from rocky areas at low elevations.
quino checkerspot
butterfly
Euphydryas
Editha quino
FE / -- / -- / -- Native to southern California and
northwestern Mexico. Occurs in localized
colonies closely associated with the high
densities of larval food plant, Plantago erecta,
P. insularis, and Orthocarpus purpurescens.
Adults use several chaparral annual flowers
for food. Six known populations in
southwestern Riverside and San Diego
counties and at least one population near
Tecate, Mexico. Associated with sunny
openings within chaparral and coastal sage
shrublands hills and mesas near the coast.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-20
Common Name Scientific Name
Status
Federal / State /
CDFW / OCTA
NCCP, HCP
General Habitat Description
Arroyo chub Gila orcuttii -- / -- / SSC / Listed Found in habitats characterized by slowmoving water, mud or sand substrate, and depths greater than 40 cm. Most abundant in
low gradient pools that support at least some
aquatic vegetation.
Palos Verdes blue
butterfly
Glaucopsyche
lygdamus
palosverdesensis
FE / -- / -- / -- Dependent on two known larval host plants, Santa Barbara milkvetch (Astragalus
trichopodus var. lonchus)—also known as
locoweed—and common deerweed
(Acmispon glaber) within coastal scrub
habitat. Known only from Palos Verdes
peninsula.
western yellow bat Lasiurus
xanthinus
-- / -- / SSC / -- Primarily roost in trees hanging from the underside of leaves. Commonly found in
riparian woodland habitat with dead fronds of
non-native palms (for roosting).
California black rail Laterallus
jamaicensis ssp.
coturniculus
-- / ST / FP / -- Nests in wet meadows, shallow freshwater marshes, and the shallower or drier portions
of salt marshes. Winters in shallow coastal
and interior marshes the do not freeze.
Occasionally found in rice fields. Does not
migrate.
bobcat Lynx rufus -- / -- / -- / Listed Common throughout the United States, southern Canada, and northern Mexico.
Preferred habitats include dense chaparral,
low and mid elevation conifer, oak, pinyonjuniper woodlands, riparian, and desert environments.
south coast marsh
vole
Microtus
californicus
-- / -- / SSC / -- Occurs in areas of tidal marshes in Los Angeles, Orange, and southern Ventura
counties.
big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops
macrotis
-- / -- / SSC / -- Occurs in low-lying arid areas in southern California. Prefers rugged, rocky terrain. Often
forages over water sources. Roosts in
buildings, caves, and occasionally in holes in
trees. Also roosts in crevices in high cliffs or
rock outcrops.
steelhead – southern
California Distinct
Population
Segement (DPS)
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 10
FE / -- / -- / -- Inhabits seasonally accessible rivers and streams with gravel for spawning. Requires
sufficient flows in their natal streams to be
able to return from oceans and lakes to
spawn. Federal listing refers to populations
from Santa Maria River south to southern
extent of range (San Mateo Creek in San
Diego County). Southern steelhead likely
have greater physiological tolerance to
warmer water and more variable conditions.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-21
Common Name Scientific Name
Status
Federal / State /
CDFW / OCTA
NCCP, HCP
General Habitat Description
Belding’s savannah
sparrow
Passerculus
sandwichensis
beldingi
-- / SE / -- / -- Locally common non-migratory resident of coastal saltmarsh. An obligate breeder in
middle elevation saltmarsh, nearly always
characterized by pickleweed (Salicornia spp.),
either in tidal situations or non-tidal alkaline
flats nearby. Foraging primarily stems from
saltmarsh and mudflat, individuals, particularly
post-breeding birds, can be found foraging in
a wide variety of habitats including upper
marsh, adjacent ruderal and ornamental
vegetation, open beach and mudflat, and
even dirt and gravel parking lots.
Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus
longimembris
pacificus
FE / -- / SSC / -- An obligate resident of fine-grained sandy soils of coastal strand, coastal dunes, river
and marine alluvium, and coastal sage scrub
near the ocean and has never been collected
more than 2 miles from the coast.
Occurrences are closely associated with
loose or friable soils that permit burrowing.
short-tailed albatross Phoebastria
albatrus
FE / -- / SSC / -- Located on remote islands of the western Pacific.
coast horned lizard Phrynosoma
blainvillii
-- / -- / SSC / Listed Primarily in sandy soil in open areas, especially sandy washes and floodplains, in
many plant communities. Requires open
areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches
of loose soil for burial, and an abundant
supply of ants or other insects. Main prey item
is harvester ants. Occurs west of the deserts
from northern Baja California, Mexico, north to
Shasta County below 2,400 meters elevation.
coastal California
gnatcatcher
Polioptila
californica
californica
FE / -- / SSC /
Listed
Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage
scrub below 2500 feet in southern California.
Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes and
on mesas and slopes with California
sagebrush (Artemisia californica) as a
dominant or co-dominant species. Not all
areas classified as coastal sage scrub are
occupied.
Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma
sandwichensis
FE / -- / -- / -- Endemic to Hawaii.
light-footed
Ridgway’s rail
Rallus obsoletus
levipes
FE / SE / FP / -- Found in salt marshes where cordgrass and pickleweed are the dominant vegetation.
Requires dense growth of either pickleweed
or cordgrass for nesting or escape cover,
feeds on mollusks and crustaceans.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-22
Common Name Scientific Name
Status
Federal / State /
CDFW / OCTA
NCCP, HCP
General Habitat Description
bank swallow Riparia riparia -- / ST / -- / -- Colonial nester; nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west of the desert.
Requires vertical banks/cliffs with finetextured/sandy soils near streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig nesting hole. Forage in
open areas and avoid places with tree cover.
black skimmer Rynchops niger -- / -- / SSC / -- Open sandy beaches, on gravel or shell bars with sparse vegetation, or on mats of sea
wrack (tide-stranded debris) in saltmarsh.
Occasionally seen at inland lakes such as the
Salton Sea of California. Much of this species'
original beach habitat has been developed as
houses and attractions for beachgoers.
Particularly in the southeastern U.S., artificial
islands made from dredge spoils are an
important nesting habitat for this and other
species.
yellow warbler Setophaga
petechia
-- / -- / SSC / -- Thickets and other disturbed or regrowing habitats, particularly along streams and
wetlands. Often found in willow thickets, dwarf
birch stands, aspen trees, and along the
edges of fields. May occur up to 9,000 feet in
elevation. Overwinter in dry scrub, marshes,
and forests of lowlands.
southern California
saltmarsh shrew
Sorex ornatus
salicornicus
-- / -- / SSC / -- Coastal marshes in Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties. Requires dense vegetation
and woody debris for cover.
western spadefoot Spea hammondii -- / -- / SSC / -- Occurs in the Central Valley and adjacent foothills and the non-desert areas of southern
California and Baja California, Mexico.
Grassland habitats, valley-foothill hardwood
woodlands, and coastal sage scrub. Vernal
pools and other temporary rain pools, cattle
tanks, and occasionally pools of intermittent
streams are essential for breeding and egglaying. Burrows in loose soils during dry season.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-23
Common Name Scientific Name
Status
Federal / State /
CDFW / OCTA
NCCP, HCP
General Habitat Description
California least tern Sternula
antillarum browni
FE / SE / FP / -- Nests on sandy upper ocean beaches, open barren sites, and occasionally uses mudflats.
Forages on adjacent surf line, estuaries, or
the open ocean where fish is abundant.
Colonies are located near the ocean shoreline
(within 0.5 mile [about 800 meters]), typically
on nearly flat, loose sandy substrates with
lightly scattered short vegetation and debris,
although some colonies have been located on
hard-packed surfaces, even unused asphalt.
Colony sites must provide access to the
shoreline for juveniles and must be relatively
free of predators or the colony may abandon
breeding efforts before completion.
Riverside fairy
shrimp
Streptocephalus
woottoni
FE / -- / -- / -- Restricted to vernal pools and other nonvegetated ephemeral pools in inland areas of Riverside County, Orange County, and the
vicinity of Ramona, San Diego County; and
coastal areas of San Diego County and
northwestern Baja California, Mexico.
least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii
pusillus
FE / SE / -- / Listed Summer resident of southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river
bottoms; below 2000 feet. Often inhabits
structurally diverse woodlands along
watercourses including cottonwood-willow
and oak woodlands and mulefat scrub. Nests
placed along margins of bushes or on twigs
projecting into pathways, usually willow,
mulefat, or mesquite.
General References:
USFWS IPaC 10-mile centered on each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program area (accessed January 2024) CNDDB RareFind 10-mile search centered on each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program area (accessed January 2024).
Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP (Accessed 2024) Status Codes:
No status (--)
Federal
Federal Endangered (FE)
Federal Threatened (FT)
Federal Proposed Endangered
(FPE)
Federal Proposed Threatened
(FPT)
Federal Candidate (FC)
State
State Endangered (SE)
State Threatened (ST)
State Candidate (SC)
State Fully Protected Species (FP)
CDFW California Special Concern
Species (SSC)
Included in CDFW “Watch List”
(WL)
Critically Imperiled (S1)
Imperiled (S2)
Vulnerable (S3)
Apparently Secure (S4)
Unranked (SNR)
Orange County Transportation Authority
(OCTA) NCCP/HCP
Listed
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-24
Table 3.3-4: Special-Status Animal Species and Potential for Occurrence on Each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program
Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program tricolored blackbird N N N N N N N N N
southern California legless lizard N N N N N N N H N
orange-throated whiptail N N N N N N N N N
burrowing owl N N N N N N N N N
Crotch bumble bee N N N N N N N
H
(foraging)
H
(nesting)
N
San Diego fairy shrimp N N N N N N N N N
ferruginous hawk N N N N N N N
M
(foraging)
M
(nesting)
N
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-25
Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program Swainson’s hawk N N N N N N N
M
(foraging)
M
(nesting)
N
coastal cactus wren N N N N N N N N N
western snowy plover N N N N N N N N N
green turtle N N N N N N N N N
western yellow-billed cuckoo N N N N N N N N N
monarch – California overwintering
population N N N N N N N
M (adults)
L (larva) N
southwestern willow flycatcher N N N N N N N N N
western pond turtle N N N N N N N N N
western mastiff bat N N N N N N N N N
quino checkerspot butterfly N N N N N N N N N
Arroyo chub N N N N N N N N N
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-26
Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program Palos Verdes blue butterfly N N N N N N N N N
western yellow bat N N N N N N N N N
California black rail N N N N N N N N N
bobcat N N N N N N N N N
south coast marsh vole N N N N N N N N N
big free-tailed bat N N N N N N N N N
steelhead – southern California DPS N N N N N N N N N
Belding’s savannah sparrow N N N N N N N
H
(foraging)
H
(nesting)
N
Pacific pocket mouse N N N N N N N N N
short-tailed albatross N N N N N N N N N
coast horned lizard N N N N N N N N N
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-27
Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program coastal California gnatcatcher N N N N N N N N N
Hawaiian petrel N N N N N N N N N
light-footed Ridgeway’s rail N N N N N N N N N
bank swallow N N N N N N N N N
black skimmer N N N N N N N N N
yellow warbler N N N N N N N N N
southern California saltmarsh shrew N N N N N N N N N
western spadefoot N N N N N N N N N
California least tern N N N N N N N N N
Riverside fairy shrimp N N N N N N N N N
least Bell’s vireo N N N N N N N N N
-
'
-
~
' -
~
'
~
-
I I I I I I I I I _ J
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-28
Species Housing Opportunity Site 1. 1780 Pacific Coast Housing Opportunity Site 2. Leisure World Housing Opportunity Site 3. Accurate Storage (1011 Seal Beach Blvd.) Housing Opportunity Site 4. Shops at Rossmoor Housing Opportunity Site 5. Old Ranch Town Center Housing Opportunity Site 7. Seal Beach Center Housing Opportunity Site 6. Seal Beach Plaza Housing Opportunity Site 8. 99 Marina Drive Main Street Program High (H): Habitat (including soils) for the taxa occurs onsite, and a known occurrence occurs within the Project area or adjacent areas (within 5 miles of the Project area) within the past 20 years; however, these taxa were not detected during the most recent surveys.
Moderate (M): Habitat (including soils) for the taxa occurs onsite, and a known regional record occurs within the database search, but not within 5 miles of the Project area or within the past 20 years; or a known occurrence occurs within 5 miles of the Project area and within the past 20 years and marginal or limited amounts of habitat occurs onsite; or the taxa’s range includes the geographic area and suitable habitat exists.
Low (L): Limited habitat for the taxa occurs within the Project area and no known occurrences were found within the database search and the taxa’s range includes the geographic area.
Not Likely to Occur (N): The environmental conditions associated with taxa presence do not occur within the Project area. -
I I I I I I I I I I J
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-29
Wildlife Corridors and Special Linkages
Linkages and corridors facilitate regional animal movement and are generally centered in or around waterways, riparian corridors, flood control channels, contiguous habitat, and upland habitat. Drainages generally serve as movement corridors because wildlife can move easily through these areas, and fresh water is available. Corridors also offer wildlife unobstructed terrain for foraging and for dispersal of young individuals.
As the movements of wildlife species are more intensively studied using radio-tracking devices, there is mounting evidence that some wildlife species do not necessarily restrict their movements to some obvious landscape element, such as a riparian corridor. For example, recent radio-tracking and tagging studies of Coast Range newts, California red-legged frogs, southwestern pond turtles, and two-striped garter snakes found that long-distance dispersal involved radial or perpendicular movements away from a water source with little regard to the orientation of the assumed riparian “movement corridor” (Bulger et al. 2002; Hunt 1993; Ramirez 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Rathbun et al. 1992; Trenham 2002). Likewise, carnivores do not necessarily use riparian corridors as movement corridors, frequently moving overland in a straight line between two points when traversing large distances (Beier 1993, 1995; Newmark 1995; Noss et al. 1996, n.d.). In general, the following corridor functions can be utilized when evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors:
Movement corridors are physical connections that allow wildlife to move between patches of suitable habitat. Simberloff et al. (1992) and Beier and Loe (1992) correctly state that for most species, we do not know what corridor traits (length, width, adjacent land use, etc.) are required for a corridor to be useful. But, as Beier and Loe (1992) also note, the critical features of a movement corridor may not be its physical traits but rather how well a particular piece of land fulfills several functions, including allowing dispersal, plant propagation, genetic interchange, and recolonization following local extirpation.
Dispersal corridors are relatively narrow, linear landscape features embedded in a dissimilar matrix that link two or more areas of suitable habitat that would otherwise be fragmented and isolated from one another by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human-altered environments. Corridors of habitat are essential to the local and regional population dynamics of a species because they provide physical links for genetic exchange and allow animals to access alternative territories as dictated by fluctuating population densities. Habitat linkages are broader connections between two or more habitat areas. This term is commonly used as a synonym for a wildlife corridor (Meffe and Carroll 1997). Habitat linkages may themselves serve as source areas for food, water, and cover, particularly for small- and medium-size animals.
Travel routes are usually landscape features, such as ridgelines, drainages, canyons, or riparian corridors, within larger natural habitat areas that are frequently used by animals to facilitate movement and provide access to water, food, cover, den sites, and other necessary resources. A travel route is generally preferred by a species because it provides the least amount of II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-30
topographic resistance in moving from one area to another yet still provides adequate food, water, or cover (Meffe and Carroll 1997).
Wildlife crossings are small, narrow areas of limited extent that allow wildlife to bypass an obstacle or barrier. Crossings typically are human-made and include culverts, underpasses, drainage pipes, bridges, tunnels to provide access past roads, highways, pipelines, or other physical obstacles. Wildlife crossings often represent “choke points” along a movement corridor because unseable habitat is physically constricted at the crossing by human-induced changes to the surrounding areas (Meffee and Carroll 1997).
Wildlife Movement in the Project Area
The Project area includes disturbed/developed and ruderal herbaceous landcover types. These are comprised of shopping centers and paved parking lots, fenced parks, disturbed open space, and a golf course. The surrounding area is characterized by development, roadways, undeveloped/disturbed open space, agriculture, and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge to the southeast of the Project area. Most of the landcover types pose significant barriers to terrestrial wildlife movement including buildings, fences, and multi-lane roadways. These areas may harbor common species habituated to life in urban environments such as Virginia opossum, raccoon, desert cottontail, California ground squirrel, coyote, various birds, and small rodents. In addition, the Project area is within the Pacific Flyway, a major northsouth flyway for migratory birds in America, extending from Alaska to Patagonia. Each year, at least one billion birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway (Audubon 2024).
Within the Project area, the level of urban development and the presence of physical barriers surrounding the Project area would significantly constrain the passage of most large terrestrial wildlife known to occur in the region. Based on the location of the sites, the sites do not function as a wildlife movement corridor.
The Project area does not occur within any known wildlife movement corridor or habitat linkage as identified by the Wildlands Network (2024).
3.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by federal, state, and local authorities under a variety of legislative acts. The following section summarizes the federal, state, and local regulations for special-status species, jurisdiction over waters of the United States and State of California, and sensitive biological resources. This section provides a listing and overview of these federal and state laws; only select regulations are applicable to the Project.
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
FESA provisions protect federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats from unlawful “take” and ensure that federal actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of DCH. Under FESA, take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-31
the specifically enumerated conduct.” The USFWS regulations define harm to mean “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife.” Such an act “may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering” (50 CFR Section 17.3).
DCH is defined in FESA Section 3(5)(A) as “(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on which are found those physical or biological features: (I) essential to the conservation of the species; (II) which may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species upon a determination by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” The effects analyses for DCH must consider the role of the critical habitat in both the continued survival and the eventual recovery (i.e., the conservation) of the species in question, consistent with the recent Ninth Circuit judicial opinion, Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. USFWS.
Activities that may result in “take” of federally listed species are regulated by USFWS. USFWS produced an updated list of candidate species December 6, 2007 (72 Federal Register [FR] 69034). Candidate species are not afforded any legal protection under FESA; however, candidate species typically receive special attention from federal and state agencies during the environmental review process.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703-711) makes it unlawful to possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter or take any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of CFR Part 10. “Take” is defined as possession or destruction of migratory birds, their nests, and eggs. Disturbances that cause nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort or the loss of habitats upon which these birds depend may be a violation of the MBTA. The MBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, bird nests, and eggs.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 USC 668) The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) of 1940 (16 USC 668, enacted by 54 Stat. 250) protects bald and golden eagles by prohibiting the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds and establishes civil penalties for violation of this Act. Take of bald and golden eagles is defined as follows:
“disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior’’ (72 FR 31132; 50 CFR 22.3).
USFWS is the primary federal authority charged with the management of golden eagles in the United States. A permit for take of golden eagles, including take from disturbance such as loss of foraging habitat, may be required if the Project affects such resources. On November 10, 2009, the USFWS implemented new rules (74 FR 46835) governing the take of golden and bald eagles. The new rules were II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-32
released under the existing BGEPA, which has been the primary regulatory protection for unlisted eagle populations since 1940.
All activities that may disturb or incidentally take an eagle or its nest as a result of an otherwise legal activity must be permitted by the USFWS under this act. The definition of disturb (72 FR 31132) includes interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior to the degree that it causes or is likely to cause decreased productivity or nest abandonment. If a permit is required, due to the current uncertainty on the status of golden eagle populations in the western United States, it is expected that permits would only be issued for safety emergencies or if conservation measures implemented in accordance with a permit would result in a reduction of ongoing take or a net take of zero.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended in 1964, requires that all federal agencies consult with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), USFWS, and state wildlife agencies (i.e., CDFW) when proposed actions might result in modification of a natural stream or body of water. Federal agencies must consider effects that these projects would have on fish and wildlife development and provide for improvement of these resources. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act allows NMFS, USFWS, and CDFW to provide comments to United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) during review of projects under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (concerning the discharge of dredged materials into navigable WOTUS) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act regarding obstructions in navigable waterways. NMFS comments provided under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act are intended to reduce environmental impacts to migratory, estuarine, and marine fisheries and their habitats.
Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 establishes national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zones. In accordance with Section 307(c) of the CZMA, after approval by the Secretary of Commerce of a state’s management program, any applicant for a required federal license or permit to conduct an activity in or outside of the coastal zone affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of that state shall provide in the application to the licensing or permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the state’s approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program. The federal government certified the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) in 1977. The enforceable policies of that document are Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976.
For all of the California coast except San Francisco Bay, the state agency responsible for implementing the CZMA is the CCC. The CCC is responsible for reviewing proposed federal and federally licensed or permitted activities to assess their consistency with the approved CCMP. Due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean, Seal Beach is subject to a state mandated LCP and CCC jurisdiction. Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 3, 7, 8, and the Main Street Program area are within the Seal Beach LCP.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-33
Clean Water Act Section 404 and Federal Jurisdictional Waters The Clean Water Act (CWA), introduced in 1977 via amendatory legislation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, is the primary federal law in the United States regulating water pollution. Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged material, placement of fill material, or certain types of excavation within WOTUS and authorizes the Secretary of the Army, through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits for such actions. Permits can be issued for individual projects (individual permits) or for general categories of projects (general permits). Terrestrial WOTUS as defined by the CWA have typically included rivers, creeks, streams, and lakes extending to their headwaters and any associated wetlands.
Wetlands are defined by the CWA as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” The USACE has adopted several revisions to their regulations to more clearly define WOTUS. The protection of federal jurisdictional WOTUS has been particularly contentious and subject to numerous legal decisions since 2001.
1986 Regulations
In 1986, the federal agencies (USACE and USEPA) implemented historic regulations (the 1986 Regulations) that defined WOTUS to mean traditional navigable waters (TNWs), the territorial seas, interstate waters, and intrastate waters whose use or degradation could affect interstate or foreign commence, as well as tributaries of and wetlands adjacent to any of those waters. 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County Ruling
Until the beginning of 2001, WOTUS included, among other things, isolated wetlands and lakes, intermittent streams, prairie potholes, and other waters that are not part of a tributary system to interstate waters or to navigable WOTUS. The jurisdictional extent of USACE regulation changed with the 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers ruling. The United States Supreme Court held that the USACE could not apply Section 404 of the CWA to extend their jurisdiction over an isolated quarry pit. The Court ruled that the CWA does not extend federal regulatory jurisdiction over non-navigable, isolated, intra-state waters. However, the Court made it clear that non-navigable wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are still subject to USACE jurisdiction. 2006 Rapanos Ruling
In 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued its seminal decision in Rapanos v. United States (Rapanos). Justice Scalia narrowly interpreted the statutory term “waters of the United States” in a fourJustice plurality opinion, holding that CWA jurisdiction extended over only “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” that are connected to TNWs, plus wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to such relatively permanent water bodies. Justice Kennedy wrote separately, concurring with the Court’s judgment with respect to the facts of the case, but interpreted “waters of the United States” to include wetlands that possess a “significant nexus” to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-34
The Court’s split decision and lack of a commanding majority opinion in Rapanos created confusion among the federal agencies and public. In 2008, the federal agencies released a regulatory guidance document, the 2008 Rapanos Guidance (USACE and USEPA 2008) addressing common questions about federal jurisdiction over WOTUS and clarifying the two jurisdictional standards from Rapanos. In the 2008 Rapanos Guidance, the federal agencies concluded that federal jurisdiction existed over certain waterbodies that meet either the “relatively permanent” standard from Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion or Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” standard.
2015 Clean Water Act
The 1986 Regulations as interpreted by the 2008 Rapanos Guidance were later replaced by the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The federal agencies attempted to provide clarification on jurisdiction following the Rapanos ruling by replacing the numerous categories of waterbodies found in the 1986 Regulations with three broader categories: waters that are categorically “jurisdictional by rule” without the need for further analysis; waters that are subject to case-specific jurisdictional analysis; and waters that are categorically excluded from jurisdiction. The 2015 Clean Water Rule emphasized the “significant nexus” standard over the “relatively permanent” standard to include additional types of waters in the new “jurisdictional by rule” category. Traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, tributaries of these waters, and wetlands adjacent to these waters were all deemed “jurisdictional by rule.” The result of the 2015 Clean Water Rule was an expansion in federal jurisdiction over waterbodies that might have otherwise been excluded from the definition of WOTUS on a case-by-case basis under the 1986 Regulations and the Rapanos ruling.
Federal jurisdictional WOTUS protected under the CWA were defined in a final 2015 Clean Water Rule; however, the Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeals issued an order staying the 2015 Rule nationwide, pending a determination by the court on jurisdiction to review the rule. The 2015 Clean Water Rule was stayed, and the prior 1986 Regulations published in 1986, along with some changes in 2008 as a result of the Rapanos ruling, remained in effect.
2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule
In 2017, the Trump Administration issued Executive Order 13778, “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.” The executive order directed the federal agencies to review the 2015 Clean Water Rule for consistency with the policy outlined in Section 1 of the order and to issue a proposed rule rescinding or revising the 2015 Clean Water Rule as appropriate and consistent with law. The federal agencies repealed the 2015 Rule and restored the previous regulatory regime as it existed prior to finalization of the 2015 Clean Water Rule with, “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’—Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules.” On January 23, 2020, the federal agencies issued the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) to redefine WOTUS. The agencies streamlined the definition to include four simple categories of jurisdictional waters:
1. Traditional navigable waters and the territorial seas; II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-35
2. Tributaries of traditional navigable waters and the territorial seas;
3. Certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments of WOTUS; and
4. Wetlands adjacent to other WOTUS.
The NWPR provided clear exclusions for many water features that traditionally have not been regulated, and defined terms in the regulatory text that had never been defined before. Congress, in the CWA, explicitly directed the federal agencies to protect “navigable waters.” The intent of the NWPR was to regulate waters and the core tributary systems that provide perennial or intermittent flow and excluded ephemeral waters. The final NWPR fulfilling Executive Order 13788 became effective on June 22, 2020; however, on August 30, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona vacated the NWPR finding ““fundamental, substantive flaws that cannot be cured without revising or replacing the NWPR’s definition.”
2023 Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States” On June 9, 2021, the USACE and USEPA under the Biden Administration announced intent to protect more waterways through environmental regulations, beginning a new rulemaking process that restores protections put in place before 2015. Following the federal district court decision vacating the NWPR, USEPA and USACE halted implementation of the NWPR and began interpreting WOTUS consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime, deciding that prompt replacement of the NWPR through the administrative rulemaking process was vital.
On January 18, 2023, the federal agencies published the final "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'" rule in the Federal Register and the rule became effective on March 20, 2023 (USACE and USEPA 2023). The 2023 Rule establishes a clear and reasonable definition of WOTUS and exercises their discretion under the statute to return generally to the familiar pre-2015 definition that has bounded the CWA’s protections for decades. The implications of the final 2023 WOTUS rule are such that many ephemeral waters not considered protected under the former 2020 NWPR will now be protected.
With the 2023 WOTUS rule, USEPA and USACE interpreted the term WOTUS to include:
1. Traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, and interstate waters;
2. Impoundments of other jurisdictional WOTUS;
3. Tributaries to either of the above waters, or when the tributaries meet the “relatively permanent” standard or the “significant nexus” standard, (collectively, “jurisdictional tributaries”);
4. Wetlands adjacent to traditional waters, wetlands adjacent and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent tributaries and impoundments, and wetlands adjacent to other jurisdictional tributaries when those wetlands meet the “significant nexus” standard; and
5. Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands as defined in 1–4 above that meet either the “relatively permanent” standard or the “significant nexus” standard.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-36
For purposes of characterizing a “jurisdictional adjacent wetland” under the 2023 WOTUS Rule, a wetland may be considered “adjacent” to WOTUS if any of the following three criteria are satisfied:
1. The wetland has an unbroken surface or shallow subsurface connection to WOTUS;
2. The wetland is physically separated from WOTUS by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, and the like; or
3. The wetland is reasonably proximate to WOTUS such that the wetland has significant effects on water quality and the aquatic ecosystem of WOTUS.
2023 Sackett Ruling
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (Sackett), which established a more stringent test to determine whether the CWA applies to certain categories of wetland. The Sackett family had backfilled a lot near Priest Lake in Idaho, and in agreeing that the Sacketts’ lot is a wetland, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit applied the test outlined by Justice Kennedy in Rapanos: whether there is a “significant nexus” between the wetlands and waters that are covered by the CWA, and whether the wetlands “significantly affect” the quality of those waters. With Sackett, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the 9th Circuit’s ruling, where in a majority opinion, lower courts were directed to apply a more stringent test in Rapanos, in which the CWA applies to a particular wetland only if it blends or flows into a neighboring water that is a channel for interstate commerce. While the Court decided that it is clear that some “adjacent” wetlands will also qualify under the CWA as “waters of the United States,” wetlands that are entirely separate from traditional bodies of water will not qualify. The CWA will apply to wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States” because they have a “continuous surface connection” with a larger body of water, “making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.”
The result of the Sackett ruling is that certain adjacent wetlands formerly protected under the CWA will no longer be federally protected. The USACE and USEPA have acknowledged the Sackett ruling and indicated they will interpret the phrase “waters of the United States” consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett.
Amendment to the 2023 WOTUS Rule
On August 29, 2023, the USEPA and USACE announced a final rule amending the 2023 definition of WOTUS to conform with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett. While EPA’s and USACE’s 2023 WOTUS rule defining WOTUS was not directly before the Supreme Court, the decision in Sackett made clear that certain aspects of the WOTUS 2023 rule are invalid. The amendments issued are limited and change only parts of the 2023 rule that are invalid under the Sackett decision. For example, the final rule removes the significant nexus test from consideration when identifying tributaries and other waters as federally protected.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-37
Exemptions Under Clean Water Act Section 404
Activities that are exempt under CWA Section 404(f) include
1. Nominal farming, silviculture and ranching activities,
2. (Emergency) maintenance activities,
3. Construction and maintenance of farm ponds, stock ponds, or irrigation ditches or the maintenance of drainage ditches,
4. Construction of temporary sedimentation basins,
5. Any activity with respect to which a state has an approved program under CWA Section 208(b)(4) which meets the requirements of sections 208(b)(4) (B) and (C) (this pertains to certain applicable statewide waste treatment management programs), and
6. Construction or maintenance of farm roads, forest roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment.
Exceptions to these exemptions include:
1. Discharge of toxic pollutants, and
2. If it is part of an activity whose purpose is to convert an area of a WOTUS into a use to which it was not previously subject, where the flow and/or circulation of waters may be impaired or the reach of the waters reduced.
Extent of Jurisdiction
The extent of CWA Section 404 jurisdiction for non-tidal waters includes non-isolated aquatic features (including wetlands qualifying under the original federal 1986 standards and non-wetland WOTUS) bound by an “ordinary high water mark” as defined by 33 CFR 328.3(e):
“The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.”
Features considered isolated from TNWs and the exemptions listed above are not considered WOTUS under the jurisdiction of CWA Section 404.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-38
State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA establishes state policy to prevent significant and avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA applies to actions directly undertaken, financed, or permitted by state lead agencies. Regulations for implementation are found in the CEQA Guidelines published by the California Natural Resources Agency. These guidelines establish an overall state of California process for the environmental evaluation of projects.
California Endangered Species Act
Provisions of the CESA protect state-listed threatened and endangered species. The CDFW regulates activities that may result in take of individuals (i.e., take is defined as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of take under the California Fish and Game Code (FGC). Additionally, the FGC contains lists of vertebrate species designated as “fully protected” (FGC Sections 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], 5050 [reptiles and amphibians], and 5515 [fish]). Such species may not be taken or possessed.
In addition to federal and state-listed species, the CDFW also has produced a list of SSC to serve as a “watch list.” Species on this list are of limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations may be imminent. SSC may receive special attention during environmental review, but they do not have statutory protection.
Birds of prey are protected in California under the FGC. FGC Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to ‘take’, possess, or destroy any birds of prey (in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes) or to ‘take’, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered take by the CDFW. Under Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the FGC, activities that would result in the taking, possessing, or destroying of any birds-of-prey, taking, or possessing of any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA, or the taking, possessing, or needlessly destroying of the nest or eggs of any raptors or non-game birds protected by the MBTA, or the taking of any non-game bird pursuant to FGC Section 3800 are prohibited.
Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code
Section 1602 of the FGC requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility which proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, or use materials from a streambed, or result in the disposal or deposition of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into any river, stream, or lake, to first notify the CDFW of the proposed project.
Notification is generally required for any project that would take place in or in the vicinity of a river, stream, lake, or their tributaries. This includes rivers or streams that flow at least periodically or permanently II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-39
through a bed or channel with banks that support fish or other aquatic life and watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that support or have supported riparian vegetation. Based on the notification materials submitted, the CDFW would determine whether the proposed project may impact fish or wildlife resources.
If the CDFW determines that a proposed project may substantially adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) would be required. A completed CEQA document must be submitted to CDFW before an LSAA would be issued.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) regulate the “discharge of waste” to “waters of the State”. All projects proposing to discharge waste that could affect Waters of the State must file a Waste Discharge Report with the appropriate RWQCB. The board responds to the report by issuing Waste Discharge Requirements or by waiving them for that project discharge. Both terms “discharge of waste” and Waters of the State are broadly defined such that discharges of waste include fill, any material resulting from human activity, or any other “discharge.” Isolated wetlands within California, which are no longer considered Waters of the State, as defined by Section 404 of the CWA, are addressed under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
State-Regulated Habitats
The State Water Resources Control Board is the state agency (together with the RWQCBs) charged with implementing water quality certification in California.
The CDFW extends the definition of stream to include “intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams (USGS-defined), and watercourses with subsurface flows.
Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife” (CDFW 1994).
Activities that result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of a stream; that substantially change its bed, channel, or bank; or that use any materials (including vegetation) from the streambed may require that the proposed project applicant enter into an LSAA with the CDFW.
Native Plant Protection Act
Under FGC Sections 1900 to 1913, the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and rare native plants. Provisions of NPPA prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of the CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use. This allows CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed. a project applicant is required to conduct botanical inventories and consult with CDFW during project planning to comply with the provisions of the NPPA and sections of CEQA that apply to rare or endangered plants.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-40
California Native Plant Society Rare Plant program
The mission of the CNPS Rare Plant Program is to develop current, accurate information on the distribution, ecology, and conservation status of California’s rare and endangered plants and to use this information to promote science-based plant conservation in California. Once a species has been identified as being of potential conservation concern, it is put through an extensive review process. Once a species has gone through the review process, information on all aspects of the species (e.g., listing status, habitat, distribution, threats, etc.) is entered into the online CNPS Rare Plant Inventory and given a CRPR. The Rare Plant Program currently recognizes more than 1,600 plant taxa (species, subspecies and varieties) as rare or endangered in California.
Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which might not have a designated status under state endangered species legislation, are defined by the following CRPRs:
CRPR 1A: Plants considered by the CNPS to be extinct in California CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CRPR 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere CRPR 3: Plants about which we need more information – a review list CRPR 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list In addition to the CRPR designations above, the CNPS adds a Threat Rank as an extension added onto the CRPR and designates the level of endangerment by a 0.1 to 0.3 ranking, with 0.1 being the most endangered and 0.3 being the least endangered and are described as follows:
0.1: Seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat) 0.2: Fairly threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat) 0.3: Not very threatened in California (low degree or immediacy of threats or no current threats known)
California Coastal Commission and Coastal Act of 1976
The CCC has planning, regulatory, and permitting responsibilities in partnership with local governments over all development taking place within the coastal zone, a 1.5 million-acre area stretching 1,100 miles along the state’s coastline from Oregon to Mexico (and around nine offshore islands). The coastal zone extends seaward 3 miles, while its landward boundary varies from several miles inland in places such as the Eel River and the Elkhorn Slough, to as close as a few hundred feet from the shore in other areas.
The CCC’s enabling legislation, the Coastal Act of 1976, created a comprehensive coastal protection program grounded in partnerships between CCC and local government jurisdictions (15 counties and 60 cities) within the coastal zone. Among the coastal resources specifically protected within the Coastal Act are public access to the coastline, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas, agriculture, II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-41
low-cost visitor-serving recreational uses, visual resources, commercial and recreational fishing, and community character. Coastal streams and wetlands are also protected under the Coastal Act.
The Coastal Act Section 30231 defines a wetland as:
…lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens.
The CCC’s regulations (CCR Title 14) establishes a “one parameter definition,” which requires evidence of a single parameter to establish wetland conditions:
Wetland shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegetated wetlands or deep-water habitats. (14 CCR Section 13577).
The “one parameter” definition adopted by the Coastal Commission is based on the general definition used by USFWS and CDFW from the USFWS wetlands classification system first published in 1979 (Cowardin et al. 1979):
Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.
The Coastal Act definition of a wetland does not distinguish between wetlands based on their quality.
Therefore, under the Coastal Act, poorly functioning or degraded areas that meet the definition of wetlands are subject to wetland protection policies. Due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean, Seal Beach is subject to a state mandated LCP and CCC jurisdiction. The Project is within the Seal Beach LCP.
Local
City of Seal Beach General Plan
The City was incorporated in 1915 primarily as a farming community but has grown into a small city within an urbanized region encompassing 11.5 square miles along the Pacific Coast. The City’s General Plan provides a comprehensive long-term plan for its character and physical development through appropriate goals, policies, and programs. Planning was formerly focused on expansion, but as much of Seal Beach is now developed, the focus for the future has evolved towards managing and enhancing development.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-42
The relevant component of the General Plan is the Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Element, which addresses the importance of the provision of recreation areas, preservation of natural resources, avoidance of development in hazardous areas; and the establishment of buffers between incompatible land uses (City of Seal Beach 2003). The purpose of the City’s Open Space / Recreation / Conservation Element is:
To define open space and classify various types of open space uses. Describe those parcels or areas that are currently being used for open space/recreation and conservation purposes and discuss in concept future open space needs of the community. Determine methods to ensure that the present and future needs of the community are met.
Open space is defined as land set aside for outdoor recreation; the preservation of natural resources; managed production of resources; or the safety and general welfare of the community. Recreation land is categorized as land developed for the use and enjoyment of the community, either as active land or passive land. Conservation land is land for the conservation, enhancement, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force; water quality; flood control; beach erosion; harbors; wildlife refuge; rivers; soils; forests; minerals; and other natural resources (City of Seal Beach 2003).
Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge is approximately 920-acres of salt marsh and upland habitat located within the boundaries of the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. This wildlife refuge is one of the last remaining natural, undeveloped areas of coastal Southern California. In 1969, the wetlands were designated by the Navy Preserve and on August 30, 1972, President Richard Nixon signed Public Law 92-408, formally establishing the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. This National Wildlife Refuge is managed by the Department of the Navy and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Los Cerritos Wetland Authority
The Los Cerritos Wetlands complex is located within the City which includes approximately 503 acres of publicly and privately owned open space in the cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach that were historically part of a much larger tidal estuarine system at the mouth of the San Gabriel River. In its current state, the Los Cerritos Wetlands consists mostly of degraded tidal and non-tidal salt march habitats behind levees and weedy uplands where tidal marshes were filed over the last 100 plus years (LCWA 2021). The Los Cerritos Wetland Authority is a governmental entity developed in 2006 by a joint powers agreement of the State Coastal Conservancy, the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, and the cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach. The Los Cerritos Wetland Authority was created for the purpose “to provide for a comprehensive program of acquisition, protection, conservation, restoration, maintenance and operation and environmental enhancement of the Los Cerritos Wetlands area consistent with the goals of flood protection, habitat protection and restoration, and improved water supply, water quality, groundwater recharge, and water conservation.” The Los Cerritos Wetland Authority has the ability to acquire and own real property, but it does not have the power of eminent domain.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-43
Orange County Transportation Authority Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
The OCTA along with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), CDFW, and USFWS worked together to create the Orange County Transportation Authority/California Department of Transportation NCCP/HCP in October 2009 with an amendment in 2016 (OCTA 2009). The planning area includes all of Orange County and this plan is meant to work with the existing Orange County planning efforts of the Central Coastal NCCP/HCP and the Southern Orange County HCP.
The plan goals include:
Provide for the management and conservation of specific covered species within the planning area;
Preserve, restore, and enhance natural communities and ecosystems that support the specific covered species within the planning area;
Implement the covered activities in such a way that complies with state and federal fish and wildlife protection laws, including CESA and the FESA;
Provide a basis for permits necessary to lawfully take specific covered species; Provide a way to coordinate and standardize mitigation and compensation requirements of FESA, NCCP, CEQA, and NEPA regarding the impacts of covered activities on the covered species within the planning area;
Provide an accounting process that will document the net environmental benefits from the NCCP/HCP in exchange for streamlined and timely approval of permits for the Renewed Measure M freeway program;
Provide a less costly, more efficient project review process that results in greater conservation values than project-by-project, species-by-species review; and Provide clear expectations and regulatory predictability for the entities carrying out covered activities within the planning area.
3.3.3 Environmental Impacts
This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant biological impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts.
Methodology
The analysis below examines the potential impacts to plant and wildlife resources that may occur as a result of implementation of the Project. For the purpose of this assessment, project-related impacts take two forms, direct and indirect. Direct impacts are those that involve the loss, modification or disturbance of natural habitats (i.e., vegetation or plant communities), which in turn, directly affect plant and wildlife II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-44
species dependent on that habitat. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or wildlife, which is typically the case in species of low mobility (i.e., plants, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals). The collective loss of individuals in these manners may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and, hence, population stability.
Indirect impacts are those that involve the effects of increases in ambient levels of sensory stimuli (e.g., noise, light), unnatural predators (e.g., domestic cats and other non-native animals), and competitors (e.g., exotic plants, non-native animals). Indirect impacts may be associated with the construction and/or eventual habitation/operation of a project; therefore, these impacts may be both short-term and long-term in their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as “edge effects” and may result in changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to project sites.
The determination of impacts in this analysis is based on both the Project development and the biological values of the habitat and/or sensitivity of plant and wildlife species to be affected.
The biological values of resources within, adjacent to, and outside the area to be affected by the Project were determined by consideration of several factors, as applicable. These included the overall size of habitats to be affected, the previous land uses and disturbance history, the surrounding environment and regional context, the onsite biological diversity and abundance, the presence of special-status plant and wildlife species, the importance to regional populations of these species, and the degree to which onsite habitats are limited or restricted in distribution on a regional basis and, therefore, are considered sensitive in themselves. Therefore, the focus of this impact analysis is on sensitive plant communities/habitats, resources that play an important role in regional biological systems, and special-status species.
Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines’ Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether the Project’s biological resources impacts are significant.
Would the Project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or USFWS. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or USFWS.
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-45
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
The following issues were determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact during the NOP Scoping. These issues are summarized in Section 6.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, and are not discussed further in this section.
Would the Project:
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species
Impact BIO-1 The Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Impact Analysis
Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Plants
Based on a review of available database information, no state or federally listed and special-status plant species are known to occur within the Project impact areas. As identified in the Biological Resources Technical Report, Housing Opportunity Sites 1-7 and the Main Street Program area are entirely developed with urban uses and paved and therefore, does not provide suitable habitat for special-status plant species. However, Housing Opportunity Site 8 includes undeveloped areas and two special-status plants, known to occur in the region, were determined to have a low potential to occur on Housing Opportunity Site 8; Coulter’s saltbush (Atriplex coulteri [CRPR 1B.2]) and southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. Australis [CRPR 1B.1 and OCTA NCCP/HCP Listed]).
Direct impacts to listed or special-status plants would include, for example, trampling or crushing from heavy equipment, vehicles, or foot traffic, alterations to the native seed bank due to soil compaction, and modifications to existing hydrological conditions. Potential indirect impacts could include the disruption of native seed banks through soil alterations, the accumulation of fugitive dust, increased erosion and sediment transport, and the colonization of non-native, invasive plant species.
If present during construction, impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant species would be considered significant and require mitigation.
II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-46
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, and BIO-2 would minimize impacts to special-status plant species. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would protect special-status species and ensure that project design or avoidance mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to listed or special-status plants to a less than significant level.
Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Wildlife
Project related impacts to state or federally listed and special-status wildlife species would be as follows:
Special-Status Invertebrates and Reptiles
The only Housing Opportunity Site identified to provide suitable habitat for special-status invertebrates and reptiles is Housing Opportunity Site 8. Due to the entirely developed nature of Housing Opportunity Sites 1-7 and the Main Street Program area, these sites were determined to not provide suitable habitat.
Within Housing Opportunity Site 8, one special-status reptile, southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi [CDFW Species of Special Concern]) and one special-status invertebrate, Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii [State Candidate for Listing]) were determined to have a high potential to occur.
Additionally, Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1 [Federal Candidate and CDFW Special Animal]) was determined to have a moderate potential of occurrence for adults (overwintering) and a low potential for larvae depending on the presence of host plant (milkweed). Construction activities associated with future development projects facilitated by the Project could result in the direct loss of sensitive invertebrates and reptiles. Given the ecology of these species and cryptic nature, it is likely that some or all of the species may occur in or near the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area. Direct impacts could result from potential mechanical crushing during construction, fugitive dust, and general disturbance due to increased human activity. Project implementation may also result in permanent loss of habitat. Therefore, to mitigate potential impacts from future development projects facilitated by the Project, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires preparation of documentation of the status of special-status wildlife and plant species on the proposed development site and Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires preparation of a Mitigation Plan if special-status wildlife and plant species are determined to occur onsite.
Special-Status Birds
Based on database reviews and knowledge of the area, both Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis [CDFW Watch List Species]) and Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swaisoni [State listed as Threatened]) were determined to have a moderate potential to occur within Housing Opportunity Site 8. Beldin’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi [State listed as Endangered]) was determined to have a high potential for occurrence within Housing Opportunity Site 8. Additionally, potential presence for bird species protected under the MBTA was identified for all Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area due to the potential for birds to nest in the trees that are dispersed throughout each site.
Future development project activities facilitated by the Project have the potential to impact nesting birds.
During the breeding season, construction activities could result in the displacement of breeding birds and II
CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Biological Resources
3.3-47
the abandonment of active nests. Potential indirect impacts could include the deterioration or removal of habitat, increased noise levels and human presence.
If future development projects facilitated by the Project involve construction that were to occur during the avian nesting season (generally considered to be between February 15th through September 15th; although some raptors species may nest as early as January) indirect impacts to nesting birds could occur; the MBTA of 1918 (16 USC 703-711) does not allow for take of migratory birds.
The MBTA makes it unlawful to possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter or “take” any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of the CFR Part 10. “Take” is defined as possession or destruction of migratory birds, their nests or eggs. Disturbances that cause nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort or the loss of habitats upon which these birds depend may be a violation of the MBTA. The MBTA prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
Future development project activities facilitated by the Project that result in the degradation to habitat for or the loss of endangered, threatened, or other special-status species would be considered a significant adverse impact requiring mitigation. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been identified to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires preparation of applicable preconstruction surveys for construction activities that would occur during the nesting season and requires appropriate minimization measures be implemented if active nests are found within the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Specia- Status Mammals
Based on a review of available database information, no special-status mammal species have been documented within Project impact areas nor were any determined to have the potential to occur within the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area. As no special-status mammals were determined to occur within the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area, future development projects facilitated by the Project is not anticipated to result in impacts to special-status mammals.